IWC Schaffhausen

Honestly, I do not know the facts in detail. But I think it does not make sense to credit single persons of a factory, unless they are really doing something outstanding. The people are paid to do their job by the company - they are not externals or freelancers.

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

Last edited: 6 February, 2013 - 20:39

True true, but single individuals and their patents belonging to a company do not last forever. What I'm curious about are the patent pending durations. For example Habring's double/split seconds chronograph modification of the 7750 found in the top gun should be dated by now? Meaning that other manufacturers should be able to adopt the same movement? And thus a drop in the novelty/brand ownership?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But it will be great to get clarification on this... Particularly with reference to Kurt Klaus's perpetual calendar mechanism for instance. How long will the patent belong to IWC?

This theme is complex and pops up from time to time as long as I'm in this forum (since 2001).
A lot of interesting and important statements have been made here.
I think for IWC it is important and correct to go towards the inhouse movements to get a higher reputation, to justify higher prices, to show competence etc. The customers just want inhouse movements in the range IWC is located. So this is a duty.
On the other side for me personally it is important that a movement is well working and affordable for me. That's why I especially like all the Valjoux 7750 watches because this movement is one of the most robust out there. It is well designed and showed it's value for decades. Last but not least has IWC helped this movement to survive during the quartz crisis. One can get a lot of value for money with one of these.
What's very important to me is that a watch is much more than only a good movement.
And I like the day of week feature that is provided by the 7750 which is not available in any other IWC movement except for the perpetual calendars.

Tilo

Last edited: 8 February, 2013 - 15:46

PN Wrote: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

Peter those are all valid points and I'm going to jump in here try to remove myself from being an IWCoholic and watch snob.

In 2002, Mr. Kerns told the collectors that his goal was to have an IWC watch at every price point to match Rolex. And the IWC watches would be better! I'd say he accomplished that.

When Richemont bought JLC, Lange and IWC in 2001, it overpaid the market at that time. They weren't idiots, they knew exactly what they were doing, as it has paid off in spades. If they didn't look at efficiencies of production, they would be foolish. If Panerai is doing power reserves on the back of the movement, it is inevitable that there will be other versions in the Richemont family. IWC is doing ceramic (as it has always been), so is Panerai. There are many examples. Just as Blümlein and other IWC executives and watchmakers helped Lange get off the ground in the 90s, I expect and believe that technology is shared at the Richemont corporate table.

If the entry point for an IWC jumps over $10K, I think it would be a travesty. Unless that is the plan that all the entities will separate themselves by cost first and then style, function, metal, etc.

While this is a spectacular thread, I only say that as I doubt (IMHO) that less than 10% of IWC buyers really care "what's under the hood," even though the sales/marketing team talks that up.

I don't expect, even though, as an old-timer, IWC to ever go back to making simple tool and dress watches, unless the market flip flops. Nowadays it is about pushing the envelope in complications, unique (and possibly, over-the-top)designs, and brand alliances. I'll leave it to others to decide if that the successful path.

Do you think Lamborghini loses sales because Audi makes the engine? Does your spouse/significant other/mistress care if you use Viagra or Cialis?

Larry

The greatest IWC is the one that is inbound."

Larry Seiden Wrote in reply to:

PN Wrote: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

Peter those are all valid points and I'm going to jump in here try to remove myself from being an IWCoholic and watch snob.

In 2002, Mr. Kerns told the collectors that his goal was to have an IWC watch at every price point to match Rolex. And the IWC watches would be better! I'd say he accomplished that.

When Richemont bought JLC, Lange and IWC in 2001, it overpaid the market at that time. They weren't idiots, they knew exactly what they were doing, as it has paid off in spades. If they didn't look at efficiencies of production, they would be foolish. If Panerai is doing power reserves on the back of the movement, it is inevitable that there will be other versions in the Richemont family. IWC is doing ceramic (as it has always been), so is Panerai. There are many examples. Just as Blümlein and other IWC executives and watchmakers helped Lange get off the ground in the 90s, I expect and believe that technology is shared at the Richemont corporate table.

If the entry point for an IWC jumps over $10K, I think it would be a travesty. Unless that is the plan that all the entities will separate themselves by cost first and then style, function, metal, etc.

While this is a spectacular thread, I only say that as I doubt (IMHO) that less than 10% of IWC buyers really care "what's under the hood," even though the sales/marketing team talks that up.

I don't expect, even though, as an old-timer, IWC to ever go back to making simple tool and dress watches, unless the market flip flops. Nowadays it is about pushing the envelope in complications, unique (and possibly, over-the-top)designs, and brand alliances. I'll leave it to others to decide if that the successful path.

Do you think Lamborghini loses sales because Audi makes the engine? Does your spouse/significant other/mistress care if you use Viagra or Cialis?

Larry

Larry, excellent post. Except I am not sure if you ever should compare IWC to Rolex. Different shoe size, IMHO.

We have seen that people on highest management level also change their minds. I am not sure how I want to judge on this. It can show that somebody is able to learn, but it also can show an opportunistic attitude.

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