It’s been a while since we’ve had a drawing, and I have a few prizes left. They include two black IWC caps, one red Cousteau knit cap, and several Portuguese Perpetual and Aquatimer DVDs., I thought I’d give them away in a drawing.
This time, I’d solicit your comments and thoughts on a topic that generates some controversy. What do you think about IWC’s use of base movements designed and produced by other companies?
As you may know, for decades IWC used its own movements, possibly exclusively. That changed and by the 1980s most movements were supplied by ETA, a Swatch subsidiary, although JLC and F. Piguet base movements sometimes were utilized. IWC often significantly enhanced these movements with proprietary parts, custom finishing and of course meticulous assembly. However, they primarily weren’t made in Schaffhausen.
IWC kept the in-house flame alive, including with specialities like the Jubilee Portugieser, pocket watches, etc., And in 2000, the in-house Calibre 5000 was introduced, which in turn has spawned many variations, including the in-house movements used in the Portuguese Perpetual, Tourbillon , Automatic, Repeater models, and the Big Pilot’s Watch.
Still, there are those who think the ETA 2892 (used with enhancement in the Aquatimer, the Mark XV, the Portofino) should be replaced by in-house movements, and the Valjoux 7750 base (used –again with enhancements—in chronographs) should be replaced. At the very least, there are people who think that in-house shows a higher degree of “technical ability” or offers more value.
There are others who disagree. They believe the issue is economic –an outsourced base movement may be less expensive, and functionally just as good. One industry commentator asked whether it really matters if the presses, transfer machines or drills and their operators are located in a building with a name on the door or in any other building from Geneva to Schaffhausen?" He added that " (t)he same applies to the design and engineering bureau or the assembly workshops. A sophisticated mechanical watch is typically made by 40 to 50 different suppliers having various degrees of contractual relationship with the brand. "
What do you think? Are in-house movements better? Should we care? Is IWC losing a marketing edge regardless whether it really makes a difference? Should IWC produce more in-house movements? Will that drive the price up and, if so, is the increase in price worth it?
Please post your thoughts on this issue below. Deadline for entries will be Tuesday evening, November 2nd, at 11:59 p.m., Schaffhausen time. I’ll randomly select a group of winners of prizes, as a way of thanking everyone for their contributions on this topic.
205 Discussions and CommentsMember since Feb. 26, 2002Atlanta, GA,
United States
The Great In-House Movement Debate? Prizes, too...
This isn't about telling time more or less accurately-it is about the perception of the wearer and/or the viewer. From a business viewpoint to make or buy an item is a decision made every day. Usually the answer comes down to the economics of the choice. A decision to buy an item means I can get the required performance from a vendor that has the capability to deliver me, consistently, over time a movement that costs less than my ability to produce it in house. However what also be factored into the equation is a question ofter asked of the Marketing Department i.e. "How much business will we lose or gain if we use out-house vs in;house movements". This is a touch question for the Marketeer but this is where he/she proves their ability to do the job. It appears to me that IWC, recognizing the value of in-house movements has elected to go that way on new items while, for the present, sticking with the out-house movements on the older items. A wrong decision in this area could be a wild success or a complete disaster for IWC. The Business GM has to decide.
As IWC customers and fans we realize the value provided by the timepieces as they are and we appreciate the move toward in-house that is in process. The minute the parameters change that define this landscape (absolute refusal of present and new customers to buy anything but out-house) the decision will be reevaluated.
As an aside many items produced today use outsourced parts, cars, airplanes, etc, etc. because it makes sense to do so. The primary reason for being in business is to make money in an amount over time that meets the requirements of the shareholders. Unfortunately for many this is not an emotional decision
197 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 24, 2004
The Great In-House Movement Debate? Prizes, too...
An In-house movement creates the spirit of the quintessential IWC. While it is true that cost might escalate which will feed directly into higher selling prices due to the greater research and developmental efforts, however the big part of the character and the persona of the timepiece is found in the mechanism. Many in house movements are influenced by generations of talents watchmakers, it will take time, but the continuity must be maintained so that the heritage is not lost. Unfortunately, many watch brands are in some ways "compromised", and utilised "mass" movements to increase sales. I am not saying that these movements are inferior to the in house movements, they just lack the unique character that is peculiar to a particular watch brand. New in house movements will need time to develop and test, it will take substantial marketing intiative to promote and time for the customers to appreciate the finesse of the timepiece. Personally, I am williing to pay extra money to buy a watch with in house movement like IWC's sister company JLC. To some however, a watch is just a watch, as long as it tells the right time. But I believe that many who owns IWC watches are individuals that appreciate the finer details in their watches. I advocate more commitment for IWC to develop variants/new in house movements to continue the tradition make the finest time pieces in its own rite. May IWC fulfills their destiny to pursue horological excellence.
21 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 9, 2003
Tools in the hands of an artist...
I personally feel that IWC has maintained an exceptionally balanced and consistent brand.
With the 5xxx caliber watches (especially that Portuguese Perpetual) IWC has proven they can innovate and go "in-house" with the best of them.
Their ETA based watches demonstrate to me that, while IWC can develop exceptional movements, they are not going to turn their noses up at perfectly functional and efficient calibers. The fact that they spend so much effort building upon these standard engines to produce such excellent timepieces, i think, shows a continuing respect for technical and functional merits - very consistent IMO with the brand's history.
Many watch makers have had access to these same outsourced movements, but it was IWC that turned them into the Mark XII, Mark XV, 3706, Doppel, Aquatimer, Portuguese Ratt/ChronoAuto - a string of technically marvelous pieces with an endearing touch of class.
To draw a bit of a parallel - when i started to think about this topic, i was reminded of my last business trip to London and a work by Da Vinci (curiously appropriate when talking about IWC i think...). I visited the National Gallery art museum, and in one darkened room hung a hauntingly beautiful charcoal/chalk sketch by the great artist (the Burlington House Cartoon).
Just paper, chalk and charcoal... but oh, look what he DID with them...
654 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 22, 2001
my quick thoughts ....
Hi Michael & all IWC fans,
This question about the great in-house movement debate is one that has been argued for years ever since watch forums came online. I have so much of reader's comments on this subject saved in my files that it can fill a book.
To keep it simple, I favor having an exclusive in-house movement if one raises the bar with a meaningful technical change in the construction. In other words, we need an honest evaluation -- what makes movement B better and different than movement A?
A recent introduction by IWC's sister company JLC of ceramic ball bearings in the automatic winding rotor are, perhaps, a good example of an exceptionally efficient and very impressive technical innovation. It allows for a smooth friction-less rotation of the oscillating weight and probably is less affected by the status of lubrication. This, in turn, adds to the overall performance of both the timekeeping and a consistently healthy power reserve.
Better materials and a more overall efficient mechanical movement that meets the approval of a bench watchmaker and not merely a Cad-Cam drawing engineer would herald a big welcome by both members of the watch industry and discerning watch buyers.
An in-house movement just for the sake of marketing is nothing more than window dressing if it does not meet an expected improved performance. Companies should focus their attention to develop, build, and prove that their in-house movement is indeed better from a technical standpoint.
4 Discussions and CommentsMember since Nov. 10, 2003
The Great In-House Movement Debate? Prizes, too...
Having been a lurker here and an IWC fan for several years, I finally purchased an Aquatimer Auto Chrono in early July (I apologize for cutting anyone in line to get this watch, but "first come, first serve" as far as the dealer was concerned). It runs better and winds more efficiently than any other mechanical watch I have ever owned (some of which happen contain ETA movements). But, like all IWC's, it is so much more than just the movement. I don't think there is any watch out there that combines the accuracy, design, functionality, heritage, prestige, desireability, and quality in quite the same way as the 3719 - at any price. But this is not a watch review; the argument holds true for every current production IWC - that's why we're here! Sure, I'd prefer a manufacture movement and I would pay a premium for it, but that wouldn't necessarily make the watch better than it already is. And how much more of a premium is reasonable? We don't really have a choice of movements like we have a choice of engines for our cars...
Maybe sometime in the future all IWC's will have manufacture movements, maybe they won't. But realistically, the only manufacturer of IWC's caliber (sorry!) and significance that has a similar barrier to entry (and range of watches) with manufacture movements that I can think of is it's cousin, JLC. But they don't make anything quite like a 3719, 3706, 3714, 3713, 3538, or a 3253. I certainly do not need to "sell" anyone here...
To end, some food for thought:
1) If the movements are good enough for IWC, then who are we to complain? 2) As far as I understand, the movements are completely assembled/re-assembled by IWC 3) Movements are regulated, adjusted, and tested by IWC 4) Movements are covered/guaranteed by the IWC warranty 5) IWC services the movements 6) In the unusual event that an ETA-based watch could not be sent to an official IWC service center for movement repair, it's perhaps more likely to be successfully repaired elsewhere than other "pure manufacture" movements. 7) The "bugs" have long been worked out of these movements since the design and manufacturing are not new 8) My 3719 works well - maybe too well ; ) 9) Not all wine makers grow their own grapes 10) AMG does not make their own cars
953 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 22, 2001Evanston, IL,
United States
If IWC is an artist....
Great question Michael.
If we consider IWC as an artist, I think it is axiomatic that we want "art" that fully reflects and epitomizes that artist. Would the Port. Jubilee be so special if it contained a Unitas base calibre? Of course not. True, it might be as durable and accurate (maybe more so) than IWC's cal. 982, but it would not reflect IWC's heritage and craftsmanship in the way that the c. 982 does.
IWC is in something of a conundrum in this regard because they have produced such fine "in-house" movements in the past. By emphasizing IWC's glorious history in marketing (as well as their engineering prowess) a "disconnect" would exist if the above-mentioned Unitas-based Port were ever produced. We would all scream -- "But such a watch demands an IWC movement!" Likewise, to this day people wonder why, if the 8541 and 89 calbires were two of the "best " movements of all time, would IWC discard that heritage and switch to ETA movements? The reasons, of course, were economics and the quartz onslought. But in recent years, however, especially with the introduction of the cal. 5000, those reasons are fading into history and i is much more difficult to justify using base movements that are not IWC's own.
Personally, I'd love to see more in-house movements from IWC and would pay a higher price for the "exclusivity" and intangible qualities of such a movement. I would like to concur with Jack Freedman's thoughts, however, and express my wish that any new movements look to the most modern technologies and knowledge to create movements for the 21st century, and are not merely hommages to movements from the past. To advance the "art" of horology, IWC should be on the forefront of improving design and technologies.
25 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 22, 2001
The Great In-House Movement Debate? Prizes, too...
I believe it is very important to look at the quality of the in-house movements.
IWC made for over 100 years in house movements in a very high quality segment and became famous. Today IWC is a very high grade Watch Company but the quality of the 5000 movement is realy not good enough!! (The Portugieser 2000 and also The Big Pilot have too much problems in keeping good time)
I hope that IWC wil make more and more in-house movements with the quality of the pellaton movements from te seventies. If they do not, so they loose watch lovers who wil go to JLC or Glashuette Original or perhaps to Lange & Sohn or even Patek Philippe.
54 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 5, 2003
The Great In-House Movement Debate? Prizes, too...
Hello everyone my opinion is this one does Audi or mercedes or Bmw produce all the parts in there car the answer is no.does it affect the over all quality I d'ont think so as long the brand stays behind is product it is fine with me.If IWC make everything inhouse some will argue on the steel stating that it is not made by IWC so the gold etc.I want a company that stand behind its product no matter what and that is the key for a great future.Thank you
328 Discussions and CommentsMember since Jan. 23, 2002
The Great In-House Movement Debate? Prizes, too...
Hi all,
I would really prefer IWC use more in-house movements but only if those movements are of superior quality. Judging from its past and present technical achievements, IWC no doubt will easily meet this standard.
By using quality in-house movements, IWC will be able to showcase its engineering capabilities which will further enhance its already impressive technical image.
It’s been a while since we’ve had a drawing, and I have a few prizes left. They include two black IWC caps, one red Cousteau knit cap, and several Portuguese Perpetual and Aquatimer DVDs., I thought I’d give them away in a drawing.
This time, I’d solicit your comments and thoughts on a topic that generates some controversy. What do you think about IWC’s use of base movements designed and produced by other companies?
As you may know, for decades IWC used its own movements, possibly exclusively. That changed and by the 1980s most movements were supplied by ETA, a Swatch subsidiary, although JLC and F. Piguet base movements sometimes were utilized. IWC often significantly enhanced these movements with proprietary parts, custom finishing and of course meticulous assembly. However, they primarily weren’t made in Schaffhausen.
IWC kept the in-house flame alive, including with specialities like the Jubilee Portugieser, pocket watches, etc., And in 2000, the in-house Calibre 5000 was introduced, which in turn has spawned many variations, including the in-house movements used in the Portuguese Perpetual, Tourbillon , Automatic, Repeater models, and the Big Pilot’s Watch.
Still, there are those who think the ETA 2892 (used with enhancement in the Aquatimer, the Mark XV, the Portofino) should be replaced by in-house movements, and the Valjoux 7750 base (used –again with enhancements—in chronographs) should be replaced. At the very least, there are people who think that in-house shows a higher degree of “technical ability” or offers more value.
There are others who disagree. They believe the issue is economic –an outsourced base movement may be less expensive, and functionally just as good. One industry commentator asked whether it really matters if the presses, transfer machines or drills and their operators are located in a building with a name on the door or in any other building from Geneva to Schaffhausen?" He added that " (t)he same applies to the design and engineering bureau or the assembly workshops. A sophisticated mechanical watch is typically made by 40 to 50 different suppliers having various degrees of contractual relationship with the brand. "
What do you think? Are in-house movements better? Should we care? Is IWC losing a marketing edge regardless whether it really makes a difference? Should IWC produce more in-house movements? Will that drive the price up and, if so, is the increase in price worth it?
Please post your thoughts on this issue below. Deadline for entries will be Tuesday evening, November 2nd, at 11:59 p.m., Schaffhausen time. I’ll randomly select a group of winners of prizes, as a way of thanking everyone for their contributions on this topic.
Good luck,
Michael
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 5 April, 2012 - 19:53
This isn't about telling time more or less accurately-it is about the
perception of the wearer and/or the viewer.
From a business viewpoint to make or buy an item is a decision made every day. Usually the answer comes down to the economics of the choice. A decision to buy an item means I can get the required performance from a vendor that has the capability to deliver me, consistently, over time a movement that costs less than my ability to produce it in house. However what also be factored into the equation is a question ofter asked of the Marketing Department i.e. "How much business will we lose or gain if we use out-house vs in;house movements". This is a touch question for the Marketeer but this is where he/she proves their ability to do the job.
It appears to me that IWC, recognizing the value of in-house movements has elected to go that way on new items while, for the present, sticking with the out-house movements on the older items. A wrong decision in this area could be a wild success or a complete disaster for IWC. The Business GM has to decide.
As IWC customers and fans we realize the value provided by the timepieces as they are and we appreciate the move toward in-house that is in process. The minute the parameters change that define this landscape (absolute refusal of present and new customers to buy anything but out-house) the decision will be reevaluated.
As an aside many items produced today use outsourced parts, cars, airplanes, etc, etc. because it makes sense to do so. The primary reason for being in business is to make money in an amount over time that meets the requirements of the shareholders. Unfortunately for many this is not an emotional decision
An In-house movement creates the spirit of the quintessential IWC. While it is true that cost might escalate which will feed directly into higher selling prices due to the greater research and developmental efforts, however the big part of the character and the persona of the timepiece is found in the mechanism. Many in house movements are influenced by generations of talents watchmakers, it will take time, but the continuity must be maintained so that the heritage is not lost.
Unfortunately, many watch brands are in some ways "compromised", and utilised "mass" movements to increase sales. I am not saying that these movements are inferior to the in house movements, they just lack the unique character that is peculiar to a particular watch brand.
New in house movements will need time to develop and test, it will take substantial marketing intiative to promote and time for the customers to appreciate the finesse of the timepiece.
Personally, I am williing to pay extra money to buy a watch with in house movement like IWC's sister company JLC. To some however, a watch is just a watch, as long as it tells the right time.
But I believe that many who owns IWC watches are individuals that appreciate the finer details in their watches. I advocate more commitment for IWC to develop variants/new in house movements to continue the tradition make the finest time pieces in its own rite. May IWC fulfills their destiny to pursue horological excellence.
Tim
I personally feel that IWC has maintained an exceptionally balanced and consistent brand.
With the 5xxx caliber watches (especially that Portuguese Perpetual) IWC has proven they can innovate and go "in-house" with the best of them.
Their ETA based watches demonstrate to me that, while IWC can develop exceptional movements, they are not going to turn their noses up at perfectly functional and efficient calibers. The fact that they spend so much effort building upon these standard engines to produce such excellent timepieces, i think, shows a continuing respect for technical and functional merits - very consistent IMO with the brand's history.
Many watch makers have had access to these same outsourced movements, but it was IWC that turned them into the Mark XII, Mark XV, 3706, Doppel, Aquatimer, Portuguese Ratt/ChronoAuto - a string of technically marvelous pieces with an endearing touch of class.
To draw a bit of a parallel - when i started to think about this topic, i was reminded of my last business trip to London and a work by Da Vinci (curiously appropriate when talking about IWC i think...). I visited the National Gallery art museum, and in one darkened room
hung a hauntingly beautiful charcoal/chalk sketch by the great artist (the Burlington House Cartoon).
Just paper, chalk and charcoal... but oh, look what he DID with them...
warm regards,
kisu
Hi Michael & all IWC fans,
This question about the great in-house movement debate is one that has been argued for years ever since watch forums came online. I have so much of reader's comments on this subject saved in my files that it can fill a book.
To keep it simple, I favor having an exclusive in-house movement if one raises the bar with a meaningful technical change in the construction. In other words, we need an honest evaluation -- what makes movement B better and different than movement A?
A recent introduction by IWC's sister company JLC of ceramic ball bearings in the automatic winding rotor are, perhaps, a good example of an exceptionally efficient and very impressive technical innovation. It allows for a smooth friction-less rotation of the oscillating weight and probably is less affected by the status of lubrication. This, in turn, adds to the overall performance of both the timekeeping and a consistently healthy power reserve.
Better materials and a more overall efficient mechanical movement that meets the approval of a bench watchmaker and not merely a Cad-Cam drawing engineer would herald a big welcome by both members of the watch industry and discerning watch buyers.
An in-house movement just for the sake of marketing is nothing more than window dressing if it does not meet an expected improved performance. Companies should focus their attention to develop, build, and prove that their in-house movement is indeed better from a technical standpoint.
Regards,
Jack Freedman
Having been a lurker here and an IWC fan for several years, I finally purchased an Aquatimer Auto Chrono in early July (I apologize for cutting anyone in line to get this watch, but "first come, first serve" as far as the dealer was concerned). It runs better and winds more efficiently than any other mechanical watch I have ever owned (some of which happen contain ETA movements). But, like all IWC's, it is so much more than just the movement. I don't think there is any watch out there that combines the accuracy, design, functionality, heritage, prestige, desireability, and quality in quite the same way as the 3719 - at any price. But this is not a watch review; the argument holds true for every current production IWC - that's why we're here! Sure, I'd prefer a manufacture movement and I would pay a premium for it, but that wouldn't necessarily make the watch better than it already is. And how much more of a premium is reasonable? We don't really have a choice of movements like we have a choice of engines for our cars...
Maybe sometime in the future all IWC's will have manufacture movements, maybe they won't. But realistically, the only manufacturer of IWC's caliber (sorry!) and significance that has a similar barrier to entry (and range of watches) with manufacture movements that I can think of is it's cousin, JLC. But they don't make anything quite like a 3719, 3706, 3714, 3713, 3538, or a 3253. I certainly do not need to "sell" anyone here...
To end, some food for thought:
1) If the movements are good enough for IWC, then who are we to complain?
2) As far as I understand, the movements are completely assembled/re-assembled by IWC
3) Movements are regulated, adjusted, and tested by IWC
4) Movements are covered/guaranteed by the IWC warranty
5) IWC services the movements
6) In the unusual event that an ETA-based watch could not be sent to an official IWC service center for movement repair, it's perhaps more likely to be successfully repaired elsewhere than other "pure manufacture" movements.
7) The "bugs" have long been worked out of these movements since the design and manufacturing are not new
8) My 3719 works well - maybe too well ; )
9) Not all wine makers grow their own grapes
10) AMG does not make their own cars
cheers,
-Ben
Great question Michael.
If we consider IWC as an artist, I think it is axiomatic that we want "art" that fully reflects and epitomizes that artist. Would the Port. Jubilee be so special if it contained a Unitas base calibre? Of course not. True, it might be as durable and accurate (maybe more so) than IWC's cal. 982, but it would not reflect IWC's heritage and craftsmanship in the way that the c. 982 does.
IWC is in something of a conundrum in this regard because they have produced such fine "in-house" movements in the past. By emphasizing IWC's glorious history in marketing (as well as their engineering prowess) a "disconnect" would exist if the above-mentioned Unitas-based Port were ever produced. We would all scream -- "But such a watch demands an IWC movement!" Likewise, to this day people wonder why, if the 8541 and 89 calbires were two of the "best " movements of all time, would IWC discard that heritage and switch to ETA movements? The reasons, of course, were economics and the quartz onslought. But in recent years, however, especially with the introduction of the cal. 5000, those reasons are fading into history and i is much more difficult to justify using base movements that are not IWC's own.
Personally, I'd love to see more in-house movements from IWC and would pay a higher price for the "exclusivity" and intangible qualities of such a movement. I would like to concur with Jack Freedman's thoughts, however, and express my wish that any new movements look to the most modern technologies and knowledge to create movements for the 21st century, and are not merely hommages to movements from the past. To advance the "art" of horology, IWC should be on the forefront of improving design and technologies.
I believe it is very important to look at the quality of the in-house movements.
IWC made for over 100 years in house movements in a very high quality segment and became famous.
Today IWC is a very high grade Watch Company but the quality of the 5000 movement is realy not good enough!! (The Portugieser 2000 and also The Big Pilot have too much problems in keeping good time)
I hope that IWC wil make more and more in-house movements with the quality of the pellaton movements from te seventies.
If they do not, so they loose watch lovers who wil go to JLC or Glashuette Original or perhaps to Lange & Sohn or even Patek Philippe.
Hello everyone my opinion is this one does Audi or mercedes or Bmw produce all the parts in there car the answer is no.does it affect the over all quality I d'ont
think so as long the brand stays behind is product it is fine with me.If IWC make everything inhouse some will argue on the steel stating that it is not made by IWC so the gold etc.I want a company that stand behind its product no matter what and that is the key for a great future.Thank you
Hi all,
I would really prefer IWC use more in-house movements but only if those movements are of superior quality. Judging from its past and present technical achievements, IWC no doubt will easily meet this standard.
By using quality in-house movements, IWC will be able to showcase its engineering capabilities which will further enhance its already impressive technical image.
Regards,
Jon