217 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 27, 2001
clepsydra Wrote:Although the Seeland era is obviously an important chapter of IWC's history, horologically speaking, it appears to have been a low point. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes horologically you are right, but it is a part of the IWC-history, as Adrian decsribed, so for serious pw collectors it is a "must" to get one of this rare watches.
1,911 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 4, 2001
JimmyR Wrote: Tony, you are quite right about the quality, if the name International watch hadn´t been present, or the watches were not in some way related to IWC, I suspect these watches would have been binned a long time ago ;-)...but...I collect and have them restored for what they are, a part of IWC´s heritage, no matter what quality. I like to compare these artifacts to my old Porsche, of course the new(er) ones are more sophisticated but it´s the oldies that ooze tradition. Best Regards Jimmy
I am in total agreement with you. If I could purchase an airplane for my personal enjoyment I would never buy a modern machine, with all the bells and whistles. I would buy a Spitfite, a Mustang, or even a DC-3. My point was that the Seeland PWs were already of lesser quality at the time they were produced, while your Porsche, and my dream airplanes were top the line when they were designed and produced. BTW, will you post an image of the Porsche? Put a Seeland on the bonnet/hood to stay on subjet. :)
1,100 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
For me, this "Seeland c.24" similar movements are still "under observation". As this movements where quite different from the c.24 and there are also identical movements/watches without the "International Watch Co" signature, I still belive this are "early fakes" of IWC watches and not made by IWC.
(I don't want to make them bad, I have also at least one in my collection)
The differences are too big to the c.24 so it is not just a newer style. I think it is an other make.
But this is just my optimion.
regards
Ralph
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
166 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
Hello Ralph, I don´t know how to handle you comment, do you mean my watch? If so you can discuss it here, or maybe even send Alan Myres a mail, I´m sure he would like to hear your opinion.
Here are a few more photos of the same watch as mine, Movement No´s.17480, 17484 Mine has the Serial No 17477, so all very close together. Notice the plate on the movement No 17484 has now been changed, the recess on the plate was omitted as the winding was no longer done directly at the going barrel. Also a couple of pictures of the gears and parts, just in case you´d like to make one yourself ;-) Best Regards
2,149 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 23, 2001
The comment of Ralph Ehrismann is very interesting. I can not take part on the technical details as I have no knowledge on it. But the term "early fake" sounds interesting to me. Why would a relatively cheap movement, made by a company that already went into bankcrupty, 7 years after it had been founded and which had no reputation at all during those days, be copied or faked? Why copying an IWC made full plate movement while the market was full of cheap nearly the same watches, mechanically made by several large U.S. manufacturers? Could it not be that IWC just bought "ébauches" from other companies as they possibly did with the ultra flat C.H Meylan ébauches and as they did for their famous "Schaufensteruhr"? I have difficulties to believe that any advantage for any person would occur by "faking" a cheap watch back in 1875-1880. Is there any proof that faking and copying was carried out during those days, while we know that multiple patents were registrated and granted to every watch manufacturer? Further, the fact that a cal. 24 is very different from the watch shown by Jimmy, may not impress me very much. There are several examples of different movements belonging to the same caliber name. Take for instance cal. 67. There was an old cal 67 and the "new" cal 67 as we know it in the military pocket watches (KM). The names are identical, the movements completely different. Kind regards, Adrian, (alwaysiwc).
1,100 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
alwaysiwc Wrote:The comment of Ralph Ehrismann is very interesting. I can not take part on the technical details as I have no knowledge on it. But the term "early fake" sounds interesting to me. Why would a relatively cheap movement, made by a company that already went into bankcrupty, 7 years after it had been founded and which had no reputation at all during those days, be copied or faked? Why copying an IWC made full plate movement while the market was full of cheap nearly the same watches, mechanically made by several large U.S. manufacturers? Could it not be that IWC just bought "ébauches" from other companies as they possibly did with the ultra flat C.H Meylan ébauches and as they did for their famous "Schaufensteruhr"? I have difficulties to believe that any advantage for any person would occur by "faking" a cheap watch back in 1875-1880. Is there any proof that faking and copying was carried out during those days, while we know that multiple patents were registrated and granted to every watch manufacturer? Further, the fact that a cal. 24 is very different from the watch shown by Jimmy, may not impress me very much. There are several examples of different movements belonging to the same caliber name. Take for instance cal. 67. There was an old cal 67 and the "new" cal 67 as we know it in the military pocket watches (KM). The names are identical, the movements completely different. Kind regards, Adrian, (alwaysiwc).
It is not clear why IWC should buy such cheap ebauches, when they had still a huge lot of unfinished movements (see inventory of brankrupty) in stock after the financial disaster of Mr Seeland. It makes sence to buy expensive/ special ebauches. But cheap ones ?
Ebauches are normally not signed by a with a "trade mark" as it is an ebauche, just a raw movmenet, where the quality is done by the finishing.
It is a different movement family compared to the Seeland "BOSTON" group (c.24, c.25, c.26) From the size, this one should be compared to the c.25. There are significant small differences which are production based (we do it this way), so there is no reason why IWC should change habits. So there should also be some indications in the sales books for thos watches/movements.
Jimmy mentioned Alan Myers. He is specialist in analyzing details of the signatures of the movements. Maybe he has compared the "International Watch Co" signature of this TRADE "Fly" MARK movements to the Seeland C.25 ones.
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
2,149 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 23, 2001
Ralph, Please see the comment of Alan Myers earlier in this thread. He is convinced that this is a genuine IWC watch Tschopp Boston (not a Seeland) from 1882/1883. The same watch with a "bee" trademark is in his own collection. Kind regards, Adrian, (alwaysiwc).
166 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 9, 2009
Thank you Adrian...Alan and I have had excessive discussions on this watch, he has asked me to keep his answers confidential, this I will respect, but, what I can quote is his last reply after I copied and pasted the last few comments.
Hi Jimmy, I agree one hundred percent with Adrian. These are no fakes. Alan
1,100 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
I appriciate Alan's Work. He is a great specialist in old IWC-Pocket watches, he works very accurate and he compared every details in the signatures of the Jones movements. He found very interesting facts which increaced the knowledge of the IWC- collectors community.
I also have one of those "International watch Co" & Trade Mark signed watches. The same movement exists also without "International watch Co", but I think I never bough one of those.
I tried here to compare, with my simple tools and images, the signatures of various old IWC watches built between approx. 1875 and 1885 (c.18 to c.47), the period, this TRADE MARK watches are in this discussion assigned to.
It is very interesting, that during the time, the signature did not change a lot (it was the IWC trade mark). In the picture there is also one signature of that "Trade Mark" watch. It can easily be identified when comparing the initial letters "I" and "W".
This fact lefts in me more than a small doubt if this is really a genuine "IWC"-watch. But my knowledge on old watches is not absolut and I may be wrong. I like it to discus and somtimes I just take a position to keep a discussion going on.
Best regards
Ralph
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
Yes horologically you are right, but it is a part of the IWC-history, as Adrian decsribed, so for serious pw collectors it is a "must" to get one of this rare watches.
I am in total agreement with you. If I could purchase an airplane for my personal enjoyment I would never buy a modern machine, with all the bells and whistles. I would buy a Spitfite, a Mustang, or even a DC-3.
My point was that the Seeland PWs were already of lesser quality at the time they were produced, while your Porsche, and my dream airplanes were top the line when they were designed and produced.
BTW, will you post an image of the Porsche? Put a Seeland on the bonnet/hood to stay on subjet. :)
clepsydra
ad fontes...
Last edited: 11 February, 2013 - 12:20
As this movements where quite different from the c.24 and there are also identical movements/watches without the "International Watch Co" signature,
I still belive this are "early fakes" of IWC watches and not made by IWC.
(I don't want to make them bad, I have also at least one in my collection)
The differences are too big to the c.24 so it is not just a newer style. I think it is an other make.
But this is just my optimion.
regards
Ralph
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
Last edited: 23 May, 2013 - 23:51
Here are a few more photos of the same watch as mine, Movement No´s.17480, 17484
Mine has the Serial No 17477, so all very close together. Notice the plate on the movement No 17484 has now been changed, the recess on the plate was omitted as the winding was no longer done directly at the going barrel. Also a couple of pictures of the gears and parts, just in case you´d like to make one yourself ;-)
Best Regards
Jimmy
Last edited: 14 February, 2013 - 13:30
I can not take part on the technical details as I have no knowledge on it. But the term "early fake" sounds interesting to me.
Why would a relatively cheap movement, made by a company that already went into bankcrupty, 7 years after it had been founded and which had no reputation at all during those days, be copied or faked?
Why copying an IWC made full plate movement while the market was full of cheap nearly the same watches, mechanically made by several large U.S. manufacturers?
Could it not be that IWC just bought "ébauches" from other companies as they possibly did with the ultra flat C.H Meylan ébauches and as they did for their famous "Schaufensteruhr"?
I have difficulties to believe that any advantage for any person would occur by "faking" a cheap watch back in 1875-1880. Is there any proof that faking and copying was carried out during those days, while we know that multiple patents were registrated and granted to every watch manufacturer?
Further, the fact that a cal. 24 is very different from the watch shown by Jimmy, may not impress me very much. There are several examples of different movements belonging to the same caliber name. Take for instance cal. 67. There was an old cal 67 and the "new" cal 67 as we know it in the military pocket watches (KM). The names are identical, the movements completely different.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
It is not clear why IWC should buy such cheap ebauches, when they had still a huge lot of unfinished movements (see inventory of brankrupty) in stock after the financial disaster of Mr Seeland.
It makes sence to buy expensive/ special ebauches. But cheap ones ?
Ebauches are normally not signed by a with a "trade mark" as it is an ebauche, just a raw movmenet, where the quality is done by the finishing.
It is a different movement family compared to the Seeland "BOSTON" group (c.24, c.25, c.26) From the size, this one should be compared to the c.25.
There are significant small differences which are production based (we do it this way), so there is no reason why IWC should change habits. So there should also be some indications in the sales books for thos watches/movements.
Jimmy mentioned Alan Myers. He is specialist in analyzing details of the signatures of the movements. Maybe he has compared the "International Watch Co" signature of this TRADE "Fly" MARK movements to the Seeland C.25 ones.
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
Last edited: 23 May, 2013 - 23:51
Please see the comment of Alan Myers earlier in this thread.
He is convinced that this is a genuine IWC watch Tschopp Boston (not a Seeland) from 1882/1883. The same watch with a "bee" trademark is in his own collection.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
Best Regards
Jimmy
Last edited: 15 February, 2013 - 17:51
He is a great specialist in old IWC-Pocket watches, he works very accurate and he compared every details in the signatures of the Jones movements.
He found very interesting facts which increaced the knowledge of the IWC- collectors community.
I also have one of those "International watch Co" & Trade Mark signed watches.
The same movement exists also without "International watch Co", but I think I never bough one of those.
I tried here to compare, with my simple tools and images, the signatures of various old IWC watches built between approx. 1875 and 1885 (c.18 to c.47), the period, this TRADE MARK watches are in this discussion assigned to.
It is very interesting, that during the time, the signature did not change a lot (it was the IWC trade mark). In the picture there is also one signature of that "Trade Mark" watch.
It can easily be identified when comparing the initial letters "I" and "W".
This fact lefts in me more than a small doubt if this is really a genuine "IWC"-watch.
But my knowledge on old watches is not absolut and I may be wrong.
I like it to discus and somtimes I just take a position to keep a discussion going on.
Best regards
Ralph
Watches show the time flow, time to watch the watch show.
Last edited: 23 May, 2013 - 23:51