88 Discussions and CommentsMember since Oct. 27, 2010St. Louis,
United States
Greetings, All!
As most IWC Pilot fans are likely aware, the Mark XVI has occasionally come in for criticism (e.g., in an otherwise highly laudatory review contained in a 2007 Watchtime review) on the grounds that it lacks the "9" marker, creating a degree of imbalance in the dial design.
Agree? Disagree? Do you think the new Pilots, soon to be unveiled, are likely once again to have the "9" marker? IWC seems to be quite responsive to buyers' preferences, so I wonder.
Perhaps someone with computer savvy (which I lack completely) might "create" a Mark XVI dial with the "9" marker restored. It would be interesting to see whether the "imbalance" would thus be rectified. Of course, all the numerals might have to be reduced in size a bit, and probably the thick crossbars at 3, 6, and 9 would have to be somewhat shortened.
Alternatively, maybe the date indicator could be moved to the "6" position. I wonder how that would look.
Apologies if this subject has been treated in past Forum discussions before I came on board, two years ago.
In any event, I can't wait to see what the new Pilot (Mark XVII?) will look like. One thing I'm fairly sure of: the case diameter is likely to be at least 40 mm. Personally, I think it should stay at 39mm.
3,737 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
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
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)
2,640 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 20, 2007
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.
2,241 Discussions and CommentsMember since Nov. 16, 2004
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)
2,996 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 2, 2011Hong Kong,
Hong Kong
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:
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
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)
The same goes for me too Rave. I have had both Big Pilots 5002 & the 5004 but the the inclusion of the 9 on the 5002 somehow seems to make the watch/dial complete. I guess the transitional model would be an ideal compromise ?
88 Discussions and CommentsMember since Oct. 27, 2010St. Louis,
United States
Dear Sunflower:
I like what you say about the symmetry in the crosshairs at the "3" and "9." positions.
By the way, the absence of the "9" doesn't bother me at all--I wanted to see what others thought.
I see an admirable symmetry in the way the eight total digits are placed--that, for me, dominates the overall dial design.
Again, thanks!
Donald
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.
88 Discussions and CommentsMember since Oct. 27, 2010St. Louis,
United States
Dear Mark (wise choice of forename):
As for the Mark XVI being "classic," I have a strong suspicion it will, soon after it is out of production, become pretty highly sought after--though, chances are, never so much as the Mark 11. But who knows?
By the way, your sons are highly discerning!
Cheers!
Donald
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.
88 Discussions and CommentsMember since Oct. 27, 2010St. Louis,
United States
Dear Shing:
I agree that the"9' without a corresponding "3" on the Mark XVI dial might have seemed quite out of balance.
I can't, however, warm up to the "rectangular" style of the hands on the Marks XII and XV. The hands on the Mark XVI, by contrast, seem to hark back--as someone on this Forum has pointed out--to those of the original Fliegeruhr, the one of 55 mm.
Cheers!
Donald
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.
As most IWC Pilot fans are likely aware, the Mark XVI has occasionally come in for criticism (e.g., in an otherwise highly laudatory review contained in a 2007 Watchtime review) on the grounds that it lacks the "9" marker, creating a degree of imbalance in the dial design.
Agree? Disagree? Do you think the new Pilots, soon to be unveiled, are likely once again to have the "9" marker? IWC seems to be quite responsive to buyers' preferences, so I wonder.
Perhaps someone with computer savvy (which I lack completely) might "create" a Mark XVI dial with the "9" marker restored. It would be interesting to see whether the "imbalance" would thus be rectified. Of course, all the numerals might have to be reduced in size a bit, and probably the thick crossbars at 3, 6, and 9 would have to be somewhat shortened.
Alternatively, maybe the date indicator could be moved to the "6" position. I wonder how that would look.
Apologies if this subject has been treated in past Forum discussions before I came on board, two years ago.
In any event, I can't wait to see what the new Pilot (Mark XVII?) will look like. One thing I'm fairly sure of: the case diameter is likely to be at least 40 mm. Personally, I think it should stay at 39mm.
Best wishes to all.
Cheers!
Donald
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
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
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 regards
Mark
Best regards
Mark
Last edited: 16 April, 2013 - 00:36
(Sat in HK departure lounge wearing a Mark 11 with a 9)
Last edited: 17 May, 2013 - 09:58
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:
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
The same goes for me too Rave. I have had both Big Pilots 5002 & the 5004 but the the inclusion of the 9 on the 5002 somehow seems to make the watch/dial complete.
I guess the transitional model would be an ideal compromise ?
Ivan
iwcforme
iwcforme@aol.com
Last edited: 11 December, 2012 - 13:27
I like what you say about the symmetry in the crosshairs at the "3" and "9." positions.
By the way, the absence of the "9" doesn't bother me at all--I wanted to see what others thought.
I see an admirable symmetry in the way the eight total digits are placed--that, for me, dominates the overall dial design.
Again, thanks!
Donald
As for the Mark XVI being "classic," I have a strong suspicion it will, soon after it is out of production, become pretty highly sought after--though, chances are, never so much as the Mark 11. But who knows?
By the way, your sons are highly discerning!
Cheers!
Donald
I agree that the"9' without a corresponding "3" on the Mark XVI dial might have seemed quite out of balance.
I can't, however, warm up to the "rectangular" style of the hands on the Marks XII and XV. The hands on the Mark XVI, by contrast, seem to hark back--as someone on this Forum has pointed out--to those of the original Fliegeruhr, the one of 55 mm.
Cheers!
Donald