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)
Last edited: 31 January, 2013 - 20:47
dzul Wrote:I have the "unfortunate" circumstance of being a working class consumer with a more than healthy affection for IWC watches...actually a virulent case of the dreaded uhrenvirus. I traveled the road from my first Mark XVI to the CFDV carefully balancing my financial resources with my desire for the watches. I truly regret any move toward less and less accessable price points within the IWC line. I may never have the income to be able to afford the PPC of my dreams...but I would like to have some choices that I could afford. What I really suspect is that I'm just not part of the 'target audience' for the IWC of the future. I can still look at the pictures!!! LOL!
Last edited: 27 October, 2013 - 12:55
Last edited: 26 November, 2013 - 17:33
Rave Wrote:I think people should view this debate from the Richemont level. The Group has a portfolio of brands or Maisons. I think they have done a great job of managing the various brands as a portfolio (to some extent, in the same way that IWC manages its portfolio of sub-brands). The temptation for Richemont to reduce costs and pool resources or even base movements is there. If the consumer thought that an IWC was a JLC, Mont Blanc or B&M in another guise the brands would suffer. For example, AL&S is a brand and product line that should always be 100% in house. IWC is a combination of in-house and sourced movements. In the context of the portfolio of Richemont maisons, I can see the time when they may take the decision to position the brand at a certain price point and above with all watches having manufactory movements. However, it is important that there are distinguishing features between the brands/Maisons. For example, if I was an owner of a Ref 5041 Portuguese Sidereal and saw the same movement appear in another Richemenot brand, I would be hugely upset. From a Richemont point of view, maybe IWC should be positioned at say, $12,000 and above. If you want cheaper, then there are other products to satisfy that need. The big question is whether the buyers of IWC's production of 60,000 pieces a year are bothered with this debate. It is most likely that they're not.
You come from nothing, you go back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!
Last edited: 20 June, 2013 - 09:25
Vahalis Wrote:Leon,This is not a discussion about a high volume comodity, this is about a luxury good. People want to buy an exclusive product, something special. For al lot of people ETA/Sellita is not special enough. In house is a unique selling point.I don't mind buying an IWC with a ETA or Sellita movement as long as it is to IWC standards. Problem for me is that it is not clear what those standards are. What makes a 30110 different from a normal 2892A2? There have been articles in the past about the modifications. But, that was when IWC did the modifications. What about today?
Last edited: 2 February, 2013 - 11:07
Last edited: 13 June, 2013 - 05:31