18 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 2, 2001
Dear Michael:
Please let me know what movement the GST split-seconds chronograph and the GST perpetual calendar use? Are IWC in-house movement or are based on common ETA movement and after modified as it seems to be usual?
152 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 30, 2001
I'm not MF, but....
Dear Mark,
As far as I know, both the GST perpetuals and split-second chronograph uses movements that are based on Valjoux 7750, the perpetual one should use cal.79261 like the Da Vinci. Most of IWC watches use ETA or Valjoux based movements along with some JLC ebauches as well. There are some exceptions of in-house movements such as the new Calibre 5000, the Port. Minute Repeater, or vintage ones such as the cal. 85 series....etc. A good example of how IWC modified common based movements is the Il Destriero Scafusia, one of the most complicated wrist watch ever made, uses an 7760 as its base. Of course it is true that IWC doesn't do such great works on every watches due to they have different prices, but IWC tries to treat all these ebauches as if they are their own in-house movements. The unique perpetual mechanism, rattrapante mechanism...etc are good evidences.
239 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 23, 2001
GST Movements
Dear Mark
The IWC reference 3715, GST Chrono-Rattrapante, uses the movement IWC caliber 79230. This is the same movement as in the reference 3713, Flieger Doppelchronograph.
The IWC reference 3756, GST Perpetual Calendar, uses the movement IWC caliber 79261. This is the same movement as in the reference 3750, Da Vinci.
Both movements are based on the ETA Valjoux 7750. This basic movement is modified by IWC. The rattrapante mechanism and the mechanism of the perpetual calendar are constructed and made by IWC.
At least some technical details about these movements: movement caliber: 79261 (perpetual calendar) / 79230 (rattrapante) type of movement: automatic-winding-movement movement diameter: 30,00 mm or 13 ¼ Paris Lines movement height: caliber 79261 => 8,80 mm / caliber 79230 => 9,50 mm power reserve of the full wounded movement: 44 hours number of functional jewels: caliber 79261 => 39 artificial jewels /caliber 79230 => 29 artificial jewels impulse angle: 52 degrees oscillation frequency: 4 Hertz halfbeats per hour: 28'800 decorations: cercular-graining and "Cotes Geneve" surfaces: gold plated hand setting with: crown date correction with: crown rotor-segment-material: heavy metall type of rotor-bearing: ball-bearing balance type: monometallic balance-spring- type: flat balance-spring adjustment system: "Triovis" fine adjustment second-hand position: at 9 o'clock second-hand stopp-function: yes date-indication: caliber 79261 => at 3 o'clock / caliber 79230 => dial-opening at 3 o'clock weekday-indication: caliber 79261 => at 9 o'clock / caliber 79230 => dial-opening at 3 o'clock month-indication: caliber 79261 => at 6 o'clock year-indication: caliber 79261 => dial-opening at 7:30 o'clock, 4 numbers moonphase-indication: caliber 79261 => dial-opening at 12 o'clock chronograph: yes rattrapante mechanism: the caliber 79230 perpetual calendar: the caliber 79261
A description what we are doing with the basic movements from ETA, please click on the link below.
18 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 2, 2001
IWC in-house movements
Thanks for your detailed explanation IWC, about the GST line ETA's based movement and modifications you perform on them. But I still can not understand why with your high prestige and knowledge you do not manufacture the entire movement in all your watches as prestigious Patek or JLC do. Economical strategies? I hope that with RICHEMONT that changes .
With respect, I've always consider the "in-house" issue as an overly simplistic one. I say this not out of disrespect nor to defend IWC endlessly, but rather to push the thinking behind it.
There are good outsourced base movements and bad inhouse ones. And most inhouse movements have a huge number of critical outsourced parts --virtually nobody makes their own springs or balances, which really are key components. Also, many companies which use inhouse movements do not use inhouse cases (often an underrated, important and and expensive component).
One commentor posed elsewhere the question "whether it really matters if the presses, transfer machines or drills and their operators are located in a building with a name on the door or in any other building from Geneva to Schaffhausen?" He added that " (t)he same applies to the design and engineering bureau or the assembly workshops. A sophisticated mechanical watch is typically made by 40 to 50 different suppliers having various degrees of contractual relationship with the brand. " He concluded that the brand that contracts out work often has the superior product.
As stated, I say this not to defend all IWC's out-sourcing practices, but only to raise the issue that "in-house" may be an easy cliche that often doesn't hold up. And I would add that there inherently is an economic variable --since the 1990s to my knowledge IWC has never produced an in-house movement wristwatch for less than about $8,500.
Still, I suspect you will see more in-house IWC movements in the future --although possibly not for a few years and probably not at current price `level`s. I don't attribute this to Richemont, but rather the direction that IWC is going. I also know that IWC is committed to its ETA base movements because of what they consider their technical superiority if properly enhanced and assembled. They also consider their assembly as not easily replicable.
49 Discussions and CommentsMember since June 16, 2001
More good reasons for "out-house" mvts..
I think one of the things that I have learnt about IWC's use of ETA-based movements is that they are able to benefit from a very wide base of experience as to how these movements (such as the 2892 and the 7750) can be improved and refined. There must be tens or hundreds of thousands of the basic ETA movements "out there" in the world being used and repaired: any gross design faults will have been ironed out by ETA long ago - the movements start out as very reliable, well tried products even before IWC work their magic on them. Then, based on wide knowledge of how these movements can be refined, IWC replace and re-specify critical components to further improve the reliability and consistency of these movements.
To me, this seems to be an ideal, and (dare I say it?) cost-effective method of providing the customer with a very high quality product. I'm not wishing to denegrate the idea of in-house movements in any way, but I feel that what IWC does with it's ETA based movements, and the way it is entirely open about what it does, is admirable.
In a sense, unless there is "art for art's sake", all decisions for all products must be economic. When the Da Vinci came out, it not only revolutioned the culture, but it also made a perpetual calanedar watch available for a price much less than other models.
I was told by several people that they believe that IWC sells more perpetual calendar wristwatches than the rest of the entire Swiss watch industry. We're still talking about relatively small numbers, but a driving force here has to be price-quality ratio.
6 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 8, 2001
--------
Hi MF: Well....do you know of any firms that do produce everything that goes into their finished watch...from springs, levers, wheels...to cases?
Elliot
UnknownAug. 13, 2001
The specific member who posted this comment can not be uniquely identified by username.
Everything?
It's almost impossible to produce a watch with complete self-sufificency, if you count raw materials --not just the metal, but also the special processing involved. And I don't know any watch company that produces its own straps (not counting the leather which of course is outsourced) or crystals.
However, I believe that the most autonomous would be Rolex, Patek, and several of the Japanese brands. Glashuette Original may come close and several of the AHCI independent watchmakers, like Philipe DuFour, fabricate their internal movement parts although they use supplied springs, etc.. Also, if one considers the Swatch Group as "one big company" they have so many specialist firms under their umbrella that they might come closest. In many instances, the issue is whether dependency on outside suppliers is desirable relative to vertical integration, given costs of manufacture, rather than some sense of pride.
2 Discussions and CommentsMember since Dec. 19, 2010
Michael Friedberg Wrote:My impressions about the in-house issue
Michael,
It becomes tiresome to see your blind defense of IWC without comparison to other companies at the high end of watch making. Jaeger Lecoultre for example has manufactured movements for Patek Phillipe and Vacheron Constantin. Jaeger movements go through 1000 hours of quality control. Could you please inform me and others the extent of quality control at IWC that in my opinion has sharply declined in recent years. I tried out 2 examples of the Portuguese series and they ran either 8 or more seconds fast per day or an equal number of seconds slow per day. And the inaccuracy remained in the same direction and did not vary around 0 seconds as one would expect of a well regulated movement. After 4 days I needed to reset the watches. Moreover it was not an issue of the watches working beyond their power reserves since they were on an Orbita watch winder. Is IWC just trading on its name in recent years or were my examples not representative. It would be nice to have you as moderator provide some facts that can illuminate the issue. Thanks in advance for your upcoming reply.
2 Discussions and CommentsMember since Dec. 19, 2010
Michael Friedberg Wrote:My impressions about the in-house issue
Michael,
It becomes tiresome to see your blind defense of IWC without comparison to other companies at the high end of watch making. Jaeger Lecoultre for example has manufactured movements for Patek Phillipe and Vacheron Constantin. Jaeger movements go through 1000 hours of quality control. Could you please inform me and others the extent of quality control at IWC that in my opinion has sharply declined in recent years. I tried out 2 examples of the Portuguese series and they ran either 8 or more seconds fast per day or an equal number of seconds slow per day. And the inaccuracy remained in the same direction and did not vary around 0 seconds as one would expect of a well regulated movement. After 4 days I needed to reset the watches. Moreover it was not an issue of the watches working beyond their power reserves since they were on an Orbita watch winder. Is IWC just trading on its name in recent years or were my examples not representative. It would be nice to have you as moderator provide some facts that can illuminate the issue. Thanks in advance for your upcoming reply.
Ralph
Account deletedJune 9, 2011
Ralph, consider this, cross co-operation between watch companies has been a long standing work ethic as I see it, as you say JLC has made movements for many other 'high end' companies overtime and I'm sure others have reciprocated. One can compare this the the automotive industry, its simply a matter of economics, but no two cars are the same even though they may share many parts. I would stick my neck out and say there is no watchmaker today, that makes every single part that goes to make up a completed watch. What matters is how the finished article performs. I own an Omege Seamaster 300m chronometer and an IWC Portofino, both use the same basic ETA 2892 A2 movement reworked accordingly by each company. The Portofino gains less than 1 sec. per day in normal use the Omega less than 2 secs. per day. I love them both for different reasons and I consider them both to be excellent timepieces. If accuracy is all that matters to you buy a radio controlled watch and forget watches that are bought for their character, heritage and artistic value, as well as their accuracy.
Dear Michael:
Please let me know what movement the GST split-seconds chronograph and the GST perpetual calendar use?
Are IWC in-house movement or are based on common ETA
movement and after modified as it seems to be usual?
Congratulations. Excellent forum.
Dear Mark,
As far as I know, both the GST perpetuals and split-second chronograph uses movements that are based on Valjoux 7750, the perpetual one should use cal.79261 like the Da Vinci. Most of IWC watches use ETA or Valjoux based movements along with some JLC ebauches as well. There are some exceptions of in-house movements such as the new Calibre 5000, the Port. Minute Repeater, or vintage ones such as the cal. 85 series....etc.
A good example of how IWC modified common based movements is the Il Destriero Scafusia, one of the most complicated wrist watch ever made, uses an 7760 as its base. Of course it is true that IWC doesn't do such great works on every watches due to they have different prices, but IWC tries to treat all these ebauches as if they are their own in-house movements. The unique perpetual mechanism, rattrapante mechanism...etc are good evidences.
Regards,
Roger
Dear Mark
The IWC reference 3715, GST Chrono-Rattrapante, uses the movement IWC caliber 79230. This is the same movement as in the reference 3713, Flieger Doppelchronograph.
The IWC reference 3756, GST Perpetual Calendar, uses the movement IWC caliber 79261. This is the same movement as in the reference 3750, Da Vinci.
Both movements are based on the ETA Valjoux 7750. This basic movement is modified by IWC. The rattrapante mechanism and the mechanism of the perpetual calendar are constructed and made by IWC.
At least some technical details about these movements:
movement caliber: 79261 (perpetual calendar) / 79230 (rattrapante)
type of movement: automatic-winding-movement
movement diameter: 30,00 mm or 13 ¼ Paris Lines
movement height: caliber 79261 => 8,80 mm / caliber 79230 => 9,50 mm
power reserve of the full wounded movement: 44 hours
number of functional jewels: caliber 79261 => 39 artificial jewels /caliber 79230 => 29 artificial jewels
impulse angle: 52 degrees
oscillation frequency: 4 Hertz
halfbeats per hour: 28'800
decorations: cercular-graining and "Cotes Geneve"
surfaces: gold plated
hand setting with: crown
date correction with: crown
rotor-segment-material: heavy metall
type of rotor-bearing: ball-bearing
balance type: monometallic
balance-spring- type: flat balance-spring
adjustment system: "Triovis" fine adjustment
second-hand position: at 9 o'clock
second-hand stopp-function: yes
date-indication: caliber 79261 => at 3 o'clock / caliber 79230 => dial-opening at 3 o'clock
weekday-indication: caliber 79261 => at 9 o'clock / caliber 79230 => dial-opening at 3 o'clock
month-indication: caliber 79261 => at 6 o'clock
year-indication: caliber 79261 => dial-opening at 7:30 o'clock, 4 numbers
moonphase-indication: caliber 79261 => dial-opening at 12 o'clock
chronograph: yes
rattrapante mechanism: the caliber 79230
perpetual calendar: the caliber 79261
A description what we are doing with the basic movements from ETA, please click on the link below.
Kindest regards,
IWC Schaffhausen
IWC's Use of ETA base movements
Thanks for your detailed explanation IWC, about the GST line
ETA's based movement and modifications you perform on
them. But I still can not understand why with your high prestige
and knowledge you do not manufacture the entire movement
in all your watches as prestigious Patek or JLC do.
Economical strategies? I hope that with RICHEMONT that
changes .
Best regards .
Mark
Hi Mark,
With respect, I've always consider the "in-house" issue as an overly simplistic one. I say this not out of disrespect nor to defend IWC endlessly, but rather to push the thinking behind it.
There are good outsourced base movements and bad inhouse ones. And most inhouse movements have a huge number of critical outsourced parts --virtually nobody makes their own springs or balances, which really are key components. Also, many companies which use inhouse movements do not use inhouse cases (often an underrated, important and and expensive component).
One commentor posed elsewhere the question "whether it really matters if the presses, transfer machines or drills and their operators are located in a building with a name on the door or in any other building from Geneva to Schaffhausen?" He added that " (t)he same applies to the design and engineering bureau or the assembly workshops. A sophisticated mechanical watch is typically made by 40 to 50 different suppliers having various degrees of contractual relationship with the brand. " He concluded that the brand that contracts out work often has the superior product.
As stated, I say this not to defend all IWC's out-sourcing practices, but only to raise the issue that "in-house" may be an easy cliche that often doesn't hold up. And I would add that there inherently is an economic variable --since the 1990s to my knowledge IWC has never produced an in-house movement wristwatch for less than about $8,500.
Still, I suspect you will see more in-house IWC movements in the future --although possibly not for a few years and probably not at current price `level`s. I don't attribute this to Richemont, but rather the direction that IWC is going. I also know that IWC is committed to its ETA base movements because of what they consider their technical superiority if properly enhanced and assembled. They also consider their assembly as not easily replicable.
Regards,
Michael
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
I think one of the things that I have learnt about IWC's use of ETA-based movements is that they are able to benefit from a very wide base of experience as to how these movements (such as the 2892 and the 7750) can be improved and refined. There must be tens or hundreds of thousands of the basic ETA movements "out there" in the world being used and repaired: any gross design faults will have been ironed out by ETA long ago - the movements start out as very reliable, well tried products even before IWC work their magic on them. Then, based on wide knowledge of how these movements can be refined, IWC replace and re-specify critical components to further improve the reliability and consistency of these movements.
To me, this seems to be an ideal, and (dare I say it?) cost-effective method of providing the customer with a very high quality product. I'm not wishing to denegrate the idea of in-house movements in any way, but I feel that what IWC does with it's ETA based movements, and the way it is entirely open about what it does, is admirable.
Just my thoughts,
Michael
In a sense, unless there is "art for art's sake", all decisions for all products must be economic. When the Da Vinci came out, it not only revolutioned the culture, but it also made a perpetual calanedar watch available for a price much less than other models.
I was told by several people that they believe that IWC sells more perpetual calendar wristwatches than the rest of the entire Swiss watch industry. We're still talking about relatively small numbers, but a driving force here has to be price-quality ratio.
Regards,
Michael
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
Hi MF: Well....do you know of any firms that do produce everything that goes into their finished watch...from springs, levers, wheels...to cases?
Elliot
It's almost impossible to produce a watch with complete self-sufificency, if you count raw materials --not just the metal, but also the special processing involved. And I don't know any watch company that produces its own straps (not counting the leather which of course is outsourced) or crystals.
However, I believe that the most autonomous would be Rolex, Patek, and several of the Japanese brands. Glashuette Original may come close and several of the AHCI independent watchmakers, like Philipe DuFour, fabricate their internal movement parts although they use supplied springs, etc.. Also, if one considers the Swatch Group as "one big company" they have so many specialist firms under their umbrella that they might come closest. In many instances, the issue is whether dependency on outside suppliers is desirable relative to vertical integration, given costs of manufacture, rather than some sense of pride.
Regards,
Michael
Michael,
It becomes tiresome to see your blind defense of IWC without comparison to other companies at the high end of watch making. Jaeger Lecoultre for example has manufactured movements for Patek Phillipe and Vacheron Constantin. Jaeger movements go through 1000 hours of quality control. Could you please inform me and others the extent of quality control at IWC that in my opinion has sharply declined in recent years. I tried out 2 examples of the Portuguese series and they ran either 8 or more seconds fast per day or an equal number of seconds slow per day. And the inaccuracy remained in the same direction and did not vary around 0 seconds as one would expect of a well regulated movement. After 4 days I needed to reset the watches. Moreover it was not an issue of the watches working beyond their power reserves since they were on an Orbita watch winder. Is IWC just trading on its name in recent years or were my examples not representative. It would be nice to have you as moderator provide some facts that can illuminate the issue. Thanks in advance for your upcoming reply.
Ralph
Michael,
It becomes tiresome to see your blind defense of IWC without comparison to other companies at the high end of watch making. Jaeger Lecoultre for example has manufactured movements for Patek Phillipe and Vacheron Constantin. Jaeger movements go through 1000 hours of quality control. Could you please inform me and others the extent of quality control at IWC that in my opinion has sharply declined in recent years. I tried out 2 examples of the Portuguese series and they ran either 8 or more seconds fast per day or an equal number of seconds slow per day. And the inaccuracy remained in the same direction and did not vary around 0 seconds as one would expect of a well regulated movement. After 4 days I needed to reset the watches. Moreover it was not an issue of the watches working beyond their power reserves since they were on an Orbita watch winder. Is IWC just trading on its name in recent years or were my examples not representative. It would be nice to have you as moderator provide some facts that can illuminate the issue. Thanks in advance for your upcoming reply.
Ralph
Last edited: 28 February, 2013 - 11:33