3,730 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
The dust of the SIHH 2013 has settled down a bit. A great event with quite some new, interesting watches. Maybe you thought to add one of those watches to your collection, certainly after seeing them live, or after seeing the many beautiful pictures of them here at the forum.
Before the SIHH I compared two watches that share quite some characteristics, although I cannot find this description anymore. But I think post-SIHH it is valid to raise the question again. If you are considering to add a smaller tool like watch to your collection, which of these two would you choose? - Ingenieur Automatic 3239 - Pilot's Watch Mark XVII
I play with the thought to add one of these two to my collection, as a nice, no nonsense, all round watch. I like them both, but I tend now to give the Mark XVII the edge, mostly because I already have the titanium Ingenieur Automatic AMG 3227, so the Mark stands out a bit more in my collection. It being a bit bigger, and having a nice leather strap gives it an extra point or two.
Are you considering something like this, do you compare these two models too? Where lies your preference, and why?
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)
234 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 21, 2011Bern,
Switzerland
Sunflower Wrote:The dust of the SIHH 2013 has settled down a bit. A great event with quite some new, interesting watches. Maybe you thought to add one of those watches to your collection, certainly after seeing them live, or after seeing the many beautiful pictures of them here at the forum.
Before the SIHH I compared two watches that share quite some characteristics, although I cannot find this description anymore. But I think post-SIHH it is valid to raise the question again. If you are considering to add a smaller tool like watch to your collection, which of these two would you choose? - Ingenieur Automatic 3239 - Pilot's Watch Mark XVII
I play with the thought to add one of these two to my collection, as a nice, no nonsense, all round watch. I like them both, but I tend now to give the Mark XVII the edge, mostly because I already have the titanium Ingenieur Automatic AMG 3227, so the Mark stands out a bit more in my collection. It being a bit bigger, and having a nice leather strap gives it an extra point or two.
Are you considering something like this, do you compare these two models too? Where lies your preference, and why?
Kind regards, Paul
I guess we talk here purely about design since inside they are quite similar (2892-A2)..So I do like the pilot more...more life on the dial...the date design, the extra red arrow...simply more interesting for the eyes....
2,245 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 2, 2001
But don't you also have a 3778 Spitfire Chrono? The Mark XVII is not so terribly different from that. Of course, putting it on a bracelet would make it a bit more different from your chrono.
Funny how 41mm is now considered a "small" watch.
I have actually given thought to picking up a Mark XV on bracelet. It was my first good mechanical watch and my introduction to IWC. 39mm is really small by today's standards, but I continue to hear more and more collectors objecting to the lack of watches less than 42mm or more. I personally belive watch diameters will head somewhat smaller over the coming years. Maybe not back to 36mm, but 40mm seems to be a workable "sweet spot" that I think will become more common than we see today..
928 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 8, 2011
whichwatch Wrote:But don't you also have a 3778 Spitfire Chrono? The Mark XVII is not so terribly different from that. Of course, putting it on a bracelet would make it a bit more different from your chrono.
Funny how 41mm is now considered a "small" watch.
I have actually given thought to picking up a Mark XV on bracelet. It was my first good mechanical watch and my introduction to IWC. 39mm is really small by today's standards, but I continue to hear more and more collectors objecting to the lack of watches less than 42mm or more. I personally belive watch diameters will head somewhat smaller over the coming years. Maybe not back to 36mm, but 40mm seems to be a workable "sweet spot" that I think will become more common than we see today..
Hi Dick,
Please allow me to chime in and expand on your comment as you sparked some thoughts.
I really like the MARK XV on bracelet. It is a knockout and the bracelet IMO actually makes the overall look appear a bit bigger. I could be mistaken but the XV I believe is 38mm, corrections please.
Another alternative between the XV and XVII would be ( are you ready ? ) Yes...the MARK XVI @ 39mm. I agree with you that more interest is building slowly but surely to bring the sweet spot down to a more balanced diameter which IMO will end up somewhere around 40-42. I also think a 42mm is large enough to allow most complications with a decent legible read and not look to "crammed ". Like the XV on bracelet, the XVI also wears bigger in full metal jacket and it has the current design "propeller hands" and BP font. Please forgive me if your a fan of the triple date, but on the new XVII, it just isn't a good fit (IMO). The single date window w/white numbers on black blends perfectly with the simple dial layout of the MARK XVI.
Just wanted to share those thoughts. Thanks for reading,
3,730 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
regulateur Wrote in reply to:
Sunflower Wrote:
Are you considering something like this, do you compare these two models too? Where lies your preference, and why?
Kind regards, Paul
Hello Paul
Why would you need another watch? You have already so many!
Regards David
Need, no. I'm not a watch junk. A watch dreamer maybe. And sometimes I make my dreams come true. Quite some times I spiced my holiday up with a new watch, the cherry on the cake. And never with a so so watch, always with a watch I thought to be perfect. But I really can live with a holiday without a new watch, although it becomes increasingly difficult to remember one.
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)
461 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 7, 2008
whichwatch Wrote:But don't you also have a 3778 Spitfire Chrono? The Mark XVII is not so terribly different from that. Of course, putting it on a bracelet would make it a bit more different from your chrono.
Funny how 41mm is now considered a "small" watch.
I have actually given thought to picking up a Mark XV on bracelet. It was my first good mechanical watch and my introduction to IWC. 39mm is really small by today's standards, but I continue to hear more and more collectors objecting to the lack of watches less than 42mm or more. I personally belive watch diameters will head somewhat smaller over the coming years. Maybe not back to 36mm, but 40mm seems to be a workable "sweet spot" that I think will become more common than we see today..
100% agreed! style involves appropriate size. The term "appropriate" is something one can argue about.
BTW: Probably I would also opt for the Mark. It really has a timeless dial and is member of a classic family.
225 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 18, 2012
Sunflower Wrote: Need, no. I'm not a watch junk. A watch dreamer maybe. And sometimes I make my dreams come true. Quite some times I spiced my holiday up with a new watch, the cherry on the cake. And never with a so so watch, always with a watch I thought to be perfect. But I really can live with a holiday without a new watch, although it becomes increasingly difficult to remember one.
Kind regards, Paul
The thing is - if I want to get a new watch, I mostly try to sell one; as my collection contained more or less only IWCs so far, it is usually an IWC that has to leave, in my case, for whatever brand / watch creates the "want-to-have-desire". For me, there is no point in keeping watches in the safe I don't wear. That's why I asked.
By the way: Did you ever consider also vintage watches? They usually have a much better price - performance ratio and many of them are real classics where you won't run the risk of loosing the value.
You come from nothing, you go back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!
3,730 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
regulateur Wrote in reply to:
Sunflower Wrote: Need, no. I'm not a watch junk. A watch dreamer maybe. And sometimes I make my dreams come true. Quite some times I spiced my holiday up with a new watch, the cherry on the cake. And never with a so so watch, always with a watch I thought to be perfect. But I really can live with a holiday without a new watch, although it becomes increasingly difficult to remember one.
Kind regards, Paul
The thing is - if I want to get a new watch, I mostly try to sell one; as my collection contained more or less only IWCs so far, it is usually an IWC that has to leave, in my case, for whatever brand / watch creates the "want-to-have-desire". For me, there is no point in keeping watches in the safe I don't wear. That's why I asked.
By the way: Did you ever consider also vintage watches? They usually have a much better price - performance ratio and many of them are real classics where you won't run the risk of loosing the value.
All my watches have some dear memories to me. More than half the watches I own I wear regularly, the other ones are not very wearable anymore, but still have a past with me. I feel emotions for them, so I will not sell them. Why should I?
I have never considered vintage watches. There is symmetry with the watches I don't sell: I just don't like the idea of second hand watches, this is enforced by the fear to buy fakes or watches with defects. There is no challenge for me to take care, to buy the seller. I hate the horror stories far more than I like the accomplishments. Price/performance ratio is no issue to me at all. When I like a watch enough, and I feel I can justify the acquisition to my wife and me, I just buy it. And of course I only buy watches I can easily afford, so nobody gets hurt, not even me. And I am aware that the point is near that I will be satisfied with the collection I have, with the exception of that watch that I really like to wear once in a while.
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)
Before the SIHH I compared two watches that share quite some characteristics, although I cannot find this description anymore. But I think post-SIHH it is valid to raise the question again. If you are considering to add a smaller tool like watch to your collection, which of these two would you choose?
- Ingenieur Automatic 3239
- Pilot's Watch Mark XVII
I play with the thought to add one of these two to my collection, as a nice, no nonsense, all round watch. I like them both, but I tend now to give the Mark XVII the edge, mostly because I already have the titanium Ingenieur Automatic AMG 3227, so the Mark stands out a bit more in my collection. It being a bit bigger, and having a nice leather strap gives it an extra point or two.
Are you considering something like this, do you compare these two models too? Where lies your preference, and why?
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)
I guess we talk here purely about design since inside they are quite similar (2892-A2)..So I do like the pilot more...more life on the dial...the date design, the extra red arrow...simply more interesting for the eyes....
Last edited: 13 April, 2013 - 14:58
Funny how 41mm is now considered a "small" watch.
I have actually given thought to picking up a Mark XV on bracelet. It was my first good mechanical watch and my introduction to IWC. 39mm is really small by today's standards, but I continue to hear more and more collectors objecting to the lack of watches less than 42mm or more. I personally belive watch diameters will head somewhat smaller over the coming years. Maybe not back to 36mm, but 40mm seems to be a workable "sweet spot" that I think will become more common than we see today..
Dick L.
whichwatch at roadrunner dot com
Hi Dick,
Please allow me to chime in and expand on your comment as you sparked some thoughts.
I really like the MARK XV on bracelet. It is a knockout and the bracelet IMO actually makes the overall look appear a bit bigger. I could be mistaken but the XV I believe is 38mm, corrections please.
Another alternative between the XV and XVII would be ( are you ready ? ) Yes...the MARK XVI @ 39mm. I agree with you that more interest is building slowly but surely to bring the sweet spot down to a more balanced diameter which IMO will end up somewhere around 40-42. I also think a 42mm is large enough to allow most complications with a decent legible read and not look to "crammed ". Like the XV on bracelet, the XVI also wears bigger in full metal jacket and it has the current design "propeller hands" and BP font. Please forgive me if your a fan of the triple date, but on the new XVII, it just isn't a good fit (IMO). The single date window w/white numbers on black blends perfectly with the simple dial layout of the MARK XVI.
Just wanted to share those thoughts. Thanks for reading,
Andy
Hello Paul
Why would you need another watch? You have already so many!
Regards
David
You come from nothing, you go back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!
Need, no. I'm not a watch junk. A watch dreamer maybe. And sometimes I make my dreams come true. Quite some times I spiced my holiday up with a new watch, the cherry on the cake. And never with a so so watch, always with a watch I thought to be perfect. But I really can live with a holiday without a new watch, although it becomes increasingly difficult to remember one.
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)
Last edited: 6 February, 2013 - 18:50
100% agreed! style involves appropriate size. The term "appropriate" is something one can argue about.
BTW: Probably I would also opt for the Mark. It really has a timeless dial and is member of a classic family.
Last edited: 7 February, 2013 - 18:18
The thing is - if I want to get a new watch, I mostly try to sell one; as my collection contained more or less only IWCs so far, it is usually an IWC that has to leave, in my case, for whatever brand / watch creates the "want-to-have-desire". For me, there is no point in keeping watches in the safe I don't wear. That's why I asked.
By the way: Did you ever consider also vintage watches? They usually have a much better price - performance ratio and many of them are real classics where you won't run the risk of loosing the value.
You come from nothing, you go back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!
Last edited: 6 February, 2013 - 20:35
All my watches have some dear memories to me. More than half the watches I own I wear regularly, the other ones are not very wearable anymore, but still have a past with me. I feel emotions for them, so I will not sell them. Why should I?
I have never considered vintage watches. There is symmetry with the watches I don't sell: I just don't like the idea of second hand watches, this is enforced by the fear to buy fakes or watches with defects. There is no challenge for me to take care, to buy the seller. I hate the horror stories far more than I like the accomplishments. Price/performance ratio is no issue to me at all. When I like a watch enough, and I feel I can justify the acquisition to my wife and me, I just buy it. And of course I only buy watches I can easily afford, so nobody gets hurt, not even me. And I am aware that the point is near that I will be satisfied with the collection I have, with the exception of that watch that I really like to wear once in a while.
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)