1,910 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 4, 2001
Soegaard Wrote:I am a bit annoyed with the T-symbol which wasn't on the original dial in 1948
The dial and hands of the Mark 11 were significantly different in 1948. The original dial had a 12 instead of the triangle, the numbers were smaller, the hands were narrower, the hour hand was longer and pointy and the night luminosity was achieved trough 226Radium based paint. It was replaced by Tritium in 1963. If you want a Mark 11 as they were in 1948, you must look for the Mark 11 bought by BOAC in the early 1950s. I do not think there are any RAF Mark 11s with the original RAF dial. The watch in the middle of the image I posted on this thread is a BOAC Mark 11 with a dial as the RAF Mark 11 had in 1948. BOAC never changed the dial or the hands.
7 Discussions and CommentsMember since Dec. 20, 2010
Hi to everyone,
I'm new to the forum but very curious about a watch I have that I think is a IWC Mark II.
It does look identical to the BOAC in the image posted by clepsydra. The only problem is that it has absolutely no engraved markings on the outside of the case so I have no idea if it's an original unadulterated RAF (?) issue.
How would I find out more about the date of my watch?
I've never opened the case but have recently left it with a London watchmaker for repairs to the movement and restoration of the dial. It won't be ready for a month or so which seemed quite a slow turnaround at the time but having now read the posts on this thread I'm now wondering if it would have been wiser to accept a longer period of TLC and send it straight to the manufacturer for refurbishment and certification!
7 Discussions and CommentsMember since Dec. 20, 2010
Slight correcton to my earlier post (at half two in the morning I'm a bit sleepy)....
My watch looks almost identical to clepsydra's BOAC - with the only difference being that mine has the broad arrow mark on the dial just below the IWC logo.
The broad arrow on the dial plus no case engravings doesn't compute. There was a civilian model with no outside case back engravings, but that would have a plain dial.
Do you have any photos? There are a lot of fake Mark 11s out there, and yours should be checked. Good photos would be a first step.
1,910 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 4, 2001
Coldharbour Wrote:The movement is Calabre C89 and the Movement number is 1162286. The movement also had a old army sign inscribed into it
The movement in your watch is a cal. 89 - 12lig S.C. Angl. from 1948, and is consistent with the non-INCA movements installed the first batch of Mark 11s acquired by the RAF in 1948. The "old military sign" you describe is probably the Broad Arrow, which ought to be there. Everything about the movement appears to be correct. The case back, however, should have the Broad Arrow, 6B/346 and xxx/48 engraved. We will wait for images of the dial and of the case back, inside and outside, to better understand if you have a true Mark 11 or a "marriage." The lack of the correct engravings in the case back, and the dial, do not bode well for the former though.
7 Discussions and CommentsMember since Dec. 20, 2010
Thanks for that.
I'm learning something new everyday...and now frantically googling "non-inca"
Would the dial have any engraved or stamped identifiers on the reverse or is the only dating evidence the layout and style of the painted lettering on the face?
The dial and hands of the Mark 11 were significantly different in 1948. The original dial had a 12 instead of the triangle, the numbers were smaller, the hands were narrower, the hour hand was longer and pointy and the night luminosity was achieved trough 226Radium based paint. It was replaced by Tritium in 1963.
If you want a Mark 11 as they were in 1948, you must look for the Mark 11 bought by BOAC in the early 1950s. I do not think there are any RAF Mark 11s with the original RAF dial.
The watch in the middle of the image I posted on this thread is a BOAC Mark 11 with a dial as the RAF Mark 11 had in 1948. BOAC never changed the dial or the hands.
clepsydra
ad fontes...
Last edited: 30 October, 2011 - 22:05
--
Cheers from Isobars.
I'm new to the forum but very curious about a watch I have that I think is a IWC Mark II.
It does look identical to the BOAC in the image posted by clepsydra. The only problem is that it has absolutely no engraved markings on the outside of the case so I have no idea if it's an original unadulterated RAF (?) issue.
How would I find out more about the date of my watch?
I've never opened the case but have recently left it with a London watchmaker for repairs to the movement and restoration of the dial. It won't be ready for a month or so which seemed quite a slow turnaround at the time but having now read the posts on this thread I'm now wondering if it would have been wiser to accept a longer period of TLC and send it straight to the manufacturer for refurbishment and certification!
My watch looks almost identical to clepsydra's BOAC - with the only difference being that mine has the broad arrow mark on the dial just below the IWC logo.
Hope that provides an added clue!
Do you have any photos? There are a lot of fake Mark 11s out there, and yours should be checked. Good photos would be a first step.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
I don't have photos - just a couple of pdf images created on a computer scanner. I could email these but they probably won't tell you much.
Tony
An email update with some details from the watch repairer:
"On the back of the case it read JWC Stainless steel.
The movement is Calabre C89 and the Movement number is 1162286.
The movement also had a old army sign inscribed into it"
Detailed pictures will have to wait till January. I will try to be patient!
Tony
The movement in your watch is a cal. 89 - 12lig S.C. Angl. from 1948, and is consistent with the non-INCA movements installed the first batch of Mark 11s acquired by the RAF in 1948. The "old military sign" you describe is probably the Broad Arrow, which ought to be there. Everything about the movement appears to be correct. The case back, however, should have the Broad Arrow, 6B/346 and xxx/48 engraved.
We will wait for images of the dial and of the case back, inside and outside, to better understand if you have a true Mark 11 or a "marriage." The lack of the correct engravings in the case back, and the dial, do not bode well for the former though.
clepsydra
ad fontes...
Last edited: 30 October, 2011 - 22:05
I'm learning something new everyday...and now frantically googling "non-inca"
Would the dial have any engraved or stamped identifiers on the reverse or is the only dating evidence the layout and style of the painted lettering on the face?
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53