IWC Schaffhausen

Dear all
I just would like to share with you some thoughts about watch movements.
After years of research, mainly on internet, in the watch field, I have realized, with a bit of disappointment, that at least the 95% of the mechanical watches on the market within the price range between € 0 - € 5.000, are moved by ETA calibers. And here I am talking about any kind of brand and about any kind of watch complication.
I'm sharing this with you because I think it is a bit of a shame that from an inside point of view, any watch from any brand in the aforementioned price range, is approximately the same, from Hamilton, to Longines, to IWC , to Eberhard, to Corum, Hublot, Nardin, GP , Baume & Mercier, Tissot, Omega, Panerai, and I could go on and on… Anyone then, of course, add a bit of a personal touch to the ETA caliber. But, substantially, what really change? It just marketing, I guess.
Find a watch with a bit of “horological” value in terms of R&D, innovation, uniqueness, etc. without having to apply for a bank loan...is getting almost impossible.
Recently, I bumped into a watch magazine which was presenting a comparison of all the best sellers among chronographs. IWC was of course there, with the Portuguese chrono and the Aquatimer Chrono. I sadly realized that 99% of them were ETA based. The few exceptions were way out the € 0- € 5.000 price range.
What’s your view about the above? Is it probably because the majority does not really care much about movements, innovation, etc. but just want to show off a nice looking watch with a reputable/recognizable brand? And why watch manufacturers keep going in this direction?

Cheers
Matteo

Last edited: 27 March, 2013 - 06:53

Oh, dear. We haven't had this discussion in a while, but there's plenty of information about the subject in the archives. There is a regrettable cynicism when you might accuse IWC of "just marketing" or "showing off". Also, despite your "research" you may not have full information at your disposal.

Let me ask you:
1. Can you tell me one thing technically inferior about, say, an ETA 2892=A2 movement? (I really doubt that you can).
2. Did you know that almost all Patek chronographs (except for some recent ones), including relatively contemporary models selling for more than $100,000 and vintage ones over $100,000 use Lemania (a sister of ETA) base movements?
3. Did you know IWC's Grand Comp uses a Valjoux 7750 base, with several hundred parts replaced/added/modified?

You can read on the Internet, as well in our archives, about what IWC does (or has done) to ETA and Valjoux base movements.

IWC does have in-house movements, of course, but they generally are more expensive to produce and therefore are in more expensive watches.

Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com

Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53

Hi Matteo,

this link may also be of some interest to you:

When a 7750 ain't a 7750 any longer --
Reworking the workhorse Valjoux 7750

You'll note the thickness of the contributions is very high, I mean, very high! :)

Take for instance what Walt Odets, one of the most brilliant minds in watchmaking journalism (and watchmaker himself) says.

Happy reading :)

Regards,

Roberto

Last edited: 19 June, 2013 - 20:53

ETA movements have been made by the thousands over a number of years. They do a good job of keeping time (which is, after all, the purpose of a watch). High production volume keeps cost down which makes them economical to use. Putting an ETA movement into any watch ensures good service at reasonable cost. This permits the watch to give adequate or better perfomrance at a lower target price. Over the years this combination has satisfied many of those looking for such a combination.
In house movements require tooling, design, assembly, etc., all of which add to the cost of the movement. This additional cost is not necessarily reflected in the accuracy of the watch. So, one might ask,other than the feel-good factor, why would one pay more for the watch?

Last edited: 14 September, 2012 - 16:17

Here are three other links that may help your understanding. Personally, I have no issue whatsoever with ETA movements as part of an IWC offering. The extent of the reworking done makes the movement unique to IWC. The performance of these movements is excellent.

Link one

Link two

Link three

Bill

Last edited: 23 June, 2012 - 20:15

What somebody looks for in a watch is different to different people, but what I am looking for is:
a) a watch of great quality in every respect,
b) a watch that looks great in my eyes.
The ETA movements are very good movements. I have one watch with an ETA chronograph in it, the Saint Exupéry Chrono: no trouble at all. I also have a few watches with in-house movements, a small bonus to me. Most IWC watches look great to me, so there this story ends for me. And, o yes, I think these watches are reasonably priced. As for in-house chronographs, IWC has a wonderful 89360 movement: alas, the watches that have it don't appeal to me enough. And if Patek Philippe can make an exquisite in-house chronograph, put it in a steel case, and ask a six figure price for it, and sell it too, great to Patek Philippe, but I'm not in. I see no problem here at all.

Kind regards,
Paul

What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)

Last edited: 23 October, 2011 - 13:31

Hello Michael
thanks for your reply and thanks for the input from the other members.
I understand your point and I have know the articles mentioned below about what IWC does on the ETA movements to make them uniques. But here I am not making any criticism so there is no need, I guess, for getting defensive. I actually own an IWC portuguese chrono and I am quite happy about that. It looks great, probably the best looking watch I know. I just do not get that intangible pleasure from its inside heart, but probably that is why I could afford to buy it...no?

And I guess we are not talking here about inferior/superior about ETA. The magic of the watch, in my modest opinion, is not about its performances or, we wouold all just buy a seiko spring drive or a quartz watch.

It is all about craftmenship, tradition, innovation and I guess having an in-house movements plays a big role in that. But that is just my modest opinion.

I believe that ETA based calibers just do not transmit this charm. An EAT caliber is something you can find anywhere (and really anywhere....) in the watch market. Talking about Patek, I do not think that its actual cathalog has any ETA based chrono...anyway, it doesn't really matter. Here it's not about Patek or JLC or anyone else.
i just think that if in the forum anyone gets so excited about in-house movements and is keen to pay some extra-bucks to put his hands on such in house jewels...probably there is a reason...probably there is some extra value in there. But if you honestly put an ETA 2892 at the same grade of other let's say IWC in-house movements...ok, we just got different opinions and I'm keen to exchange some watches with you...

ehehe anyway, now I am just kidding.

Cheers and happy Ester
Matteo

Last edited: 27 March, 2013 - 06:53

Matteo Mazzini Wrote:
It is all about craftmenship, tradition, innovation and I guess having an in-house movements plays a big role in that. But that is just my modest opinion.

I don't disagree with you, but you "pay your money and make your choice". As Pablo said, in-house costs more, including development time, etc. IWC offers both, at different price points.

Actually, I think many watch companies make in-house movements for three reasons, totally unrelated to craftmenship, tradition, and innovation. These reasons are
1) marketing --it's a sales point that few people really understand, one way or the other, but it sounds good
2) vertical control --to keep control of the parts and process as an economic matter, and not rely as much on outside suppliers
3) price --in-house costs more but produces higher margins
So much for the romance and charm elements ;)

Also, keep in mind that 99% of all Swiss watch companies with in-house movements use ETA to supply key movement parts for their in-house movements --balances almost always are made of glucydur, a special metal produced by a sister company of ETA and hairsprings are made of Nivarox, a special product also made by a sister company of ETA. These components are in the heart of 99% of "in-house" movements of every company. So much also for the in-house story ;)

Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com

Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53

Thanks for your prompt reply Michael.

Cheers
Matteo

Michael Friedberg Wrote in reply to:

Matteo Mazzini Wrote:
It is all about craftmenship, tradition, innovation and I guess having an in-house movements plays a big role in that. But that is just my modest opinion.

I don't disagree with you, but you "pay your money and make your choice". As Pablo said, in-house costs more, including development time, etc. IWC offers both, at different price points.

Actually, I think many watch companies make in-house movements for three reasons, totally unrelated to craftmenship, tradition, and innovation. These reasons are
1) marketing --it's a sales point that few people really understand, one way or the other, but it sounds good
2) vertical control --to keep control of the parts and process as an economic matter, and not rely as much on outside suppliers
3) price --in-house costs more but produces higher margins
So much for the romance and charm elements ;)

Also, keep in mind that 99% of all Swiss watch companies with in-house movements use ETA to supply key movement parts for their in-house movements --balances almost always are made of glucydur, a special metal produced by a sister company of ETA and hairsprings are made of Nivarox, a special product also made by a sister company of ETA. These components are in the heart of 99% of "in-house" movements of every company. So much also for the in-house story ;)

Last edited: 27 March, 2013 - 06:53