Michael Friedberg Wrote:Vincent --agreed. The one deficit is that the regulator is a bit primitive, but it's still a classic movement. We talked, mostly in jest, that it would be a very cool movement for a collectors' forum watch, but it's not realistic to produce some for such a project.
Last edited: 22 January, 2015 - 08:48
flyrobyfly36 Wrote:It looks like bridges are kept together, probably to facilitate assembling/disassembling process?
Time flies, Passion stays !
Last edited: 2 April, 2014 - 06:49
Michael Friedberg Wrote:OK --some more. This is "technically" a new movement, used ONLY in IWC's watchmaking promotional classes!The problem is that weren't enough of the "old" pocket watch movements laying around. Calibre 95x's were first used, then Calibre 98x's. But IWC didn't have an unlimited supply of these and, as you might imagine there's some wear and tear when mangled by "amateur" watchmakers.Now --IWC did have its Jones movements, a version of the Calibre 98. But those movements were redesigned Cal. 982's that had a three-quarter plate and a special regulator (the Jones arrow). The plate hid the movement and the regulator required more disassembly.So --IWC redesigned the Jones movement to have separate, and easily accessible bridges. And note the simple regulator --there's not even a Swan's Neck spring to hold it in place.Bottom line: this is a movement in current "production" but not used in any specific IWC reference. I think that might be a first for IWC. It is truly a "school movement".