thomasa8 Wrote:Sorry. I don't like marriages.
Last edited: 9 May, 2014 - 13:36
Last edited: 19 November, 2014 - 19:56
Cesus Wrote:It is what you make out of it but not a genuine IWC. Don´t get me wrong, it´s a beautiful watch and now it has a very interesting history for yourself and you can be proud of it. But I don´t understand why you insist to have a genuine IWC when it never can be one - just because of this history. And with the 5001 you have already a genuine IWC …Regards,-christian
I used to think it was clever to confuse comedy with tragedy. Now I wish I could distinguish them. John le Carré
Last edited: 3 May, 2015 - 09:15
clepsydra Wrote:Hi Christophe,Those who say that your watch is not an IWC are correct. You have made a beautiful watch, with an excellent IWC movement, but that is not enough to an IWC make.I like your project, assuming you did not destroy a pocket watch to accomplish it. I engaged in a similar project a while ago, using the movement, dial and hands of a pocket watch in my collection, which I seldom wear. The difference is that I kept the pocket watch, and swap the movement between the steel case and the pocket watch case, depending on my whim. This watch is not and will never be for sale. I did it mainly because I like the Portugieser design, and was not comfortable wearing neither my Ref 325 nor my Ref 5441 on a daily basis. This one gets a lot of wrist time and some pocket time.