IWC Schaffhausen

This new posting is a result of my haste to make "off topic" comments from posting "9 or no 9". Again, apologies for not sticking to the topic, however I hope to hear from members their thoughts regarding my viewpoint.

Since the "Year of the Pilot" has come and gone, some of the predictions on how the new MARK XVII would turn out came to fruition. In particular, the 3 level (expanded) date window was incorporated into the new design. Not being a big fan of the look, I do feel however it works on certain models and adds balance to the dial layout. The MARK XVII though IMHO is not one of those. My feeling is that it looks out of place on such a iconic watch and was crammed in just to keep it consistent with most of the Pilot Collection. Again, my opinion, but I think the MARKS should be kept in more of the historical look this model deserves. While I understand numerous changes have taken place over the refreshings, the 3 level date just doesn't do justice to this beauty. Bottom line...Not a good mix !

My opinion only...please share yours. Am I alone on this one ?

Thanks,

Andy

Last edited: 16 March, 2013 - 02:21

I agree Andy.

Regards
Dave

Last edited: 25 May, 2013 - 08:22

You're right Andy.
The expanded date window,rose cases, silver, slate and Antoine de Saint Exupery dials, will be seen by some as an evolution of a theme.
In reality, the historically functional design of the Mark watches(as military-spec,easily legible,pilots instruments) is being irreversibly eroded by fleeting fashions.
Maybe, if we wait long enough, a future Vintage Collection will revisit the pilots roots.
Leo

Choose a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life.....Confucius

Andy--

Interesting post.

No question, the expanded date window of the Mark XVII represents a dramatic change from the stark simplicity of earlier IWC pilot watches. But the larger dial size of the XVII seems to accommodate it. On the smaller dial of earlier models, to be sure, the expanded window would make for a "busy"(or, as you put it, "crammed") look.

That said, I don't see why it makes any real difference whether the date window is a 3 or at 6--unless returning it at 6 would allow for the return of the late, lamented digit at nine o'clock. But I am in the apparent minority that does not miss the 9. On the contrary, I find a welcome symmetry in the 10-11 and 1-2 on the upper half of the dial and the 4-5 and 7-8 on the bottom.

Cheers!

Donald

In my opinion the Mark XVII is not an iconic watch, as it is too new a watch to be iconic. It is a modern, new watch, that in my opinion looks great and unique when compared to the previous Marks. The original Mark, made when I was hardly born (that is, a long time ago) didn't have a date. It also was smaller than the Mark XVII. The triple date is not a gimmick alone, you can always see the date, or infer it from what you see when it is quarter past hour. Because of the missing 9, the remaining numbers could be slightly bigger, making for a livelier dial. I find this new Mark XVII very attractive, and I hope it does well.

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)

donald wilson Wrote:Andy--

Interesting post.

No question, the expanded date window of the Mark XVII represents a dramatic change from the stark simplicity of earlier IWC pilot watches. But the larger dial size of the XVII seems to accommodate it. On the smaller dial of earlier models, to be sure, the expanded window would make for a "busy"(or, as you put it, "crammed") look.

That said, I don't see why it makes any real difference whether the date window is a 3 or at 6--unless returning it at 6 would allow for the return of the late, lamented digit at nine o'clock. But I am in the apparent minority that does not miss the 9. On the contrary, I find a welcome symmetry in the 10-11 and 1-2 on the upper half of the dial and the 4-5 and 7-8 on the bottom.

Cheers!

Donald

Hello Donald,

Thanks for your reply and thoughts on the "expanded date". Moving the diameter of the watch up from 39mm to 41mm does bring it more in line with today's IWC larger sizing of the pilot collection. The font increased in thickness somewhat from the MARK XVI to fill the larger dial of the XVII , but the amount of real estate the 3 level takes up between the 2 and 4 not to mention the curved shape of the window ( IMHO ) makes for a odd mix on such a balanced and simple/clean dial design.

Regarding a (single) date window being moved to the 6:00 position, I was hoping that would have been on the drawing board for the XVII thus making room for the return of the 3 and 9 markers. Throw in a solid red seconds hand for some color, and Voila ! A MARK that's more contemporary yet still hangs on to some of it's historical roots in design.

I appreciate the feedback members have on the expanded date window and hope to hear more opinions on this subject. I kind of think there's no in between on the look. One either likes it or not especially when it comes to this iconic piece.

A big MARK fan,

Andy

Agree with you, Andy.

Hajo
Fair Winds and Following Seas

Sunflower Wrote:In my opinion the Mark XVII is not an iconic watch, as it is too new a watch to be iconic. It is a modern, new watch, that in my opinion looks great and unique when compared to the previous Marks. The original Mark, made when I was hardly born (that is, a long time ago) didn't have a date. It also was smaller than the Mark XVII. The triple date is not a gimmick alone, you can always see the date, or infer it from what you see when it is quarter past hour. Because of the missing 9, the remaining numbers could be slightly bigger, making for a livelier dial. I find this new Mark XVII very attractive, and I hope it does well.

Kind regards,
Paul

Paul,

Thanks for your thoughts. It's always interesting and enjoyable to see how others view the same "Work of Art".

Agreed, as a individual watch, the XVII has not been time tested to declare it iconic. My references to "iconic" is about the total history of the MARK series. As I mentioned, there has been numerous changes over time which I believe has contributed to keeping the interest alive for MARKS for so many years. If IWC wasn't finding the right re-designs for decades, production would have come to an end.

I hope it did not come across that I felt the 3 level date was a " Gimmick " as my feelings are that it does work for balance on some models. For example, I like it on the Top Gun's and the new Ardoise dial Spitfire, but not on the Classic Pilot Chrono and especially the MARK. My personal opinion on the readability of the 3 level is while it's not hard to focus in on the correct date, the fore and aft numerals on short months ( February - Yikes ! ) adds additional confusion if the date was not corrected in a timely fashion. True, if the minute hand covers the current date for a minute or two, one could assume the correct date by the other exposed dates, but hopefully it's not during the case of a short month issue mentioned above. Always have my mobile phone if needed for proper date if the hands are hiding the date for a few moments.

While not privy to the sales figures for the new XVII, I too would be interested how this current model ranks in comparision with previous models in their first year and beyond. My wish is that should the XVII not live up to sales expectations, IWC will not retire the MARK permanently , but jump in as necessary and give it a massaging until the next " Year of the Pilot".

Thsnks again for the feedback Paul,

Andy Out

Andy--

Thanks for your reply.

Regarding the possible return of the digits 3 and 9, I note that every model in IWC's current pilot range has the same distribution of digits as the Mark XVII (the only exceptions being the Top Gun models, which have no hour markings at all). It seems clear that IWC designers have bidden farewell to the 3 and 9 digits for the foreseeable future.

That said, wouldn't it be interesting to see what such a design as you describe might look like? Having zero computer skills, I wonder whether another IWC Mark fan possessing computer-graphics skills might translate your design idea into reality--virtual reality, that is.

Cheers!

Donald

andy stevens Wrote in reply to:

donald wilson Wrote:Andy--

Interesting post.

No question, the expanded date window of the Mark XVII represents a dramatic change from the stark simplicity of earlier IWC pilot watches. But the larger dial size of the XVII seems to accommodate it. On the smaller dial of earlier models, to be sure, the expanded window would make for a "busy"(or, as you put it, "crammed") look.

That said, I don't see why it makes any real difference whether the date window is a 3 or at 6--unless returning it at 6 would allow for the return of the late, lamented digit at nine o'clock. But I am in the apparent minority that does not miss the 9. On the contrary, I find a welcome symmetry in the 10-11 and 1-2 on the upper half of the dial and the 4-5 and 7-8 on the bottom.

Cheers!

Donald

Hello Donald,

Thanks for your reply and thoughts on the "expanded date". Moving the diameter of the watch up from 39mm to 41mm does bring it more in line with today's IWC larger sizing of the pilot collection. The font increased in thickness somewhat from the MARK XVI to fill the larger dial of the XVII , but the amount of real estate the 3 level takes up between the 2 and 4 not to mention the curved shape of the window ( IMHO ) makes for a odd mix on such a balanced and simple/clean dial design.

Regarding a (single) date window being moved to the 6:00 position, I was hoping that would have been on the drawing board for the XVII thus making room for the return of the 3 and 9 markers. Throw in a solid red seconds hand for some color, and Voila ! A MARK that's more contemporary yet still hangs on to some of it's historical roots in design.

I appreciate the feedback members have on the expanded date window and hope to hear more opinions on this subject. I kind of think there's no in between on the look. One either likes it or not especially when it comes to this iconic piece.

A big MARK fan,

Andy