I’d like to raise, once again, the subject of “real” IWC watches versus “marriages”, but this time in the specific context of real watches which are homages to the past. To me, the great beauty of mechanical watches lies in their heritage and their embodiment of tradition.
But others apparently have different perspectives. Shown here, at left, is an authentic IWC Jubilee Portugieser, part of the limited edition from 1993. It has an IWC pocket watch movement in an IWC case, and is close to a replica of what IWC produced in very limited numbers, primarily in the 1940s. To me it is more than a good looking watch and a well-functioning mechanical object: it is a symbol. To my thinking, it has great value –not just due to supply and demand, but because of what it represents.
Shown at right is a “marriage”, and in my opinion nicely done. It’s a pretty watch and probably works OK. The case is not by IWC. To my thinking this watch has nominal value, except perhaps as a novelty. To me it doesn’t represent anything other than an attractive dial and the cleverness of someone who adapted the case. Hopefully, it won’t be misrepresented to an unsuspecting buyer.
However, that’s apparently not shared. Someone recently wrote
I've never seen the point of the Jones, and find it a bit odd when collectors condemn the use of recased IWC pocket watch movements sold as wristwatches but find it OK when IWC do it.
Of course, varying opinions make the world and everyone can be happy with what they chose to buy or not buy. That’s fine. But, really, –isn’t there a huge difference?
Is the Jubilee the same as a marriage? Is it merely one example of “recased IWC pocket watch movements sold as wristwatches”? Would you agree or disagree, and why?
Then, going a step further, is the Jones a second example of “recased IWC pocket watch movements sold as wristwatches”. To my thinking, the Jones actually goes a step further –it’s not “old wine in new bottles” because it takes the movement and changes it. Whether one likes the aesthetics or the function or the price, to my thinking it can be a justifiable homage. It has value, at least to me, that far transcends a marriage.
But then again, I’m certainly not always right. Your comments on this issue are invited.
6,256 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 22, 2001
Authentic IWC "Homage" Watches vs. is MF right?
IWC "Homage" watches are current (at the time of production) reinterpretations of the elements of IWC designs of the past. They are like the various members of a family across the generations. Marriages on the other hand, are not authorized pieces. And as MF so correctly states, are the realized dream of a clever person's efforts using various parts. They don't share a place in the family tree.
I don't agree with the author of the quote MF uses above. As the potter of the clay, IWC is free to shape and reintrepret "the clay" as they please. So, the Jubliee was a wonderful next addition to the family called IWC/Schaffhausen.
286 Discussions and CommentsMember since June 7, 2005Piedmont,
United States
Some thoughts...
It is important to note, as Michael eloquently states, that varying opinions are what make the world go round and keep everyone happy. While I am not partial to marriages, I respect what they might represent to others and grant each the space to value what they wish.
I distinguish between marriage and 'authentic' IWC watches in several ways. To state the (perhaps irrefutable) obvious--I feel that if IWC, the original manufacturer of their watches, wants to pay homage to horological history by producing contemporary examples that utilize modernized 'old' movements, it absolutely qualifies as a bona fide IWC. In the case of the Jones or Jubilee, IWC is merely standing on its own shoulders to offer its aficionados timepieces that embody far more than precision engineering or the sum of its parts; they are wearing a watch that manifests the fine craftsmanship of IWC while representing hundreds of years of horological history. Marriage watches do not represent the same degree of craftsmanship or horological significance.
My assumption is that most marriage watches lack the quality and refinement of a purebred IWC (from any era). Similarly, I am willing to suppose that the dismembered pocketwatches-turned-wristwatches (including their movements) have not been properly cared for; why would anybody dismantle a vintage pocketwatch for its movement? It is hard for me to believe that the cases of marriage watches are built with the same standard and degree of craftsmanship as authentic IWC cases. Furthermore, I cannot fathom that the marriage watch itself is assembled with the `level` of attention and skill that go into IWC watches. While I can understand how some people might appreciate wearing an old movement, marraige watches have no value to me.
To answer Michael's questions: no, the Jubilee is NOT the same as a "recased IWC pocketwatch sold as a wristwatch;" no, the Jones should NOT be uttered in the same breath as the atrocious marriages I see lurking on a certain popular internet auction site!
691 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 20, 2001
Some additional thoughts...
Toby has succinctly stated the points that I was going to offer as my opinion so then as not to take any further time I would only respectfully build upon what he has said (ironic given the topic, call this opnion a marriage).
The added issue to me is one of disclosure. The purveyor of said timepiece needs to address the disclosure of it being a marriage and then as just that, a fabrication of various watch components to resemble a finished product that was not intended as such by the original manufacturer. The product may well be a nice piece but it is not an original product. It is just the compilation of parts properly assembled to provide use for otherwise spare components. The value of the piece would then be respectable to what the market would dictate and the art of assembly would either be rewarded or discarded.
If the disclosure is there then the piece stands or falls on it's own merit and not those built by the original manfacturer.
132 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 5, 2006
Authentic IWC "Homage" Watches vs. Marriages
Suppose my brother works for IWC as a master watchmaker (or whatever they are called) and at home in his spare time I get him to marry the new Ing movement, a smaller case, a decent dial, and a croc strap and suppose, for the sake of argument, all the parts of the watch are current IWC parts and they fit and it all works - I'd have a marriage and no doubt a number of us would pour scorn on it.
Now, suppose I were immensly wealthy and I paid IWC enough money to do all the above for me and agree never to make another and, by sheer coincidence, my brother puts it all together - I'd have a genuine IWC which would be almost priceless. Some people, even those who hated my choice of movement, case, dial, strap would probably pay handsomely to own it - just to own a unique piece.
3,852 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 17, 2001
Great discussion and my idea
And I must say that I can follow your way of thinking.
Today there are no real pilot watches... they are made in the idea and tradition.... diver watches.... sea watches...
For all duties quartz plastic watches are better to do the job.... so todays watches are based on there history, but they are not just copies. They bring in new details and new functions and esthetics. They are not just replicating the stuff they already made. The only thing they copy is the quality and craftmenshaft.
Marriages are .... just copies with old engines. Not my cup of soup.... but if you like them: you have a new body and an old Bently Speed six engine. I prefer to have it all original.
And for the Jones: based on history, new adjusted design ... nice quality!
600 Discussions and CommentsMember since Dec. 1, 2004
My thoughts....
It is by definition that “homage” is “something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another” and as such the Jones and Jubilee fit the criteria of IWC’s past achievements. It is also by default that IWC would be the best candidate to create a “homage” piece, as they are omniscient of the past and have the legitimacy to bring it to fruition.
Personally I don’t like the term “marriage” and feel “Frankenwatch” is more appropriate to pieces that come to being from the sum of parts already available and are not produced by the OEM.
I don’t agree with the statement from the third party and feel that the Jones and Jubilee are legitimate timepieces which “pay homage”.
286 Discussions and CommentsMember since June 7, 2005Piedmont,
United States
Regarding value....
You pose an interesting hypothetical question (Mr. Headley Grange) and I would like to respond. As Michael notes and I want to repeat again, people have different opinions which lead to different values, none necessarily better than the other. Certainly, if you had a master watchmaker utilize an IWC movement to create a unique, one-of-a-kind time piece that carried the same `level` of craftsmanship, finish and aesthetic appeal that a similar IWC-produced time piece contained, you would value your creation highly.
Considering that this is a hypothetical situation, I would argue that your knowledge of your brother's fine craftsmanship would add value to his/your creation. If others in your neighborhood also know of your brother's skill, perhaps they too would value the watch. Perhaps your brother has a regional or national reputation for creating unique pieces utilizing the movements of others, so in your state or country your watch would be prized(isn't this how Parmigiani began?). "Value" is relative and subjective, and unfortunately 'value' frequently lies in the eye of the beholder.
IWC creations, among many other reasons, are valued because they represent the values (both literal and metaphysical) of the company and those who fancy the watches. When you buy an IWC, you are purchasing (in part) something intangible, an aura or mystique, that expresses or reflects your values in conjunction with what IWC stands for. You might ask what does IWC stand for, and I cannot answer. That query desires an answer from the collective... not an individual
A marriage watch has no value outside of whatever worth the individual(s) ascribe to it. It is not an IWC and therefore does not reflect or represent what owning or wearing an IWC is all about. You may value the beautiful, fine marriage that your brother creates, and I would support that value. But in the public consciousness, unless your brother's reputation is capable of challenging the illustrious 150+ year reputation of IWC, it is understandable that his creation (your marriage) will not hold a candle to anything produced by IWC.
If your brother worked for IWC and had, per your finances, all original parts from IWC and a garage set-up with the production, manufacturing and quality control equipment needed to manufacture a one-of-a-kind watch, then I'd say two things: he might be breaking the law and you'd have a pretty darn cool watch (even if nobody else valued it)! : )
2,283 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 2, 2001
So well said by MF, Isobars, and others.
There are also examples in other hobbies. My wife and I have collected antiques for many years. Often furniture has been reworked - one type of piece turned into another by adding (or removing) non-original pieces, marrying previously separate pieces, etc. These sell at huge discounts to original pieces.
I agree with Victor - "Frankenwatch" is a great term. And franlky, I don't see them as hommages, I see them as weak attempts to separate fools from their money.
If the nature of the item is fully disclosed and someone wants to buy it, that's perfectly fine. But too often the nature of the beast is disguised, cleverly and deceptively worded, ot "lost/forgotten" by the second owner when he resells the piece.
6,214 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 26, 2001Krefeld,
Germanywww.goerter.de
Authentic IWC "Homage" Watches vs. Marriages
Some ideas come very near to my thinking. But without explaining too much here's a short statement where everybody can read my opinion between the lines: 1. I have a Original Portugieser and not a Jubilee 2. I would not buy a Jones
I’d like to raise, once again, the subject of “real” IWC watches versus “marriages”, but this time in the specific context of real watches which are homages to the past. To me, the great beauty of mechanical watches lies in their heritage and their embodiment of tradition.
But others apparently have different perspectives. Shown here, at left, is an authentic IWC Jubilee Portugieser, part of the limited edition from 1993. It has an IWC pocket watch movement in an IWC case, and is close to a replica of what IWC produced in very limited numbers, primarily in the 1940s. To me it is more than a good looking watch and a well-functioning mechanical object: it is a symbol. To my thinking, it has great value –not just due to supply and demand, but because of what it represents.
Shown at right is a “marriage”, and in my opinion nicely done. It’s a pretty watch and probably works OK. The case is not by IWC. To my thinking this watch has nominal value, except perhaps as a novelty. To me it doesn’t represent anything other than an attractive dial and the cleverness of someone who adapted the case. Hopefully, it won’t be misrepresented to an unsuspecting buyer.
However, that’s apparently not shared. Someone recently wrote
I've never seen the point of the Jones, and find it a bit odd when collectors condemn the use of recased IWC pocket watch movements sold as wristwatches but find it OK when IWC do it.
Of course, varying opinions make the world and everyone can be happy with what they chose to buy or not buy. That’s fine. But, really, –isn’t there a huge difference?
Is the Jubilee the same as a marriage? Is it merely one example of “recased IWC pocket watch movements sold as wristwatches”? Would you agree or disagree, and why?
Then, going a step further, is the Jones a second example of “recased IWC pocket watch movements sold as wristwatches”. To my thinking, the Jones actually goes a step further –it’s not “old wine in new bottles” because it takes the movement and changes it. Whether one likes the aesthetics or the function or the price, to my thinking it can be a justifiable homage. It has value, at least to me, that far transcends a marriage.
But then again, I’m certainly not always right. Your comments on this issue are invited.
Regards,
Michael
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
IWC "Homage" watches are current (at the time of production) reinterpretations of the elements of IWC designs of the past. They are like the various members of a family across the generations. Marriages on the other hand, are not authorized pieces. And as MF so correctly states, are the realized dream of a clever person's efforts using various parts. They don't share a place in the family tree.
I don't agree with the author of the quote MF uses above. As the potter of the clay, IWC is free to shape and reintrepret "the clay" as they please. So, the Jubliee was a wonderful next addition to the family called IWC/Schaffhausen.
Cheers from Isobars.
It is important to note, as Michael eloquently states, that varying opinions are what make the world go round and keep everyone happy. While I am not partial to marriages, I respect what they might represent to others and grant each the space to value what they wish.
I distinguish between marriage and 'authentic' IWC watches in several ways. To state the (perhaps irrefutable) obvious--I feel that if IWC, the original manufacturer of their watches, wants to pay homage to horological history by producing contemporary examples that utilize modernized 'old' movements, it absolutely qualifies as a bona fide IWC. In the case of the Jones or Jubilee, IWC is merely standing on its own shoulders to offer its aficionados timepieces that embody far more than precision engineering or the sum of its parts; they are wearing a watch that manifests the fine craftsmanship of IWC while representing hundreds of years of horological history. Marriage watches do not represent the same degree of craftsmanship or horological significance.
My assumption is that most marriage watches lack the quality and refinement of a purebred IWC (from any era). Similarly, I am willing to suppose that the dismembered pocketwatches-turned-wristwatches (including their movements) have not been properly cared for; why would anybody dismantle a vintage pocketwatch for its movement? It is hard for me to believe that the cases of marriage watches are built with the same standard and degree of craftsmanship as authentic IWC cases. Furthermore, I cannot fathom that the marriage watch itself is assembled with the `level` of attention and skill that go into IWC watches. While I can understand how some people might appreciate wearing an old movement, marraige watches have no value to me.
To answer Michael's questions: no, the Jubilee is NOT the same as a "recased IWC pocketwatch sold as a wristwatch;" no, the Jones should NOT be uttered in the same breath as the atrocious marriages I see lurking on a certain popular internet auction site!
Best, Toby
Toby has succinctly stated the points that I was going to offer as my opinion so then as not to take any further time I would only respectfully build upon what he has said (ironic given the topic, call this opnion a marriage).
The added issue to me is one of disclosure. The purveyor of said timepiece needs to address the disclosure of it being a marriage and then as just that, a fabrication of various watch components to resemble a finished product that was not intended as such by the original manufacturer. The product may well be a nice piece but it is not an original product. It is just the compilation of parts properly assembled to provide use for otherwise spare components. The value of the piece would then be respectable to what the market would dictate and the art of assembly would either be rewarded or discarded.
If the disclosure is there then the piece stands or falls on it's own merit and not those built by the original manfacturer.
Suppose my brother works for IWC as a master watchmaker (or whatever they are called) and at home in his spare time I get him to marry the new Ing movement, a smaller case, a decent dial, and a croc strap and suppose, for the sake of argument, all the parts of the watch are current IWC parts and they fit and it all works - I'd have a marriage and no doubt a number of us would pour scorn on it.
Now, suppose I were immensly wealthy and I paid IWC enough money to do all the above for me and agree never to make another and, by sheer coincidence, my brother puts it all together - I'd have a genuine IWC which would be almost priceless. Some people, even those who hated my choice of movement, case, dial, strap would probably pay handsomely to own it - just to own a unique piece.
What's the difference?
And I must say that I can follow your way of thinking.
Today there are no real pilot watches... they are made in the idea and tradition.... diver watches.... sea watches...
For all duties quartz plastic watches are better to do the job.... so todays watches are based on there history, but they are not just copies. They bring in new details and new functions and esthetics. They are not just replicating the stuff they already made. The only thing they copy is the quality and craftmenshaft.
Marriages are .... just copies with old engines. Not my cup of soup.... but if you like them: you have a new body and an old Bently Speed six engine. I prefer to have it all original.
And for the Jones: based on history, new adjusted design ... nice quality!
Martijn
Greetings, Martijn
Last edited: 6 July, 2012 - 10:18
It is by definition that “homage” is “something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another” and as such the Jones and Jubilee fit the criteria of IWC’s past achievements. It is also by default that IWC would be the best candidate to create a “homage” piece, as they are omniscient of the past and have the legitimacy to bring it to fruition.
Personally I don’t like the term “marriage” and feel “Frankenwatch” is more appropriate to pieces that come to being from the sum of parts already available and are not produced by the OEM.
I don’t agree with the statement from the third party and feel that the Jones and Jubilee are legitimate timepieces which “pay homage”.
Just my thoughts….
Cheers,
Victor
Last edited: 28 February, 2012 - 01:23
You pose an interesting hypothetical question (Mr. Headley Grange) and I would like to respond. As Michael notes and I want to repeat again, people have different opinions which lead to different values, none necessarily better than the other. Certainly, if you had a master watchmaker utilize an IWC movement to create a unique, one-of-a-kind time piece that carried the same `level` of craftsmanship, finish and aesthetic appeal that a similar IWC-produced time piece contained, you would value your creation highly.
Considering that this is a hypothetical situation, I would argue that your knowledge of your brother's fine craftsmanship would add value to his/your creation. If others in your neighborhood also know of your brother's skill, perhaps they too would value the watch. Perhaps your brother has a regional or national reputation for creating unique pieces utilizing the movements of others, so in your state or country your watch would be prized(isn't this how Parmigiani began?). "Value" is relative and subjective, and unfortunately 'value' frequently lies in the eye of the beholder.
IWC creations, among many other reasons, are valued because they represent the values (both literal and metaphysical) of the company and those who fancy the watches. When you buy an IWC, you are purchasing (in part) something intangible, an aura or mystique, that expresses or reflects your values in conjunction with what IWC stands for. You might ask what does IWC stand for, and I cannot answer. That query desires an answer from the collective... not an individual
A marriage watch has no value outside of whatever worth the individual(s) ascribe to it. It is not an IWC and therefore does not reflect or represent what owning or wearing an IWC is all about. You may value the beautiful, fine marriage that your brother creates, and I would support that value. But in the public consciousness, unless your brother's reputation is capable of challenging the illustrious 150+ year reputation of IWC, it is understandable that his creation (your marriage) will not hold a candle to anything produced by IWC.
If your brother worked for IWC and had, per your finances, all original parts from IWC and a garage set-up with the production, manufacturing and quality control equipment needed to manufacture a one-of-a-kind watch, then I'd say two things: he might be breaking the law and you'd have a pretty darn cool watch (even if nobody else valued it)! : )
There are also examples in other hobbies. My wife and I have collected antiques for many years. Often furniture has been reworked - one type of piece turned into another by adding (or removing) non-original pieces, marrying previously separate pieces, etc. These sell at huge discounts to original pieces.
I agree with Victor - "Frankenwatch" is a great term. And franlky, I don't see them as hommages, I see them as weak attempts to separate fools from their money.
If the nature of the item is fully disclosed and someone wants to buy it, that's perfectly fine. But too often the nature of the beast is disguised, cleverly and deceptively worded, ot "lost/forgotten" by the second owner when he resells the piece.
Dick L.
whichwatch at roadrunner dot com
Some ideas come very near to my thinking. But without explaining too much here's a short statement where everybody can read my opinion between the lines:
1. I have a Original Portugieser and not a Jubilee
2. I would not buy a Jones
So guess what :=)
... if you want to write me a PM:
IWC_Fan@gmx.de
Last edited: 24 April, 2013 - 04:42