IWC Schaffhausen

ShaneIwc Wrote:Personally I think it would be a mistake to move away from the entry level models with the non in house (ETA) movements, as I think it will stop a lot of novices from falling in love with IWC in the first place and therefore affect their long term viability. My first IWC was a Portofino with an ETA movement, I now own 17 IWC's with a mix of in house and outsourced movements, if it wasn't for my first Portofino I might never have purchased an IWC ( but then again I have wanted a Da Vinci PPC since I was a kid) so I might still be an IWCAHOLIC.

I don't disagree with You my Friend, we are everyone IWCHOLICS and everyone has a possibility to have to own opinion, everything has advantages and disadvantages

Last edited: 1 February, 2013 - 17:28

What I know about running a watch company wouldn't fill a matchbook. Having said that, I can see this strategy succeeding. I don't think that a brand has to offer models in the entry segment in order to succeed. Many of us here, in fact, have bought other, less expensive, brands first and then moved on to IWC.

Independent of market considerations, I like manufacture movements. Not because they are necessarily better than sourced movements but because, to me at least, they make a watch more uniquely of the brand, more substantially different from what other brands are selling. This appeals to me.

In any case, it appears that IWC are taking a very measured approach to the transition which seems very prudent. The move upmarket seems to have been going on for some time and seems to have been successful so far.

Best regards,
David

pniev Wrote:Coming back to an old discussion: What about a shared production facility for base movements within Richemont with variations per company? I'm still curious if that will ever happen. (Or did I miss a development in recent years?)

There are some recent developments you may have missed.

First, Richemont has developed a group movement manufacture, ValFleurier
See this article from 2006:
http://www.europastar.com/magazine/highlights/1002198110-val-fleurier-responds-to-richemont-s-movement.html
and if you can read French here's a nice update from 2011:
http://www.worldtempus.com/fr/actualites/a-la-une/details/article/1313417788-richemont-la-manufacture-neuchateloise-valfleurier-va-creer-500-emplois/

Also, Richemont is developing a "high horology" campus in Geneva. This article explains it:
http://journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/echoes/training/-3515/

IWC currently has made limited use of these facilities.

Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com

Last edited: 30 January, 2013 - 15:51

Michael Friedberg Wrote:

There are some recent developments you may have missed.

First, Richemont has developed a group movement manufacture, ValFleurier
See this article from 2006:
http://www.europastar.com/magazine/highlights/1002198110-val-fleurier-responds-to-richemont-s-movement.html
and if you can read French here's a nice update from 2011:
http://www.worldtempus.com/fr/actualites/a-la-une/details/article/1313417788-richemont-la-manufacture-neuchateloise-valfleurier-va-creer-500-emplois/

Also, Richemont is developing a "high horology" campus in Geneva. This article explains it:
http://journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/echoes/training/-3515/

IWC currently has made limited use of these facilities.

Thanks Michael! Quite an impressive investment. Also interesting to read that the new facilities are in the Geneva region, especially the reference to the Geneva hallmark and Richemont's desire to be part of that.

I am curious if IWC will make use of the facilities in the future.

Peter

Last edited: 7 February, 2013 - 18:18

Hello everybody,

A very interesting topic, and with well articulated opinions. I agree that here is no one and only truth.

I still have only vintage IWC's equipped with calibre 89 & 8541B movements. I'm extremely impressed with the performance of the 8541.

I'm now considering my first contemporary IWC. In this process it has become clear to me that for me, an inhouse movement is a must. Let's see what will eventually be the choice - right now I'm leaning towards the ref 3878...

/Anders

watch the time...

Last edited: 9 April, 2013 - 19:22

But tell me Michael, what are Your feelings, when You're buying watch with manufacture movement for X Euros and after a few months You would see watch in the same movement for half of that price. I'm curious about Your opinion.

Last edited: 1 February, 2013 - 17:28

I guess if you want to be in the same league as Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Blancpain, to name a few, you will have to. It's all about image and emotion, and a good build-up. IWC is doing well.

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)

Michael Friedberg Wrote:Far be it from me to tell anyone how to run their business, but to me the trick would be to replace the entry level segment with a new in-house movement that could be slightly more, but not say almost double in price. That may not be possible, however, without compromising quality.

Michael, I hope very much that IWC will follow your straightforward input in this everlasting issue. I believe that having the entry segment watches with in-house movements at price levels you have mentioned will lead to a swift of new potential customers in the direction of IWC.

Last edited: 13 April, 2013 - 14:58

The image challenge with ETA comes from the fact that it is also used by many lower end brands. I don't remember anybody disparaging Audemars Piquet, Vacheron Constantin, and Patek Philippe for sharing the JLC caliber 920. Bearing that in mind, one solution for IWC could be a co-operation with some other high-level Richemont brands, like Jaeger-LeCoultre and Cartier for example. They could create an ebauche used jointly with brand-specific finishing. This would help to drive unit cost down, so IWC could replace ETA/Sellita sourced movements, while keeping the price increase at palatable level.