Reply With QuoteI agree. As I think did most who posted on here:
http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=203657
Have increased the size of both the pilot's chronograph (up 1mm to 43) and the pilot's watch (up 2mm to 41). Worse than that, have changed the date window to show three dates at once ("to make it look more like a cockpit instrument: with its vertically arranged numerals, it is now reminiscent of an altimeter"). Yuck :x . Was compiling a list of possibles for my 40th birthday. IWC's changes have certainly shrunk the list of candidates.
I agree. As I think did most who posted on here:
http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=203657
I thought their stuff was really nice in the '90s (and will never part with my Mk XII). But not so much now I'm afraid .. I find little of appeal in their current range.
I think I must be weird but I like them!
some of them are pretty nice i think, just slightly too big :)
I really like the FA Jones, a gorgeous dress watch but at 44mm it is very big.
The current Aquatimers certainly ming compared with their predecessors.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Moongroover said it all as far as I am concerned. The move to oversized does not attract.
I really like their 42mm 371701 Pilot chrono but i detest the new ones with 3 dates showing and they made it bigger, I went out and bought a 3717 :)
they are bigger, but has anyone seen them yet? (other than the topgun), they might look/wear smaller?
Indeed going the wrong way. I thought that the 42mm was perfectly sized, but I suppose that the are moving with the trend of over sized going mega sized.
Whereas I think that it is important to try to produce something that can be worn over time despite of trends, maybe they just think that they can sell more, when the tides change :(
I really don't like the current trend of big watches, 40-42 mm is ideal IMO. Take the Blancpain FF for example, it is unbelievably pretty in the flesh, but at 45 mm it is oversized. I tried it on several times, but it just doesn't look right on my 19 cm wrist. If only there were a 42 mm version...
IWC is making a mistake here.
I totally agree, that's when they peaked. My family now have 3 watches from the 2000 catalogue.Originally Posted by monogroover
I also agree about the XII. Both the XII and XV had understated style. I can't say that about the current range. I also really fail to understand the 3 dates!? Surely someone who can count can calculate for themselves what tomorrow's date is??
Yep, showing three dates to "make it look like an altimeter" is stepping well into Bell&Ross territory. Make it out of plastic and you'd have a Swatch.
Don't know what IWC is doing. Guess they push the brand a little to much upmarket. But i do know that Sinn is filling the gap that IWC leaves behind.
Functionally and in terms of value, certainly, but not in the market. It only has around 15 dealers worldwide. It is obviously "replacing" IWC on the internet, often spoken of in the same breath, but still most people just don't plunk thousands down on a watch they can only see online. Of course, this could translate into a real opportunity for Sinn.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
IWC always had enough style and elegance that you could see them as a cheaper version of say AP. Sinn is a more true tool watch brand IMHO.Functionally and in terms of value, certainly, but not in the market. It only has around 15 dealers worldwide. It is obviously "replacing" IWC on the internet, often spoken of in the same breath, but still most people just don't plunk thousands down on a watch they can only see online. Of course, this could translate into a real opportunity for Sinn.
That is a very cheap and useless feature which became quite common on "lets make stylish" watches.
I'm surprised IWC using it :?
Anything between 40-44 is perfect for me.
I agree that IWC do seem to be going off in a strange direction. Yet, at the same time another Richemont brand seems to be doing the opposite:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-1 ... tches.html
Perhaps Richemont have too many watches in the same price category?
A. Lange & Söhne — watches; based in Glashütte, Germany
Alfred Dunhill, Ltd. — men's clothing, watches, leather goods; based in London, United Kingdom
Baume et Mercier — watches; based in Geneva, Switzerland
Cartier — jewellery, watches; based in Paris, France
Chloé — women's clothing; based in Paris, France
IWC Schaffhausen — watches; based in Schaffhausen, Switzerland
Jaeger-LeCoultre — watches; based in Le Sentier, Switzerland
James Purdey and Sons — firearms; based in London, United Kingdom
Lancel — leathergoods; based in Paris, France
Manufacture Roger Dubuis S.A. — (60% ownership) watches; based in Geneva, Switzerland
Maison Azzedine Alaďa — women's fashions; based in Paris, France
Montblanc International GmbH — writing instruments, watches; based in Hamburg, Germany
Net-a-Porter Ltd. — clothing sold via the Internet; based in London, United Kingdom
Officine Panerai — watches; based in Florence, Italy
Piaget S.A. — jewellery, watches; based in Geneva, Switzerland
Shanghai Tang — men's and women's fashions; based in Hong Kong, China
Vacheron Constantin — watches; based in Geneva, Switzerland
Van Cleef & Arpels S.A. — jewellery, watches; based in Paris, France
Cartier, IWC, JLC, Montblanc, Piaget, OP all have about the same price on their watches.
Apparently they have decided that IWC is the macho brand in that group. The problem is that no other brand seems to have filled it's niche as a (relative) entry luxury sporty elegant brand.
Not entirely - you can still read the date when the minute hand is otherwise covering it.That is a very cheap and useless feature
TImes of austerity, they should be shrinking really. The large watch is a little 2005 imho, so yes, i agree, wrong way for IWC to go.
Bigger isn't better.
Think IWC may be losing their heritage and classic appeal by going down this road.
:(
They could rename themselves RBL - Richemond Bell & Ross ...
A lot of watches are, fractionally:
Breitling Chronomat GMT, 47->44mm
Jaeger Master Control, 40->39mm
Zenith El P, 40->38mm
TAG Heuer Carrera, 43->41mm
Oris diver, 44->43mm
Panerai Luminor, 44->42mm
These are the ones I can remember, probably because their marketing depts are making the most noise :). In most cases the larger version is still available, but at least the choice is expanding. In terms of design, if not volume, IWC, Rolex and to a degree Omega seem to continuing with bigger replacements or variants - so perhaps this is one approach IWC is taking in order to establish its seat at the "top table".
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I agree, the new iwc's are nothing compared to the style of 5 years ago. I will hang on to the classics
I don't agree. This Flatline is ugly, very ugly. When they remade this into the Portofino it became nice, but this one is ugly.
Agreed! As an owner of several IWCs, I too find the current direction to be a disappointment.
I'm still waiting for these styles to "settle" with me. (I wasn't keen of the current Aquatimers when they first came out, now I really like them).
The simpler ones are growing on me i.e. the new Spitfire Chrono, the Mk XVII and even the Worldtimer. Not keen on the 3 and 4 subdial versions - look a bit much.
Richemont owns IWC and Panerai o.a.
This the list of watch brands they own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richemont
They are an investment group in luxury goods. They will develop the brands they own to the purpose of return on investment.
Any of the brands will be developed into a direction where most profit is found in combination with the other brands. It has much to do with fashion and little with horology; when it is the right vehicle horlogerie will be explored but profit is the motivation not the aesthetics of horlogerie.
This may be ´wrong´ to customers of the old IWC. Just like it is with the fans of old Panerai.
It is the right way for the members of the group.
Well, it's the direction they think is right for IWC and the group, if they're right remains to be seen. I'd hate seeing Richemont becoming the GM of watches business.
It's interesting. Look at BMW and Mercedes Benz in the last 20 years: 20 years ago, BMW were known for good cars, well made and fun to drive. Mercedes were known for luxury/upmarket cars that were superbly well made. Mercedes, the brand, was far more highly regarded than BMW.
In the last 20 years, we've seen BMW grow their business and maintain their basic focus on what made their reputation, with the consequence that their brand is perhaps the most valuable in the automotive world (although if they continue their 'di-worse-ification' into weird SUV crossovers etc, they are playing a dangerous game).
Mercedes, along with the merger with Chrysler, decided to cash in on the luxury element of their reputation and sacrificed build quality to improve their margins. This has done a lot of damage to the brand, although they have moved to rectify this mistake in the last few years. Moving away from what made the brand great, Mercedes management allowed BMW to steal their lunch and they are now playing catch-up.
The lesson for IWC is this: they can cash in on the IWC heritage in the short-term to sell blingy fashion watches, but if they move away from what made the brand great, they may damage the brand irreparably.
It's difficult to draw a decent parallel between watches and cars. Most of Richemont's brands are pretty high-end i.e. VC, Lange or mid-to-high-end like IWC, JLC and Panerai. Swatch Group is closer to an motor manufacturerers, but it would be fairer to compare them to the VW group as they have everything from Swatch through to Blancpain and Breguet.
[/quote]
The lesson for IWC is this: they can cash in on the IWC heritage in the short-term to sell blingy fashion watches, but if they move away from what made the brand great, they may damage the brand irreparably.[/quote]
I think a lot of the "direction" for want of a better word of IWC now is geared towards the China market of the nouveau riche. IWC themselves have identified China as their next "go-to" market segment.
This places the emphasis on a "larger" in-your-face watches that proclaim instant attention rather than subtle naunces of good grounded design philosophy of their previous iterations.
They want the "traditional namesake" of IWC and what it stands for - the more "'studied" differentiation from Omega or Rolex - but still want their peers to notice it. It's a strange dichotomy, and one that IWC is trying to bridge.
The lesson for IWC is this: they can cash in on the IWC heritage in the short-term to sell blingy fashion watches, but if they move away from what made the brand great, they may damage the brand irreparably.[/quote]
I think a lot of the "direction" for want of a better word of IWC now is geared towards the China market of the nouveau riche. IWC themselves have identified China as their next "go-to" market segment.
This places the emphasis on a "larger" in-your-face watches that proclaim instant attention rather than subtle naunces of good grounded design philosophy of their previous iterations.
They want the "traditional namesake" of IWC and what it stands for - the more "'studied" differentiation from Omega or Rolex - but still want their peers to notice it. It's a strange dichotomy, and one that IWC is trying to bridge.[/quote]
A very interesting observation.
Very true, jellytots. I am in Hong Kong at the moment and I was looking at some new Tudor watches this evening. Horrified by how 'Chinese' they look compared to the old Tudor styles. I am a native Hong Konger and I've been seeing this trend more and more recently. AP with the different limited versions of the Royal Oak is another example.
Wasn't it 50% of swiss watch sales going to China in recent years? Post financial meltdown?
Even Rolex is going a little grotesque now with some models...
Me too, but not all models.
Paul
GOT...TO...KILL...CAPTAIN STUPID!
Me, too.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
I remember when I started getting intrested in watches (some 5 plus years ago), there were lots of talking and images of IWC - today I see very little of that.
To me IWC already started loosing its way a couple of years back.
Such a shame really.
What a load of pap! I like their current crop a great deal at least :) Even if I did get the older AT (3536 03) I still think the white dial current AT is gorgeous if not exactly understated.
ahhhhh my present grail, that's what i wan to buy next, just stunningMe, too.
I concur.
As the owner of a nice 1957 18k pink gold cal. 89, which is 38 mm. in diameter, I really must say they made wonderful watches.
About a year and a half ago I was invited at some IWC presentation at a jewellers shop and I didn't see a single IWC I would ever want to own.
It is too bad, but these days ugly materials (especially: blackened), ugly dials (with a date aperture that spans three dates!!) and an absurd oversized collection, I am not interested in IWC anymore.
Posting Permissions
