Portuguese Sidérale Scafusia
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: 30 November, 2011 - 20:05
Last edited: 16 April, 2013 - 00:36
Last edited: 17 May, 2013 - 09:58
Regards, Shing | email iwcforme1976 (at) gmail (dot) comtime 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
Rave Wrote:The 9 has always been a deal breaker for me. The black dial of the current range is perfect. Blacker than the previous range. But the absence of the 9 was an unnecessary step. (Sat in HK departure lounge wearing a Mark 11 with a 9)
Last edited: 11 December, 2012 - 13:27
Sunflower Wrote:I think the current Mark XVI Classic is a great looking watch, as is the Mark XVI Spitfire, by the way. I don't see any inbalance in the design of the Mark XVI: there are 8 numbers, the 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11. At the place where the 3, 6, 9 and 12 could be expected there are markers, at the 3 position a bit shorter because of the date. There is symmetry in this respect, one could say that at the "cross hairs" there are no numbers. When compared to the predecessors like the Mark XV, the numbers are ever so slightly bigger and thicker, denying the 9 its place as the dial would look too crowded over there. If the lack of the 9 bothers you, buy the Chrono, where one of the subdials takes the place of the 9 in a natural way.What to expect: I don't know how well the Mark XVI sells right now. If it is a bit slow I expect a 44 mm Mark XVII, maybe with the movement of the Portofino 8 days handwound.Kind regards,Paul
8541 Wrote:Donald, by chance i am wearing my Mark XVI whilst on a business trip today. So, it was an interesting read for me - glancing down at the watch on my wrist a number of times to confirm / check and review some of the points made.I had never noticed an 'imbalance' before, and neither now when looking at it with a most critical of eyes. In fact, at the time I bought it the MK XV at 38mm and the old dial were still available and I mused a long time over which dial I prefered, given the changed in the font type of the numbers. My two boys (teenagers at the time) were both very vocal that the dial on the Mark XVI is modern, yet very classic looking - true pilot like and the way to go. Today I agree - it's a great dial.Paul - the balance is so perfect on this dial , that I DO NOT SEE THE MARKER AT THE 3 POSITION BEING SHORTER! Is it? If so it's brialiantly done - and balance is kept.I want to see a Pilot alone the lines of the BP but at mid size - 42mm.Wishful thinking I guess. SIHH will reveal all.Best regardsMark
shing Wrote:The 9 for me - far less of an issue on the Mark XVI but certainly an issue for me for the Big Pilot. I find the Mark XVI suitably balanced without the nine - with the date at 3 sleek enough to maintain decent symmetry. Had there been a 9 with the date window that small at 3, the dial may seem a bit unbalanced. My main critique of the Mark XVI is the hands - its the big pilot-esque hands now as opposed to the more rectangular hands on the Mark XV and and XII. The Mark XII below I find is fabulous.Size wise I am actually hoping it will move up to 40mm - but any larger I think it would be too similar with the Big Pilots or even some of the Pilot / Spitfires.Andrew's pic:
IWC Members Will Receive:
Access to exclusive IWC content, early product release notifications, deeper access to IWC, the forums and much more
© IWC Schaffhausen. All Rights Reserved.