Reply With QuoteGlad you took my advice Mike :wink:
Missus just left for the family party with the kids.
Just can't join them as I'm feeling sooooo sick today. Poor me. :cry: :cry:
:D :twisted:
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Glad you took my advice Mike :wink:
Yeah probably the best idea I've ever heard :lol:Originally Posted by Spy
Does it make me a bad husband and father now ? :?
Edit: YOU've ever had :)
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Yes! :)
Get your order in, then turn up late, looking poorly, but saying you just felt you had to be there.
Devious, me ?
Pete
Oh, oooh that's even more evil :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Lol Mike, attaboy! :P :lol: :lol:
Don't worry Mike, we are in a similar boat !Yeah probably the best idea I've ever heard :lol:
Does it make me a bad husband and father now ? :?
Edit: YOU've ever had :)
The wife did my head in today wanting to go to the shops. I put my foot down and said, categorically, there is no way I am going to the shops today, don't feel up to it.
I even offered to have the kids so shje could go.
In the end, she went to Bluewater shopping centre with her sister AND the kids :shock:
Now I am all by myself :lol:
Obviously, she doesn't know the real reason I have stayed home :wink:
Love it....extra brownie points for Mike too !!
Talk about have your cake and eat it !
I hope our wives don't ever come across this forum :bom:
Ssssssshhh. Don't meet trouble halfway!
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
You're both going to get rumbled when the wives get back and you've all suddenly perked up with grins ear to ear.
Hope you all a watch.
The SBIII doesn't do it for me (and I'm skint) but thought I log on to see what a frenzy the release is causing.
Good luck to you all.
Chris
Thanks for caring Chris :lol:
Well, all I can say is - YIPPIE! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
It's been a long two years... I just got the order confirmation! Thanks, Eddie, and also thank you for being so relentless on the quality issues. Well done!!!
Guess I can turn the wife's back up computer off again, now that I know my PC didn't fail me...
It's showing SOLD OUT on the main site now - 15:13 ....................
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Holy crap!!!
All 50 or all xx (50 +44 if I remember correctly)?
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
:shock: :shock: :shock: Jesus H. - this has got to be the fastest ever.
I thought Eddie has the 001 so the total number should 93?:shock: :shock: :shock:
Holy crap!!!
All 50 or all xx (50 +44 if I remember correctly)?
It was only the first 50 up for sale and I received 71 orders in 5 minutes. I really don't know what to say.......
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Thanks Eddie for giving us this opportunity! :salute: :salute: :salute:
Got to be some sense of satisfaction there Eddie. That's a popular watch. 71 orders in 5 minutes!
Will you let us know our numbers before shipping or will it be a PITA?
Cheers,
Neil
Any number between 1 and 50 will do me :)
So, umm, if we got a confirmation email.. does that mean we got one? Or is it just that the order was received?
Must be some satisfaction in that stat, after all the bother you had with it.
Holy... how long did it take to sell 71 SB 1903? :shock:
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Btw Eddie, did you expect that?
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
I didn't expect that at all: the announcement was quite low-key and there wasn't much discussion. I've not studied all the orders yet but I did notice a few names I haven't seen before.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
So, no pre-order list -> no drop out rate -> no hassle
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
There are certainly pros and cons to a Pre-Order list and they mean it can often be a gamble to go with one or without one... seems the SBIII didn't need one and rightly so :)
I'm kept very quite on the threads regarding the build etc. but have been quietly watching and waiting and pleased to have got an order in... excited now but a little concerned about 71 orders for 50 COSC versions... fingers crossed!
And I thought SBIII is for TZ members onlyI've not studied all the orders yet but I did notice a few names I haven't seen before.
Eddie, I told my mate (not a member) that he couldn't have one because he is not a members and he needs minimum 50 posts to be qualified.... :lol:
You are such a bad, bad boy :lol: :lol: :lol: :twisted:And I thought SBIII is for TZ members onlyI've not studied all the orders yet but I did notice a few names I haven't seen before.
Eddie
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Wow Eddie, all that in the space of a few minutes :shock:
Goes to show how popular this watch is.
I would have thought your software would have had alloocated 50 in stock and stopped at the 50th but I guess it didn't work that way.
Hope mine is one of the first 50 :wink:
I assume they will be allocated on a first come, first served basis or will it be some other method ?
Eddie plays it straight, which probably means I'll end up with the standard movement as my credit card payment took ages :cry:Wow Eddie, all that in the space of a few minutes :shock:
Goes to show how popular this watch is.
I would have thought your software would have had alloocated 50 in stock and stopped at the 50th but I guess it didn't work that way.
Hope mine is one of the first 50 :wink:
I assume they will be allocated on a first come, first served basis or will it be some other method ?
I have a three standard 2824-2s and they're the most accurate of the mechanicals I have, a few seconds a day each. The Seikos are <20secs/day and the PRS-5 is <10.
I made sure not to mention it outside that thread. On my night shift a pilot also expressed some interest: I confess to being another to lie and say that only tz-uk could have the first 50 :twisted:
My wife was furious with me after saying she was ready to go out at 14:40 and I took more than half a hour to leave... :D
Looks like I missed all the excitement. Congrats to the lucky guys (and girls) who got in first. Can't wait to see everyone's pictures.
Rick
I didn't expect that at all: ..................................................
Eddie
Eddie and everybody else,
I did. Eddie, you in effect custom made a high market appeal classic pattern pilot's watch using genuinely high quality all Swiss and German components, materiels, and workmanship, and true professional aviation grade specifications equal to the premium class +2000 GBP IWC Mark XV Flieger model pilot's watch that the SB3 homages. You may even have surpassed the very watch you homage no less as you used as you certainly did a Rolex Oyster style fully maintainable screwed-in crown tube for the SB3 if it turns out in fact that IWC didn't and only used a press-fit crown tube. If IWC did wisely use a screwed-in tube also, then the parody between you is maintained in all but price. And the incredibly huge differential in price is perhaps the most astonishing part of it.
Really, think of it, and objectively, while nearly every other watch manufacturer WIS focus on is seemingly trying to increase their markup a high as they can get it while backing down their products' underlying technical specifications as low as they can get away with, or else gearing them more to just superficial cosmetic appeal and facile prestige, look what you are giving us at less than 20% the cost of a famous name brand professional grade luxury class pilot watch you technologically equal and perhaps even possibly technically surpass.
Do you really wonder why I slobber praise all over you sometimes Eddie, to the effect I embarrass you and probably make every other member here think I'm a big brown noser trying to get a discount or whatever?
I don't. I very much think you deserved the fly-out-the-door sales you got and you yourself made it happen, and I bet almost every other member here more or less fully understands that.
So, do I finally get my discount NOW?
I didn't expect that at all: ..................................................
Eddie
Eddie and everybody else,
I did. Eddie, you in effect custom made a high market appeal classic pattern pilot's watch using genuinely high quality all Swiss and German components, materiels, and workmanship, and true professional aviation grade specifications equal to the premium class +2000 GBP IWC Mark XV Flieger model pilot's watch that the SB3 homages. You may even have surpassed the very watch you homage no less as you used as you certainly did a Rolex Oyster style fully maintainable screwed-in crown tube for the SB3 if it turns out in fact that IWC didn't and only used a press-fit crown tube. If IWC did wisely use a screwed-in tube also, then the parody between you is maintained in all but price. And the incredibly huge differential in price is perhaps the most astonishing part of it.
Really, think of it, and objectively, while nearly every other watch manufacturer WIS focus on is seemingly trying to increase their markup a high as they can get it while backing down their products' underlying technical specifications as low as they can get away with, or else gearing them more to just superficial cosmetic appeal and facile prestige, look what you are giving us at less than 20% the cost of a famous name brand professional grade luxury class pilot watch you technologically equal and perhaps even possibly technically surpass.
Do you really wonder why I slobber praise all over you sometimes, Eddie, to the effect I embarrass you and probably make every other member here think I'm a big brown noser trying to get a discount or whatever?
I don't. I very much think you deserved what you got and you yourself made it happen, and I bet almost every other member here more or less fully understands that.
So, do I finally get my discount NOW?
EXCEPTIONALLY well said! :salute:
By the way, you only get a discount if your Grandmothers maiden name was Olivia Margot Bruzfizzer and you can prove it! :lol:
C'mon Eddie, give him the 14-15 discount! :twisted:
By gosh, what a coincidence!
It looks like another nifty watch has had the appropriate response.
Best wishes,
Bob
with all respect to Eddie and the SB III which is admittedly a very nice design and a great value...i don't know if the superlatives that you mention, eg. that they're equal in many respects...actually applies.
the mark xv contains a heavily modified 2892 as opposed to the 2824 and the XV would certainly get higher grades in finishing, workmanship and potential time-keeping accuracy...both movements are certainly COSC capable with proper regulation. i seem to recall reading that the XV's crystal has a much higher resistance rating than the 0.4 atm that the SB has, don't quote me but i think it was somwhere in the 100-150ft range. the mark XV uses an internal crown tube...i don't know if its is press-fit, i'm inclined to say no.
and while the bracelet that Eddie offers appears to be exceptional and frankly, a steal-of-a-deal at the price point...it's not quite in the league as the old-style XV bracelet.
not trying to compare the two in terms of value, workmanship, etc...just mentioning some points which i though needed to be stated.
i would have loved to have gotten one of the first 50, but a 'standard' prs-22 is also pretty nice to have too. :wink:
325 GBP ........ €4000 :)
obviously there are price differences and the SB III outclasses the XV on a value-for-price basis by a very large margin. my post was strictly comparing the two watches in more 'objective' categories.
i'm pretty sure the XV on bracelet was never 4000GBP...more like 2000+GBP. i'm doing a rough USD-to-GBP conversion and may not be accounting fully for VAT but 4000 is too high, i think. :)
A more realistic benchmark for the Speedbird 3 is the £700 Orfina Military Mark II. I'm looking forward to the comparison but I'm not sure my Orfina is :wink:with all respect to Eddie and the SB III which is admittedly a very nice design and a great value...i don't know if the superlatives that you mention, eg. that they're equal in many respects...actually applies.
the mark xv contains a heavily modified 2892 as opposed to the 2824 and the XV would certainly get higher grades in finishing, workmanship and potential time-keeping accuracy...both movements are certainly COSC capable with proper regulation. i seem to recall reading that the XV's crystal has a much higher resistance rating than the 0.4 atm that the SB has, don't quote me but i think it was somwhere in the 100-150ft range. the mark XV uses an internal crown tube...i don't know if its is press-fit, i'm inclined to say no.
and while the bracelet that Eddie offers appears to be exceptional and frankly, a steal-of-a-deal at the price point...it's not quite in the league as the old-style XV bracelet.
not trying to compare the two in terms of value, workmanship, etc...just mentioning some points which i though needed to be stated.
i would have loved to have gotten one of the first 50, but a 'standard' prs-22 is also pretty nice to have too. :wink:
Mark XV was nearer two grand than four. Corking bracelet though,(not the current one) in fact that bracelet was IMHO the best IWC ever produced and that is far from being just my opinion. 8)obviously there are price differences and the SB III outclasses the XV on a value-for-price basis by a very large margin. my post was strictly comparing the two watches in more 'objective' categories.
i'm pretty sure the XV on bracelet was never 4000GBP...more like 2000+GBP. i'm doing a rough USD-to-GBP conversion and may not be accounting fully for VAT but 4000 is too high, i think. :)
MikeB said 4000 Euros (€) not POUNDS (£)Mark XV was nearer two grand than four. Corking bracelet though,(not the current one) in fact that bracelet was IMHO the best IWC ever produced and that is far from being just my opinion. 8)obviously there are price differences and the SB III outclasses the XV on a value-for-price basis by a very large margin. my post was strictly comparing the two watches in more 'objective' categories.
i'm pretty sure the XV on bracelet was never 4000GBP...more like 2000+GBP. i'm doing a rough USD-to-GBP conversion and may not be accounting fully for VAT but 4000 is too high, i think. :)
Deed he did!MikeB said 4000 Euros (€) not POUNDS (£)Mark XV was nearer two grand than four. Corking bracelet though,(not the current one) in fact that bracelet was IMHO the best IWC ever produced and that is far from being just my opinion. 8)obviously there are price differences and the SB III outclasses the XV on a value-for-price basis by a very large margin. my post was strictly comparing the two watches in more 'objective' categories.
i'm pretty sure the XV on bracelet was never 4000GBP...more like 2000+GBP. i'm doing a rough USD-to-GBP conversion and may not be accounting fully for VAT but 4000 is too high, i think. :)
Hi Denizen,with all respect to Eddie and the SB III which is admittedly a very nice design and a great value...i don't know if the superlatives that you mention, eg. that they're equal in many respects...actually applies.
the mark xv contains a heavily modified 2892 as opposed to the 2824 and the XV would certainly get higher grades in finishing, workmanship and potential time-keeping accuracy...both movements are certainly COSC capable with proper regulation. i seem to recall reading that the XV's crystal has a much higher resistance rating than the 0.4 atm that the SB has, don't quote me but i think it was somwhere in the 100-150ft range. the mark XV uses an internal crown tube...i don't know if its is press-fit, i'm inclined to say no.
and while the bracelet that Eddie offers appears to be exceptional and frankly, a steal-of-a-deal at the price point...it's not quite in the league as the old-style XV bracelet.
not trying to compare the two in terms of value, workmanship, etc...just mentioning some points which i though needed to be stated.
i would have loved to have gotten one of the first 50, but a 'standard' prs-22 is also pretty nice to have too. :wink:
I would justify holding the Precista PRS-22 Speedbird 3 Chronometer just sold out as equal in many ways to the famous IWC Mark XV Flieger model pilot's watch as follows:
1.) Right up front I'll concede that the IWC will have a finer cosmetic and fundamentally non-performance enhancing external and internal finish to case, dial, hands, movement, etc. US and British military procurement officers would not care any more in 1948 than they would now about that and niether do I, but I would expect at least something for the additional 1500 GBP if I were willing to pay it.
2.) The IWC indeed has a well fawned over and modified (and I believe still uncertified) chronometer grade ETA 2892 movement that is thinner and more refined in ways perhaps than the uncertified chronometer grade ETA 2824 movement used in the SB3. However, I would contend that the IWC's movement will not keep it's second hand's eccentric timing rate gain to less than that of the SB3's 2824 when the watches are tested to the same G forces they would endure in the violent manuevers of military fighter aircraft nor would the IWC be significantly more consistent and well regulated in its 24 hour daily rate across the spectrum of its use as determined by its adjustment as to position, its ability to compensate for temperature, its ability to resist the rate disorienting effects of magnetization, its ability to maintain its rate across the entire range of its mainspring's state of wind, its ability to maintain its rate against shocks, etc., etc. I would expect the IWC to ace the SB3 by a second or two here and there per day, but as before, I personally don't care and I would be as happy as a clam with the chronometer class accuracy I know a well tuned and specified 2824 is capable of and would expect everybody else would be also unless some IWC AD had just talked them into spending 1500 GBP extra on a Mark XV.
3.) Both the IWC Mark XV and the Speedbird 3 use a simple press-fit sapphire crystal design with special attention paid to its ability to stay in place against a sudden condition of negative pressure as when a pressurized aircraft suffers damage that dramatically compromises the structural integrity of its sealed fuselage at altitude. I believe, or at least guess, that manufacturers choosing to rely on this press-fit glass crystal design for their true aviation grade watches generally use both a carefully attended close tolerance fit and some kind of glue to secure the crystal to a degree they feel sufficient for aviation use.
IWC tests and rates the crystals of its pilot's watches to stay in place against the negative pressure equal to that which would be endured when a pressurized aircraft suddenly suffers an immediate and complete loss of pressurization at an altitude of 52,000 feet. I believe that would equate to an internal pressure in excess of external pressure measuring about 12.5 pounds maximum per square inch applied to the underside of the crystal trying to push or pop it out of its seat in the case.
There may be other factors involved in assessing a secured press-fit glass crystal's ability to reliably always resist negative pressure under a wide range of conditions, I believe, but as we are comparing one of the same design with another, I would hold that Eddie is being conservative in describing the Speedbird 3 crystal's ability to resist negative pressure. He states that the SB3 crystal is tested to .4 ATM, which is a different way of inferring testing to an internal pressure differential of about 8.4 minimum pounds per square inch, I believe, based on the assumption that the reference of the test is to the altitude at which atmospheric pressure is 40% of that at sea level (sea level pressure is 14 psi). Most importantly, though, I believe that the nature of this type of test in itself only references a point at which performance under set conditions was tested and found not to fail and did not necessarily in any way determine where a ceiling of reliable performance under all conditions possibly encountered might exist. There is a difference between 8.4 psi and 12.5 psi in this context, certainly and recognised. However, even considering this, there is nothing specific to suggest in the dichotomous figures put forth by the respective manufacturers alone that the maximum capabilities of the crystals of each respective watch to withstand the effects of negative pressure is different between the IWC Mark XV and the Speedbird 3 or that one is necessarily iether inferior or superior to the other as to that aspect.
And, I base my belief that Eddie is conservative in his description of the SB3 not just on hope, but on what I believe to be Eddie's admirable trait of undershooting the described specs and ratings of his watches as with his PRS-50's water resistance rating---a study of the engineering diagrams of the PRS-50 certainly imply at least a probable 300 meter WR rating is more applicable than the 200m WR rating Eddie applies to the PRS-50, and he has admitted as much on this Forum. Only Eddie himself could elaborate, but I believe I am right to believe what I do as regards this.
Further and beyond that, Fricker made the Speedbird 3. Fricker until recently made the cases for all of Sinn's very well reputed professional grade pilot watches I believe. Sinn requires all of its pilot's watches crystals, including the press-fit sapphire types, to endure a .2 ATM negative pressure test. On top of that, I believe that the current owner and guiding force of Sinn for the past 10-12 years or so was formerly, before his departure to Sinn, the Production Manager of IWC whom I assume was in that capacity intimately involved in the IWC pilot watch models down to the smallest detail of their manufacture. He, until recently, had Fricker fulfilling the negative pressure specification requirement for the press-fit sapphire crystal professional grade pilot's watch cases they made for Sinn and I can see no rational reason whatsoever why Fricker would slack off their same crystal securing procedure for Eddie's press-fit sapphire crystal professional grade SB3 pilot's watch.
Based on this, and very much despite the various incongruent negative pressure ratings applied to the secured press-fit saffire crystals of the respective IWC, Timefactors, and Sinn brand pilot's watches, I believe them each to be roughly if not precisely equivelent and if I did not trust one I would not trust the other.
4.) As regards the comparison factor of a fully maintainable Rolex OysterCase type screwed-in crown tube which can be replaced an indefinite number of times if damaged or worn without permanently compromising the watch's original specified level of water resistance as can, according to at least one and I believe two professional sources I have discussed this with, be the case when changing out a press-fit crown tube even once: the PRS-22 Speedbird 3 definitely has a screwed-in crown tube and neither of us know if the IWC Mark XV has a screwed-in crown tube or not. Therefore, if the SB3 does and Mark XV does not, the SB3 is superior in this specification, in my humble opinion and that of others more credible than I, and if the Mark XV does also in fact have a screwed-in crown tube, then the two watches are equal as regards this specification as I so stated in my previous post.
5.) Speaking of water resistance, something you did not mention in your post was that the Speedbird 3 is rated for 100 meters water resistance and the IWC Mark XV is rated for 60 meters water resistance. Respectfully, I will leave it to you to argue that this difference in WR specifications between the two watches is not necessarily as it may appear to be.
6.) As regards the metallurgy, workmanship, and materials used for these respective pilot's watches, IWC is a fine watch company and, aside from the cosmetic surface refinements of it's manufacture perhaps not being quite to the same degree as IWC practices, Fricker is an excellent watch company also if not quite as publicly renowned and that if for no other reason than they do not brand their own watches. In fact, Fricker could even in theory have been making certain basic component parts for IWC's Mark XV just as they once did for Sinn's pilot watches. I suspect that the steel and metallurgy, materials, workmanship, etc., and in fact the basic quality of all the component parts of each of the respective watches is at the very least good enough to be good enough, even if held to a reasonable but still very high standard.
7.) And finally, as regards the respective stainless steel bracelets for these watches, the SB3 comes standard with an obviously high quality, high specification, well designed, and very attractive stainless steel bracelet that is nicely congruent with this watch's military heritaged styling for a base price of 325 GBP. And, according to the photographs, it is also a direct and to my eye, not having actually seen iether, identical homage to the latter production Mark XV/current production Mark XVI stainless steel bracelet.
The earlier style IWC barleycorn (or "beads of rice") stainless steel bracelet you cite is I believe indeed enough to set one back a bit, not only as to its rather unique aesthetics, but as to its cost as well. When you say that the optionally available Mark XV barleycorn bracelet at I believe a circa 750 GBP increase in price over the watch's circa 2000 GBP leather strapped base price, was, in fact, so far beyond the SB3's bracelet that it could bear no comparison to it, I would take issue. Objectively, I believe what you say is purely a subjective aesthetic judgement on your part that, while certainly justified by your own particular tastes, does not, in fact, necessarily coincide with that of others.
I like the looks of the classic IWC barleycorn bracelet too, but not to the exclusion of the SB3's latter style bracelet. I would also counterargue that the SB3's bracelet is technically and in its specifications the equal of the IWC barleycorn bracelet.
Denizen, if you and any others here took the time to read this long response, thank you very much, Rollon
Thank YOU for this highly interesting , knowledgeable and detailed comment! :DHi Denizen,with all respect to Eddie and the SB III which is admittedly a very nice design and a great value...i don't know if the superlatives that you mention, eg. that they're equal in many respects...actually applies.
the mark xv contains a heavily modified 2892 as opposed to the 2824 and the XV would certainly get higher grades in finishing, workmanship and potential time-keeping accuracy...both movements are certainly COSC capable with proper regulation. i seem to recall reading that the XV's crystal has a much higher resistance rating than the 0.4 atm that the SB has, don't quote me but i think it was somwhere in the 100-150ft range. the mark XV uses an internal crown tube...i don't know if its is press-fit, i'm inclined to say no.
and while the bracelet that Eddie offers appears to be exceptional and frankly, a steal-of-a-deal at the price point...it's not quite in the league as the old-style XV bracelet.
not trying to compare the two in terms of value, workmanship, etc...just mentioning some points which i though needed to be stated.
i would have loved to have gotten one of the first 50, but a 'standard' prs-22 is also pretty nice to have too. :wink:
I would justify holding the Precista PRS-22 Speedbird 3 Chronometer just sold out as equal in many ways to the famous IWC Mark XV Flieger model pilot's watch as follows:
1.) Right up front I'll concede that the IWC will have a finer cosmetic and fundamentally non-performance enhancing external and internal finish to case, dial, hands, movement, etc. US and British military procurement officers would not care any more in 1948 than they would now about that and niether do I, but I would expect at least something for the additional 1500 GBP if I were willing to pay it.
2.) The IWC indeed has a well fawned over and modified (I believe still uncertified) chronometer grade ETA 2892 movement that is thinner and more refined in ways perhaps than the uncertified chronometer grade ETA 2824 movement used in the SB3. However, I would contend that the IWC's movement will not keep it's second hand's eccentric timing rate gain to less than that of the SB3's 2824 when the watches are tested to the same G forces they would endure in the violent manuevers of military fighter aircraft nor would the IWC be significantly more consistent and well regulated in its 24 hour daily rate across the spectrum of its use as determined by its adjustment as to position, its ability to compensate for temperature, its ability to resist the rate disorienting effects of magnetization, its ability to maintain its rate across the entire range of its mainspring's state of wind, its ability to maintain its rate against shocks, etc., etc. I would expect the IWC to ace the SB3 by a second or two here and there per day, but as before, I personally don't care and I would be as happy as a clam with the chronometer class accuracy I know a well tuned and specified 2824 is capable of and would expect everybody else would be also unless some IWC AD had just talked them into spending 1500 GBP extra on a Mark XV.
3.) Both the IWC Mark XV and the Speedbird 3 use a simple press-fit sapphire crystal design with special attention paid to its ability to stay in place against a sudden condition of negative pressure as when a pressurized aircraft suffers damage that dramatically compromises the stuctural integrity of its sealed fuselage at altitude. I believe, or at least guess, that manufacturers that rely on this press-fit glass crystal design for true aviation grade watches generally use both a carefully attended close tolerance fit and some kind of glue to secure the crystal to a degree they feel sufficient for aviation use.
IWC tests and rates the crystals of its pilot's watches to stay in place against the negative pressure equal to that which would be endured when a pressurized aircraft suddenly suffers an immediate and complete loss of pressurization at an altitude of 52,000 feet. I believe that would equate to an internal pressure measuring about 12.5 pounds maximum per square inch applied to the underside of the crystal trying to push or pop it out of its seat in the case.
There may be other factors involved in assessing a secured press-fit glass crystal's ability to reliably always resist negative pressure under a wide range of conditions, I believe, but as we are comparing one of the same design with another, I would hold that Eddie is being conservative in describing the Speedbird 3 crystal's ability to resist negative pressure. He states that the crystal is tested to .4 ATM, which is a different way of inferring testing to an internal pressure differential of about 8.4 minimum pounds per square inch, I believe, based on the assumption that the reference of the test is to the altitude at which atmospheric pressure is 40% of that at sea level (sea level pressure is 14 psi). Most importantly, though, I believe that the nature of this type of test in itself only references a point at which performance under set conditions was tested and found not to fail and did not necessarily in any way determine where a ceiling of reliable performance under all conditions possibly encountered might exist. There is a difference between 8.4 psi and 12.5 psi in this context, certainly and recognised. However, even considering this, there is nothing specific to suggest in the dichotomous figures put forth by the respective manufacturers alone that the maximum capabilities of the crystals of each respective watch to withstand the effects of negative pressure is different between the IWC Mark XV and the Speedbird 3 or that one is necessarily iether inferior or superior to the other in that aspect.
And, I base my belief that Eddie is conservative in his description of the SB3 not just on hope, but on what I believe to be Eddie's admirable trait of undershooting the described specs and ratings of his watches as with his PRS-50's water resistance rating---a study of the engineering diagrams of the PRS-50 certainly imply at least a probable 300 meter WR rating is more applicable than the 200m WR rating Eddie applies to the PRS-50, and he has admitted as much on this Forum. Only Eddie himself could elaborate, but I believe I am right to believe what I do as regards this.
Further and beyond that, Fricker made the Speedbird 3. Fricker until recently made the cases for all of Sinn's very well reputed professional grade pilot watches I believe. Sinn requires all of its pilot's watches crystals to endure a .2 ATM negative pressure test. On top of that, the owner and guiding force of Sinn currently and for the past 10-12 years or so, I believe, has been the former Production Manager of IWC whom I assume was in that capacity intimately involved in the IWC pilot watch models down to the smallest detail of their manufacture. He, until recently, had Fricker fulfilling this specification for the press-fit sapphire crystal professional grade pilot's watch cases they made for Sinn and I can see no rational reason whatsoever why they would slack off their same crystal securing procedure for Eddie's press-fit sapphire crystal professional grade SB3 pilot's watch.
Based on this, and very much despite the various incongruent negative pressure ratings applied to the secured press-fit saffire crystals of the respective IWC, Timefactors, and Sinn brand pilot's watches, I believe them each to be roughly if not precisely equivelent and if I did not trust one I would not trust the other.
4.) As regards the comparison factor of a fully maintainable Rolex OysterCase type screwed-in crown tube which can be replaced an indefinite number of times if damaged or worn without permanently compromising the watch's original specified level of water resistance as can be the case, according to at least one and I believe two professional sources I have discussed this with, when changing out a press-fit crown tube even once: the PRS-22 Speedbird 3 definitely has a screwed-in crown tube and niether of us know if the IWC Mark XV has a screwed-in crown tube or not. Therefore, if the SB3 does and Mark XV does not, the SB3 is superior in this specification, in my humble opinion and that of others more credible than I, and if the Mark XV does also in fact have a screwed-in crown tube, then the two watches are equal as regards this specification as I so stated in my previous post.
5.) Speaking of water resistance, something you did not mention in your post was that the Speedbird 3 is rated for 100 meters water resistance and the IWC Mark XV is rated for 60 meters water resistance. Respectfully, I will leave that to you to argue that this is not necessarily as it may appear to be.
6.) As regards the metallurgy, workmanship, and materials used for these respective pilot's watches, IWC is a fine watch company and, aside from the cosmetic surface refinements of it's manufacture perhaps not being quite to the same degree as IWC practices, Fricker is an excellent watch company also if not quite as publicly renowned and that if for no other reason than they do not brand their own watches. In fact, Fricker could even in theory have been making certain basic component parts for IWC's Mark XV just as they once did for Sinn's pilot watches. I suspect that the steel and metallurgy, materials, workmanship, etc., and in fact the basic quality of all the component parts of each of the respective watches is at the very least good enough to be good enough, even if held to a reasonable but still very high standard.
7.) And finally, as regards the respective stainless steel bracelets for these watches, the SB3 comes standard with an obviously high quality, high specification, well designed, and very attractive stainless steel bracelet that is nicely congruent with this watch's military heritaged styling for a base price of 325 GBP. And, according to the photographs, it is also a direct and to my eye, not having actually seen iether, identical homage to the latter Mark XV and the current Mark XVI bracelet.
The old IWC barleycorn (or "beads of rice") bracelet you site is I believe indeed enough to set one back a bit, not only as to its rather unique aesthetics, but as to its cost as well. When you say that the (now discontinued?) barleycorn bracelet, which was optionally available from IWC for the Mark XV at a large, I believe circa 750 GBP increase in price over the watch's 2000 GBP leather strapped base price, was, in fact, so far beyond the SB3's bracelet that it could bear no comparison to it, I would take issue. I believe what you say is purely a subjective aesthetic judgement on your part that, while certainly justified by your own particular tastes, does not, in fact, necessarily coincide with that of others.
I like the looks of the classic IWC barleycorn bracelet too, but not to the exclusion of the SB3's latter style bracelet. I would also counterargue that the SB3's bracelet is technically and in its specifications the equal of the IWC barleycorn bracelet.
Denizen, if you and any others here took the time to read this long response, thank you very much, Rollon
Posting Permissions
