2,081 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 7, 2005
Light saturday post, to continue the dialogue about our common dream watch.
I guess the first step we need to focus on, to reach the target, is to identify the model.
It's fun and it's easy, just make your choice.
It's about the model, not the (eventual) customization.
Please, if you want, first, pick your best choice (mandatory task for any good forumer) and then explain it and/or describe the personalization you'd like to see implemented (optional).
Aware of the output the former thread gifted us, I've chosen 8 models, 4 from the novelties, 3 from the vintage collection, 1 from the current line up of the AT family, just because I've noticed some interest about it as the new CF III.
Please consider it's just a game, just some gentlemen talks about the watch of their desires, nothing but this.
Maybe though, the outputs of the thread could turn out useful to IWC and Michael, thanks to the info contained in it.
Needless to say, I have the best respect for IWC and its right to decide if and eventually what model to propose as CF III.
Michael is also completely not responsible for this thread and, as usual, we owe him our gratitude for guiding and helping us the best possible way.
I took myself permission to add some pro and con, simply trying to describe a little more the watches but it's naturally just my opinion, so means nothing, just some elements to start the discussion from.
Now, let's talk watches!
The Challengers
Challenger 1: Mark XVII. Pro: 1) It's new; 2) affordable price. Con: 1) Not in-house movement.
Challenger 2: Worldtimer ref. 3262. Pro: 1) It's new; 2) original complication. Con: 1) Not in-house movement; 2) Case size to the limits (for many).
Challenger 3: Miramar ref. 3880. Pro: 1) It's new; 2) in-house movement; 3) special case. Con: 1) The price could discourage some fans; 2) big size watch (not a flaw but population here is starting to split in two about this).
Challenger 4: Spitfire chronograph ref. 3878. Pro: 1) It's new; 2) in-house movement. Con: 1) The price could discourage some fans; 2) no soft iron cage; 3) "glamour" version of a pilot's watch (put in the "con" but could stay in the "pro").
Challenger 5: Ingenieur vintage collection ref. 3233. Pro: 1) in-house movement; 2) good value for money; 3) case size "acceptable" to many. Con: 1) no soft iron cage; 2) some collectors already have an ingenieur.
Challenger 6: Portuguese vintage collection ref. 5445. Pro: 1) in-house movement; 2) the best watch of the lot to closely recalling the original (iconic) model; 3) case size "acceptable" to many. Con: 1) manual winding (not a con at all, it's just it's less complicated); 2) some collectors already have it.
Challenger 7: Aquatimer vintage collection ref. 3231. Pro: 1) in-house movement; 2) versatile; 3) good value for money; 4) case size "acceptable" to many. Con. 1) some collectors already have it.
Challenger 8: Aquatimer 2000, ref. 3568. Pro: 1) affordable price; 2) case size "acceptable" to many. Con: 1) not in-house movement; 2) some collectors already have it.
Some brief notes I've put the in-house calibres as a pro, I've nothing against 3Ps movements, it's just a in-house movement speaks more of the brand; some watches have in-house movement they're not worth some others with a 3Ps movement. I usually like to look at the movement and (try) to understand if I like it or not. The comparison between the movements in the post makes me think in-house calibre is often (if not always) better. I admit, I've never seen the calibres of the Mark and the UTC but I know Sellita is a company producing Eta calibres whose patents (on the movements) and exclusive rights are expired.
Have fun with the post and thank you for reading and eventually contributing!
2,872 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 11, 2008Kavala,
Greece
My only concern is the price Roberto. Much more than the in-house caliber. I would love to have 200 PPCs in SS but I doubt this will be the case for the time being at least. If I had to choose one model, it would be the AT ref 3568 with a rubber strap and not the bracelet with just a small dial variation and case back engraving of the owners name and number e.g 124/200. But I am very curious to see what Schaffhausen will come up with, then we are talking my friend.
5,020 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 29, 2003Sarasota, FL,
United States
Roberto, A fine analysis. I appreciate the detail and care you took to be fair. And this does put things in perspective.
As for me, MF has called upon us to be patient while he gets feedback from the powers that be. So I think the previous post allowed everyone to voice their initial opinions, mine included.
So I am reserving judgement until we have a framework within to work. Like Argiris said, I too am curious to see what Schaffhausen comes up with.
2,081 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 7, 2005
argiris develegas Wrote:My only concern is the price Roberto. Much more than the in-house caliber. I would love to have 200 PPCs in SS but I doubt this will be the case for the time being at least. If I had to choose one model, it would be the AT ref 3568 with a rubber strap and not the bracelet with just a small dial variation and case back engraving of the owners name and number e.g 124/200. But I am very curious to see what Schaffhausen will come up with, then we are talking my friend.
Argi,
that one would be my first choice too!
I agree we have to wait for IWC but I also think the more participation will be, the more this (eventual) CF will be felt by the community as its own.
I remember the process brought to the CFDV and harshly experienced the result. Don't get me wrong, the watch is great but it failed to be - exaclty - "felt" as a representative watch by the community.
To be short, best faith in IWC but let's give them some hints to understand our wishes.
I don't believe we're just people attending a forum, we're a community sponsoring IWC and you know how much any of us does about it. We were here prior the opening of new market's fronteers and will be here after this "golden age" will come to an end, with the permission of IWC, that's obvious.
I'm just saying, give our friends at IWC something to think about :)
2,081 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 7, 2005
Alan Ross Wrote:Roberto, A fine analysis. I appreciate the detail and care you took to be fair. And this does put things in perspective.
As for me, MF has called upon us to be patient while he gets feedback from the powers that be. So I think the previous post allowed everyone to voice their initial opinions, mine included.
So I am reserving judgement until we have a framework within to work. Like Argiris said, I too am curious to see what Schaffhausen comes up with.
Thank you Alan my friend. It's probably a professional deformation of mine but I experienced anything gets better if it's done through the wider contribution possible. It's a matter of contributing, this makes a good community. We have to behave and act as a community, to benefit the best result - imho.
The best we can do, having archived the CFDV experience, is to provide feedbacks via the forum to IWC, and you proved it with your recent post.
3,731 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Thank you for the effort, it shows a lot of heart. Here is my ranking of alternatives mentioned:
1 (c1): Mark XVII. Pro: 1) it's new; 2) affordable price; 3) I wouldn't buy it for myself, although I like it very much.
2 (c5): Ingenieur vintage collection ref. 3233. Pro: 1) pretty watch; 2) affordable price; 3) I still don't have one.
3 (c4): Spitfire chronograph ref. 3878. Pro: 1) very pretty watch. Con: 1) too expensive for a symbol watch; 2) depending on the alterations I might want to buy the original.
4 (c6): Portuguese vintage collection ref. 5445. Pro: 1) pretty watch. Con: 1) I already have two of them.
5 (c2): Worldtimer ref. 3262. Con: 1) too massive; 2) to my eye not really pretty.
6 (c7): Aquatimer vintage collection ref. 3231. Con. 1) I don't really like it, and I don't like the strap on it.
7 (c8): Aquatimer 2000, ref. 3568. Con: 1) I don't really like it, and I don't like the rubber strap on it.
8 (c3): Miramar ref. 3880. Con: 1) too massive; 2) I don't want to wear an American style military watch, to me a bad symbol for the forum.
I am not quite sure where to draw the line, that is: will I buy one or not if it is offered. It depends on the offering, I guess. Possibly between my ranking 2 and 3, or 3 and 4.
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)
2,456 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 7, 2003
Nice overview of candidates. Thanks for giving it some perspective. The VC Ingenieur is still an interesting option. Here a picture of the LE Italy as an example...
Hard to choose, but for me it's first of all the thought behind a forum watch that counts, then the IWC DNA and in the end the price and affordability. So curious where this all will lead too....
You can't stop the waves, but you can learn to surf - Jon Kabat-Zinn
Light saturday post, to continue the dialogue about our common dream watch.
I guess the first step we need to focus on, to reach the target, is to identify the model.
It's fun and it's easy, just make your choice.
It's about the model, not the (eventual) customization.
Please, if you want, first, pick your best choice (mandatory task for any good forumer) and then explain it and/or describe the personalization you'd like to see implemented (optional).
Aware of the output the former thread gifted us, I've chosen 8 models, 4 from the novelties, 3 from the vintage collection, 1 from the current line up of the AT family, just because I've noticed some interest about it as the new CF III.
Please consider it's just a game, just some gentlemen talks about the watch of their desires, nothing but this.
Maybe though, the outputs of the thread could turn out useful to IWC and Michael, thanks to the info contained in it.
Needless to say, I have the best respect for IWC and its right to decide if and eventually what model to propose as CF III.
Michael is also completely not responsible for this thread and, as usual, we owe him our gratitude for guiding and helping us the best possible way.
I took myself permission to add some pro and con, simply trying to describe a little more the watches but it's naturally just my opinion, so means nothing, just some elements to start the discussion from.
Now, let's talk watches!
The Challengers
Challenger 1: Mark XVII. Pro: 1) It's new; 2) affordable price. Con: 1) Not in-house movement.
Challenger 2: Worldtimer ref. 3262. Pro: 1) It's new; 2) original complication. Con: 1) Not in-house movement; 2) Case size to the limits (for many).
Challenger 3: Miramar ref. 3880. Pro: 1) It's new; 2) in-house movement; 3) special case. Con: 1) The price could discourage some fans; 2) big size watch (not a flaw but population here is starting to split in two about this).
Challenger 4: Spitfire chronograph ref. 3878. Pro: 1) It's new; 2) in-house movement. Con: 1) The price could discourage some fans; 2) no soft iron cage; 3) "glamour" version of a pilot's watch (put in the "con" but could stay in the "pro").
Challenger 5: Ingenieur vintage collection ref. 3233. Pro: 1) in-house movement; 2) good value for money; 3) case size "acceptable" to many. Con: 1) no soft iron cage; 2) some collectors already have an ingenieur.
Challenger 6: Portuguese vintage collection ref. 5445. Pro: 1) in-house movement; 2) the best watch of the lot to closely recalling the original (iconic) model; 3) case size "acceptable" to many. Con: 1) manual winding (not a con at all, it's just it's less complicated); 2) some collectors already have it.
Challenger 7: Aquatimer vintage collection ref. 3231. Pro: 1) in-house movement; 2) versatile; 3) good value for money; 4) case size "acceptable" to many. Con. 1) some collectors already have it.
Challenger 8: Aquatimer 2000, ref. 3568. Pro: 1) affordable price; 2) case size "acceptable" to many. Con: 1) not in-house movement; 2) some collectors already have it.
Some brief notes I've put the in-house calibres as a pro, I've nothing against 3Ps movements, it's just a in-house movement speaks more of the brand; some watches have in-house movement they're not worth some others with a 3Ps movement. I usually like to look at the movement and (try) to understand if I like it or not. The comparison between the movements in the post makes me think in-house calibre is often (if not always) better. I admit, I've never seen the calibres of the Mark and the UTC but I know Sellita is a company producing Eta calibres whose patents (on the movements) and exclusive rights are expired.
Have fun with the post and thank you for reading and eventually contributing!
Regards,
Roberto
Last edited: 11 January, 2013 - 11:07
Much more than the in-house caliber.
I would love to have 200 PPCs in SS but I doubt this will be the case for the time being at least.
If I had to choose one model, it would be the AT ref 3568 with a rubber strap and not the bracelet with just a small dial variation and case back engraving of the owners name and number e.g 124/200.
But I am very curious to see what Schaffhausen will come up with, then we are talking my friend.
Best regards
Argiris
A fine analysis. I appreciate the detail and care you took to be fair. And this does put things in perspective.
As for me, MF has called upon us to be patient while he gets feedback from the powers that be. So I think the previous post allowed everyone to voice their initial opinions, mine included.
So I am reserving judgement until we have a framework within to work. Like Argiris said, I too am curious to see what Schaffhausen comes up with.
Last edited: 8 November, 2012 - 12:49
Zyxtimer
Argi,
that one would be my first choice too!
I agree we have to wait for IWC but I also think the more participation will be, the more this (eventual) CF will be felt by the community as its own.
I remember the process brought to the CFDV and harshly experienced the result. Don't get me wrong, the watch is great but it failed to be - exaclty - "felt" as a representative watch by the community.
To be short, best faith in IWC but let's give them some hints to understand our wishes.
I don't believe we're just people attending a forum, we're a community sponsoring IWC and you know how much any of us does about it. We were here prior the opening of new market's fronteers and will be here after this "golden age" will come to an end, with the permission of IWC, that's obvious.
I'm just saying, give our friends at IWC something to think about :)
Regards,
Roberto
Last edited: 11 January, 2013 - 11:07
Thank you Alan my friend. It's probably a professional deformation of mine but I experienced anything gets better if it's done through the wider contribution possible. It's a matter of contributing, this makes a good community. We have to behave and act as a community, to benefit the best result - imho.
The best we can do, having archived the CFDV experience, is to provide feedbacks via the forum to IWC, and you proved it with your recent post.
Regards,
Roberto
Last edited: 11 January, 2013 - 11:07
1 (c1): Mark XVII. Pro: 1) it's new; 2) affordable price; 3) I wouldn't buy it for myself, although I like it very much.
2 (c5): Ingenieur vintage collection ref. 3233. Pro: 1) pretty watch; 2) affordable price; 3) I still don't have one.
3 (c4): Spitfire chronograph ref. 3878. Pro: 1) very pretty watch. Con: 1) too expensive for a symbol watch; 2) depending on the alterations I might want to buy the original.
4 (c6): Portuguese vintage collection ref. 5445. Pro: 1) pretty watch. Con: 1) I already have two of them.
5 (c2): Worldtimer ref. 3262. Con: 1) too massive; 2) to my eye not really pretty.
6 (c7): Aquatimer vintage collection ref. 3231. Con. 1) I don't really like it, and I don't like the strap on it.
7 (c8): Aquatimer 2000, ref. 3568. Con: 1) I don't really like it, and I don't like the rubber strap on it.
8 (c3): Miramar ref. 3880. Con: 1) too massive; 2) I don't want to wear an American style military watch, to me a bad symbol for the forum.
I am not quite sure where to draw the line, that is: will I buy one or not if it is offered. It depends on the offering, I guess. Possibly between my ranking 2 and 3, or 3 and 4.
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)
Hard to choose, but for me it's first of all the thought behind a forum watch that counts, then the IWC DNA and in the end the price and affordability. So curious where this all will lead too....
You can't stop the waves, but you can learn to surf - Jon Kabat-Zinn
Last edited: 28 January, 2012 - 17:25
<u>LOW PRICE</u> as I can see from most previous posts is the common factor to our choice.
As a result we have 3 choices with relatively low price
1.Mark XVII ----->not in-house movement.
2.Aquatimer vintage collection ref. 3231------>some collectors already have it but in-house movement!!
3.Aquatimer 2000, ref. 3568------->not in house movement.
IMHO AT-vintage will be the perfect CFWIII, ...but let's wait the news from IWC my friend.
Best regards
Dimitris
dpsaromialos@gmail.com
Last edited: 6 May, 2013 - 13:26
Wouldn't this look good with nice engraving on the back and a CFF emblazoned on front, right below Schaffhaussen? LOL
Last edited: 8 November, 2012 - 12:49