2,084 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 7, 2005
Everybody has his own “rationals” to follow in order to build up a collection, my very personal guidelines mainly keep attention to: rarity and significance (horological-historical meaningfulness).
Ref. 3227 was produced for a relatively short time, although I don’t know exactly how many pieces were produced.
It explicitly descends from ref. 1832 - can we consider this model, the only legitimate heir of ref. 1832 though?
Several elements bring to easily compare these two references: big case dimensions, the in-house movement, the design, the adverse fortune they (both?) had in the market.
I’m not sure but ref. 3227 should be also the first that hosted the new caliber from the 80000 family.
From the perspective I’ve tried to briefly illustrate above, do you think this reference has a chance to become, I won’t say another ref. 1832 but, something worth to collect?
Thanks for your replies.
P.S. The last thing I’m interested to is an eventual economical revaluation, I’m not thinking of money, I collect to keep.
3,775 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
I have several IWC watches, so I have a collection. But I do not collect in the sense that I need a certain watch to make a family of watches complete. I buy a watch because I really want it, and it fills a gap for some function. I have a 3227, the titanium version. I bought it because I wanted a sturdy titanium watch, was elated that the Ingenieur family was revived, was impressed by the new 80110 movement (as far as I could be because of my restricted knowledge of watches, but I liked what I read), and because it looked all right, both the watch and the bracelet.
Period, I would say, but would I buy this watch now if I didn't have one? If it would be new, that is, still in production, maybe yes. But I would prefer a titanium Mission Earth on a titanium bracelet. The steel one I would never buy, too heavy for me. I own the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms, it seems as sturdy as the 3227, has an antimagnetic cage, but the steel version weights about 150 grams on a strap, very comfortable: I don't understand why the Inge must weight so much more. That FF is a classic already, by the way.
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)
2,996 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 2, 2011Hong Kong,
Hong Kong
(Michael's) (Whichwatch's)
Regards, Shing | email iwcforme1976 (at) gmail (dot) com time does not change us. it just unfolds us. max frisch. all that really belongs to us is time; even he who has nothing else has that. baltasar gracian.
1,888 Discussions and CommentsMember since June 13, 2001Mansfield,Notts,
United Kingdom
Being more interested in vintage IWC I have fleeting interest for the modern IWC's BUT with the 3227 01 its a love hate relationship. If I have one that's fine .....I am not too worried if I sell it ( mostly to admiring friends) BUT ...If I haven't one ....I want one.....and so it goes on and on I am now on my fourth 3227 01 and hopefully the last, and for it to remain in my collection.
As to being collectable?...Yes, as a matter of fact I have a sneaking feeling it will ....It has caught the collector's imagination and I believe in years to come it will join the hallowed group and become a serious member of the IWC collectable Classics.
Its my next favourite "modern" watch next to my 5021 PPC.
2,875 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 11, 2008Kavala,
Greece
It is a great sports watch, ideal in size and with a splendid in-house calibre. Very much underestimated and understated, a true IWC, too bad it was discontinued and the successor grew so big in size. I ll get one and keep it forever someday.
2,936 Discussions and CommentsMember since Nov. 14, 2008Taylor, TX,
United States
argiris develegas Wrote:It is a great sports watch, ideal in size and with a splendid in-house calibre. Very much underestimated and understated, a true IWC, too bad it was discontinued and the successor grew so big in size. I ll get one and keep it forever someday.
That is exactly my feeling. It is on my "hit" list as one of those IWC's I want to acquire and have in my little collection.
Best regards, Jim
"We are the other people, we are the other people...you're the other people too!" Frank Zappa
2,691 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 20, 2007
Roberto, in my mind the clear answer to the question you raise of do you think this reference has a chance to become,...something worth to collect? is a certain YES it is collectable.
For all the reasons you mention and some more. It's right sized (and fashion for really large watches will tone down and then 39mm-42mm will be right back in demand. Because of the calibre (and it's pellaton too) etc. etc.
Now, I don't own an "off the shelf" Ref. 3227-01 (least ways not yet) - but I do own this watch here - and can tell you it gets major wrist time, and it will never leave my collection.
1,931 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 4, 2001
flyrobyfly36 Wrote: ... It explicitly descends from ref. 1832 - can we consider this model, the only legitimate heir of ref. 1832 though? ...
IMHO the Ref 3227 is the only legitimate heir of the Ref 1832. There may be other claimants to the inheritance, but they are but a colorful side show, in shades of blue and orange. The Ref 3227 is the real McCoy. IMHO.
5,078 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 9, 2006
Not only is the 3227 a collectable, it also is a superior model within the IWC range of models. Mine accompanies me on most of my ski and holiday trips. It is a sturdy companion that delivers excellence in engineering and design. It will always stay in my small collection. If I did not own one, I would be searching for one to add regardless of its future monetary value.
411 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 9, 2011
Hong Kong
well... I don't know and don't really care if 3227 is really a collectible, but one thing for sure...
It does have a unique place in my heart (and my "collection").
Here are my 3227 and 3725:
I think it is true to its original Gerald Genta's design as well, which... is not quite there with the Mission Earth series.
The Mission Earth series, however, is very very sharp looking.
Sincerely, Kelvin Leung _______________________________________________________________________________________ Repeat after me: I don't need another IWC, I really don't need another IWC...
Ref. 3227 was produced for a relatively short time, although I don’t know exactly how many pieces were produced.
It explicitly descends from ref. 1832 - can we consider this model, the only legitimate heir of ref. 1832 though?
Several elements bring to easily compare these two references: big case dimensions, the in-house movement, the design, the adverse fortune they (both?) had in the market.
I’m not sure but ref. 3227 should be also the first that hosted the new caliber from the 80000 family.
From the perspective I’ve tried to briefly illustrate above, do you think this reference has a chance to become, I won’t say another ref. 1832 but, something worth to collect?
Thanks for your replies.
P.S. The last thing I’m interested to is an eventual economical revaluation, I’m not thinking of money, I collect to keep.
Regards,
Roberto
Last edited: 12 June, 2013 - 11:03
Period, I would say, but would I buy this watch now if I didn't have one? If it would be new, that is, still in production, maybe yes. But I would prefer a titanium Mission Earth on a titanium bracelet. The steel one I would never buy, too heavy for me. I own the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms, it seems as sturdy as the 3227, has an antimagnetic cage, but the steel version weights about 150 grams on a strap, very comfortable: I don't understand why the Inge must weight so much more. That FF is a classic already, by the way.
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
Regards, Shing | email iwcforme1976 (at) gmail (dot) com
time does not change us. it just unfolds us. max frisch.
all that really belongs to us is time; even he who has nothing else has that. baltasar gracian.
Last edited: 8 December, 2012 - 16:07
If I have one that's fine .....I am not too worried if I sell it ( mostly to admiring friends) BUT ...If I haven't one ....I want one.....and so it goes on and on
I am now on my fourth 3227 01 and hopefully the last, and for it to remain in my collection.
As to being collectable?...Yes, as a matter of fact I have a sneaking feeling it will ....It has caught the collector's imagination and I believe in years to come it will join the hallowed group and become a serious member of the IWC collectable Classics.
Its my next favourite "modern" watch next to my 5021 PPC.
Ivan
iwcforme
iwcforme@aol.com
Last edited: 11 December, 2012 - 13:27
Very much underestimated and understated, a true IWC, too bad it was discontinued and the successor grew so big in size.
I ll get one and keep it forever someday.
Best regards
Argiris
Last edited: 29 October, 2011 - 21:11
That is exactly my feeling. It is on my "hit" list as one of those IWC's I want to acquire and have in my little collection.
Best regards,
Jim
"We are the other people, we are the other people...you're the other people too!"
Frank Zappa
Last edited: 13 March, 2012 - 15:03
For all the reasons you mention and some more. It's right sized (and fashion for really large watches will tone down and then 39mm-42mm will be right back in demand. Because of the calibre (and it's pellaton too) etc. etc.
Now, I don't own an "off the shelf" Ref. 3227-01 (least ways not yet) - but I do own this watch here - and can tell you it gets major wrist time, and it will never leave my collection.
So yes, it has a place in an IWC collection.
Best regards
Mark
Best regards
Mark
Last edited: 16 April, 2013 - 00:36
IMHO the Ref 3227 is the only legitimate heir of the Ref 1832. There may be other claimants to the inheritance, but they are but a colorful side show, in shades of blue and orange. The Ref 3227 is the real McCoy. IMHO.
clepsydra
ad fontes...
Last edited: 30 October, 2011 - 22:05
Bill
Last edited: 23 June, 2012 - 20:15
It does have a unique place in my heart (and my "collection").
Here are my 3227 and 3725:
I think it is true to its original Gerald Genta's design as well, which... is not quite there with the Mission Earth series.
The Mission Earth series, however, is very very sharp looking.
Sincerely,
Kelvin Leung
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Repeat after me: I don't need another IWC, I really don't need another IWC...