2,996 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 2, 2011Hong Kong,
Hong Kong
Just read the latest log post: http://iwcwatches.tumblr.com/ where it was reported:
In 1976 the timepiece received a significant upgrade, when designer Gerald Genta created what became referred to as the Ingenieur SL (which stood for Safety and Longevity). The enhancements that came with the SL indeed provided both: while the standard for anti-magnetic watches is 4,800 amperes per meter, the SL delivered a watch that kept consistent time within 80,000 amperes per meter. No small feat, and one that stands today. The SL also brought 12 bar water resistance and new design details — both of which also remain.
I recall earlier discussions in the archive that SL could stand for Sports Line, or Sporting Line, Slim Line without a definitive conclusion. Does this put the matter to rest ?
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.
I know of absolutely no foundation for claiming "safety and longetivity" as the basis for the letters.
I very much like the Blog, but keep in mind that it's not as focused on in-depth research. This is not to impugn the Blog in any way --in fact, there can be very good writing and interesting information, and the Blog can be very useful even if it can't be as in-depth as detailed research.
Still, it's possible some 30+ year old document was discovered and new information is available. But in this instance and with respect to Blog, I seriously doubt it based upon numerous discussions over many years and reviews of marketing literature in the 1970s for the entire SL line.
1,589 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 16, 2002
Were SL models slim by the standards of the day? Were SL models sporty by design as against the true divers etc types or true dress models? Did SL apply to a select few movements. Maybe a process of elimination to establish the meaning or was it marketing hype?
The UK Greg Wrote:Were SL models slim by the standards of the day? Were SL models sporty by design as against the true divers etc types or true dress models? Did SL apply to a select few movements. Maybe a process of elimination to establish the meaning or was it marketing hype?
Greg, to answer your questions please search the archived posts. This has been discussed several times, and doesn't apply to movements. All the watches were steel and some have suggested "steel line". But they were sporty (not sports, like divers) models, and some have suggested "sports line". Some were ladies models and some did not have SL on the dial. There is some marketing literature from this era as well referencing SL.
33 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 5, 2011Zurich,
Switzerland
SL and Golf Clubs:
I've been looking for Golf Club models for some time. In an older post here on the forum, Michael Friedberg mentioned that an IWC Golf Club SL always features a steel bracelet. However, I've seen a number of Golf Clubs with a strap and the "SL" on the dial. Does that indicate that either the dial was exchanged or that the steel bracelet was replaced for a leather strap? Or, were some of the Golf Club SL models still delivered with leather straps?
I've been looking for Golf Club models for some time. In an older post here on the forum, Michael Friedberg mentioned that an IWC Golf Club SL always features a steel bracelet. However, I've seen a number of Golf Clubs with a strap and the "SL" on the dial. Does that indicate that either the dial was exchanged or that the steel bracelet was replaced for a leather strap? Or, were some of the Golf Club SL models still delivered with leather straps?
Michael
Michael --did I say that? I don't recall, but in all events I recall seeing the earlier SL models with bracelets (and adverstising literature showing that) but I also recall some later SL models with leather straps.
Mystery solved....kind of. The "image book" published a few years by IWC apparently says that SL = Safety & Longevity. Candidly, based on the reports in the archives there has been credible contrary information on this forum, and I don't believe that a huge book with tens of thousands facts is necessarily correct on every single one. But at least there is a source for the information on the Blog.
By the way, some people may have felt that I was being critical of the Blog. That's unfortunate --I've been nothing but consistently supportive of it and its purpose. The fact that there can't always be in-depth research there, etc., or that I (or others) might disagree on a fact --here, a very narrow fact with limited significance-- is not intended as a criticism.
In 1976 the timepiece received a significant upgrade, when designer Gerald Genta created what became referred to as the Ingenieur SL (which stood for Safety and Longevity). The enhancements that came with the SL indeed provided both: while the standard for anti-magnetic watches is 4,800 amperes per meter, the SL delivered a watch that kept consistent time within 80,000 amperes per meter. No small feat, and one that stands today. The SL also brought 12 bar water resistance and new design details — both of which also remain.
I recall earlier discussions in the archive that SL could stand for Sports Line, or Sporting Line, Slim Line without a definitive conclusion. Does this put the matter to rest ?
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
I very much like the Blog, but keep in mind that it's not as focused on in-depth research. This is not to impugn the Blog in any way --in fact, there can be very good writing and interesting information, and the Blog can be very useful even if it can't be as in-depth as detailed research.
Still, it's possible some 30+ year old document was discovered and new information is available. But in this instance and with respect to Blog, I seriously doubt it based upon numerous discussions over many years and reviews of marketing literature in the 1970s for the entire SL line.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
Were SL models sporty by design as against the true divers etc types or true dress models?
Did SL apply to a select few movements.
Maybe a process of elimination to establish the meaning or was it marketing hype?
Cheers Greg Chalk
Cvanwhite at aol dot com
Last edited: 21 February, 2013 - 13:47
LOL
Safety and Longevity to the nice blogger and to Sophia also!
:)
Regards,
Roberto
Last edited: 11 January, 2013 - 11:07
Greg, to answer your questions please search the archived posts. This has been discussed several times, and doesn't apply to movements. All the watches were steel and some have suggested "steel line". But they were sporty (not sports, like divers) models, and some have suggested "sports line". Some were ladies models and some did not have SL on the dial. There is some marketing literature from this era as well referencing SL.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
All the watches were steel and some have suggested "steel line".
Which was a bit unfortunate for any bi-metal variants.
I've been looking for Golf Club models for some time. In an older post here on the forum, Michael Friedberg mentioned that an IWC Golf Club SL always features a steel bracelet. However, I've seen a number of Golf Clubs with a strap and the "SL" on the dial. Does that indicate that either the dial was exchanged or that the steel bracelet was replaced for a leather strap? Or, were some of the Golf Club SL models still delivered with leather straps?
Michael
Michael --did I say that? I don't recall, but in all events I recall seeing the earlier SL models with bracelets (and adverstising literature showing that) but I also recall some later SL models with leather straps.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
By the way, some people may have felt that I was being critical of the Blog. That's unfortunate --I've been nothing but consistently supportive of it and its purpose. The fact that there can't always be in-depth research there, etc., or that I (or others) might disagree on a fact --here, a very narrow fact with limited significance-- is not intended as a criticism.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53