IWC Schaffhausen

Michael Friedberg Wrote:Years ago, when I moderated another watch forum I sometimes jokingly accused the participants of a "TZ view of the world". I hope that doesn't apply here, although I guess we all see the world only from our perspective. We all should realize that the market may be different than we perceive, and our values --for better or worse-- may not reflect the market.

Michael, that of course is completely correct, as we here are sitting on some information we gathered, some might be wrong, "colored" by the source or even right. I am not sure if you had a Q&A session with Georges Kern at SIHH, but: As this topic seems to interest many people here (and I am honestly glad that the discussion is possible here): Why wouldn't it be possible to have something like a "live discussion / stream" for forum members via social media with for example the person who heads product management at IWC? It does not have to be Kern himself, but somebody who actually knows the facts and reasons. Similar things have been done successfully by other brands, and it would really help to get more knowledge into the community, to have fact-based conversations and improve customer loyalty.

You come from nothing, you go back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!

Michael Friedberg Wrote:
Leon, I concur with your second paragraph but --following up on my preceding post here-- not necessarily the first. Differentiation may be sufficient for you based on your values and perception, For other consumers, they may buy something different than brand story or heritage. They may value differentiation only in other ways, be that in-house movements, distinctive designs or materials, limited editions, etc. It's a big world out there, and some values (like history, which means something to me) don't necessarily market as well in this era.

Michael - that is, in essence, what I was trying to say. Thank you for your more eloquent statement. We all have are own preferences and reasons for them.

Best regards,
David

Another point here I would like to make is that even though IWC might purchase movements manufactured by another company, ETA for example, IWC enhance those movements and make them a much better movement and thereby add value and expertise. As an example take the IWC Ingenieur 500,000AM. This has an ETA 2892-A2 movement as its base movement but IWC enhanced this movement to create the most anti magnetic watch ever created. With this type of enhancement I think it adds to the IWC brand and not detracts from it, so see no need for IWC to have 100% in house movement. From a business point of view you get economies of scale from producing and selling more watches as it helps cover your fixed costs.

Live long and prosper

ShaneIwc Wrote:Another point here I would like to make is that even though IWC might purchase movements manufactured by another company, ETA for example, IWC enhance those movements and make them a much better movement and thereby add value and expertise.

Yes, but I still don't know how the modern outsourced movements are enhanced.

Regards,

Bas

dmath Wrote:I think we should be careful about attributing motives to others. My preference for in-house movements has nothing to do with snobbery, nor is it derived from a belief that accuracy, durability and servicing are necessarily better for in-house. For me, in-house is a way that brands distinguish themselves and make their watches more uniquely their own. The 51011 and the 89361 are uniquely IWC just as the look and feel of the Portuguese is. And who among us would want to live in a world without Herr Klaus' perpetual movement?

Well said David.

Vahalis Wrote in reply to:

ShaneIwc Wrote:Another point here I would like to make is that even though IWC might purchase movements manufactured by another company, ETA for example, IWC enhance those movements and make them a much better movement and thereby add value and expertise.

Yes, but I still don't know how the modern outsourced movements are enhanced.

+1!

You come from nothing, you go back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!

I’ve read this thread with great interest, especially since it is a recurring theme for us watch nuts. It made me wonder what I’ve learned so far about the watch industry and the in-house movement discussions. So I tried to summarize my own thoughts (which is indeed subject to confirmation bias too), not to teach but just to understand and share:

1. From a business perspective it does not make sense to produce everything in-house unless volumes suffice to justify the investments. No high-end company produces everything in-house, perhaps with exception of Rolex (not sure though). Parmigiani claims to produce 100% in-house but this means that all components are produced with the Santos conglomerate. Every company, including Patek and Lange, buys components that meet their specifications. Let us take a simple example: screws. Prices of screws vary between a few cents and 10 euros (if I recall correctly). Patek, Lange and Parmigiani use the top notch screws (I do not know which screws IWC buys, but it is another category).

   
2. So I wondered what in-house meant to me. When the case is produced in-house? (Lange does not). When balance springs are produced in-house? Dials? Hands? Screws? bridges? jewels? etc. To me (stressing the “me” here as others may have different opinions!) design rather than production defines the term “in-house”.
   
3. In-house design - from dial to movement - defines the look and feel of a watch that separates one company from the other. Dial shape and layout, colors, size/shape of lugs, size of movement vs case, etc. all influence how people experience a watch. Experience is further influenced by marketing efforts and operational procedures (e.g. assembly, regulation, quality control and testing) and last-but-definitely-not-least our own expectations and experience captured in our brain cells. Some companies apply a holistic approach when they develop a new watch where “outside” and “inside” must be in total harmony (Lange). Obviously this makes a watch very expensive and out of reach for most people. Others save cost by designing movements for multiple types of watches. 

   
4. As a collector I decided to enjoy the beauty of a watch (personally I love seeing movements), the cleverness of the design, the image of a brand, and the possibility to meet other people who like the same things that I like. I love meeting with people who have entirely different views than I have on what defines beauty and a “good” design. If everyone would be like me, the world would be a boring place. ;-) 

   
5. To me IWC always stood for simplicity and functionality, embodied in the people who designed, developed, assembled, and delivered the watches. People such as Mr. Blümlein, Mr. Klaus, Mr. Pellaton, Mr. Pantli, and many others, including the collectors. But their views were not the same as those of Jones, Rauschenbauch and Seeland. Mr. Kern has taken the company into a different direction and there is nothing wrong with that. He has established the name IWC and has brought sales and profitability to record highs. The new designs has also attracted new buyers with new preferences. And that is great (frankly, I was sick and tired of it for a while but distancing really helped to put things into perspective. ;-) ). Repositioning IWC at a higher (price) level will indeed bring IWC into a new era but what is wrong with that? Many of us may not like it but others will love it. As long as there is room for different tastes and opinions
   




Just my 2 cents and entirely subjective.....

Thanks everyone for contributing to this topic.

Peter

Last edited: 7 February, 2013 - 18:18

regulateur Wrote in reply to:

Vahalis Wrote in reply to:

ShaneIwc Wrote:Another point here I would like to make is that even though IWC might purchase movements manufactured by another company, ETA for example, IWC enhance those movements and make them a much better movement and thereby add value and expertise.

Yes, but I still don't know how the modern outsourced movements are enhanced.

+1!

It is my understanding (I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong) that IWC specifies the components needed based on the detailed design, orders the components, and put them together (assembly). I'm not sure if assembly is always done inhouse or partly outsourced). So for example, IWC may order a base ETA-plate and bridges, screws, etc. from various vendors, store them and use them when a specific batch of watches is assembled. This gives IWC control over the quality of the components used in a watch.

Last edited: 7 February, 2013 - 18:18

pniev Wrote in reply to:

regulateur Wrote in reply to:

Vahalis Wrote in reply to:

ShaneIwc Wrote:Another point here I would like to make is that even though IWC might purchase movements manufactured by another company, ETA for example, IWC enhance those movements and make them a much better movement and thereby add value and expertise.

Yes, but I still don't know how the modern outsourced movements are enhanced.

+1!

It is my understanding (I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong) that IWC specifies the components needed based on the detailed design, orders the components, and put them together (assembly). I'm not sure if assembly is always done inhouse or partly outsourced). So for example, IWC may order a base ETA-plate and bridges, screws, etc. from various vendors, store them and use them when a specific batch of watches is assembled. This gives IWC control over the quality of the components used in a watch.

I understood that for instance the whole 30110 movement is made by ETA, according to IWC specifications. That is, there is maybe some quality control when the movements arrive at IWC, but no modifications by IWC. That would be in line with the strategy of ETA to not deliver half-products to other companies anymore. Because of the IWC specifications ETA still delivers, where other companies are or will not getting ETA movements anymore. Of course, I stand corrected too...

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)