"9" or no "9"?

Greetings, All!

As most IWC Pilot fans are likely aware, the Mark XVI has occasionally come in for criticism (e.g., in an otherwise highly laudatory review contained in a 2007 Watchtime review) on the grounds that it lacks the "9" marker, creating a degree of imbalance in the dial design.

Agree? Disagree? Do you think the new Pilots, soon to be unveiled, are likely once again to have the "9" marker? IWC seems to be quite responsive to buyers' preferences, so I wonder.

Perhaps someone with computer savvy (which I lack completely) might "create" a Mark XVI dial with the "9" marker restored. It would be interesting to see whether the "imbalance" would thus be rectified. Of course, all the numerals might have to be reduced in size a bit, and probably the thick crossbars at 3, 6, and 9 would have to be somewhat shortened.

Alternatively, maybe the date indicator could be moved to the "6" position. I wonder how that would look.

Apologies if this subject has been treated in past Forum discussions before I came on board, two years ago.

In any event, I can't wait to see what the new Pilot (Mark XVII?) will look like. One thing I'm fairly sure of: the case diameter is likely to be at least 40 mm. Personally, I think it should stay at 39mm.

Best wishes to all.

Cheers!

Donald

I think the current Mark XVI Classic is a great looking watch, as is the Mark XVI Spitfire, by the way. I don't see any inbalance in the design of the Mark XVI: there are 8 numbers, the 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11. At the place where the 3, 6, 9 and 12 could be expected there are markers, at the 3 position a bit shorter because of the date. There is symmetry in this respect, one could say that at the "cross hairs" there are no numbers. When compared to the predecessors like the Mark XV, the numbers are ever so slightly bigger and thicker, denying the 9 its place as the dial would look too crowded over there. If the lack of the 9 bothers you, buy the Chrono, where one of the subdials takes the place of the 9 in a natural way.

What to expect: I don't know how well the Mark XVI sells right now. If it is a bit slow I expect a 44 mm Mark XVII, maybe with the movement of the Portofino 8 days handwound.

Kind regards,
Paul

Donald, by chance i am wearing my Mark XVI whilst on a business trip today. So, it was an interesting read for me - glancing down at the watch on my wrist a number of times to confirm / check and review some of the points made.

I had never noticed an 'imbalance' before, and neither now when looking at it with a most critical of eyes. In fact, at the time I bought it the MK XV at 38mm and the old dial were still available and I mused a long time over which dial I prefered, given the changed in the font type of the numbers. My two boys (teenagers at the time) were both very vocal that the dial on the Mark XVI is modern, yet very classic looking - true pilot like and the way to go. Today I agree - it's a great dial.

Paul - the balance is so perfect on this dial , that I DO NOT SEE THE MARKER AT THE 3 POSITION BEING SHORTER! Is it? If so it's brialiantly done - and balance is kept.

I want to see a Pilot alone the lines of the BP but at mid size - 42mm.Wishful thinking I guess. SIHH will reveal all.

Best regards
Mark

The 9 has always been a deal breaker for me. The black dial of the current range is perfect. Blacker than the previous range. But the absence of the 9 was an unnecessary step.
(Sat in HK departure lounge wearing a Mark 11 with a 9)

The 9 for me - far less of an issue on the Mark XVI but certainly an issue for me for the Big Pilot.

I find the Mark XVI suitably balanced without the nine - with the date at 3 sleek enough to maintain decent symmetry. Had there been a 9 with the date window that small at 3, the dial may seem a bit unbalanced.

My main critique of the Mark XVI is the hands - its the big pilot-esque hands now as opposed to the more rectangular hands on the Mark XV and and XII. The Mark XII below I find is fabulous.

Size wise I am actually hoping it will move up to 40mm - but any larger I think it would be too similar with the Big Pilots or even some of the Pilot / Spitfires.

Andrew's pic:

The same goes for me too Rave. I have had both Big Pilots 5002 & the 5004 but the the inclusion of the 9 on the 5002 somehow seems to make the watch/dial complete.
I guess the transitional model would be an ideal compromise ?

I want the 9 on the dial and also I would like to see a 3 on the pilots watches.

Dear Sunflower:

I like what you say about the symmetry in the crosshairs at the "3" and "9." positions.

By the way, the absence of the "9" doesn't bother me at all--I wanted to see what others thought.

I see an admirable symmetry in the way the eight total digits are placed--that, for me, dominates the overall dial design.

Again, thanks!

Donald

Dear Mark (wise choice of forename):

As for the Mark XVI being "classic," I have a strong suspicion it will, soon after it is out of production, become pretty highly sought after--though, chances are, never so much as the Mark 11. But who knows?

By the way, your sons are highly discerning!

Cheers!

Donald

Dear Shing:

I agree that the"9' without a corresponding "3" on the Mark XVI dial might have seemed quite out of balance.

I can't, however, warm up to the "rectangular" style of the hands on the Marks XII and XV. The hands on the Mark XVI, by contrast, seem to hark back--as someone on this Forum has pointed out--to those of the original Fliegeruhr, the one of 55 mm.

Cheers!

Donald

I prefer the more balanced appearance with the 9 in place - it otherwise looks like there's something missing ;)

To me, the question is like blondes or brunettes --they both can be beautiful. In general, I like the 9, but also I think the 3717 is close to perfect without that numeral.

Donald,

Glad you brought this up. I believe there has been some light discussion on this in the past.

Here's my thoughts...

As an owner of the XVI, I have always felt that the dial change from the XV was well designed and properly balanced along with a improvement in size. The XVI became a "Cleaner" and easier to read dial. Those who have seen it physically can appeciate how simply striking and balanced it truly is.

While I also enjoy seeing previous Mark's with 9's and 3"s and I would be happy to own them all, the progression of the Mark has been to bring it to a more modern era(i.e. date,font,size,strap selection,etc.) while retaining some of it's "classic" foundation.

I agree that the XVI as well as all previous models will be in demand as the years pass. Each change has it's beauty. If there was a lack of interest in the Mark, there would not be so many redesigns over the decades.

As we near 2012, I'm confident that IWC will once again bring the Mark (17?) to a new level "Classic Beauty".

Anybody want to predict what direction the Mark may go? Here's mine....

Size 40-41mm

Hands Back to a XV style

Date Window maybe relocated to the 6:00 area or left at 3:00 and made expanded

Font slightly smaller and thicker

Return of the 9

That's my prediction. I guess I'll see soon. Can't wait to see the entire Pilot line for 2012.

Best to All,

Andy

Hi Donald,

Hmmm.. here my personal view would be that the Big Pilot 5002/5004 pays homage to the original Calibre 52 S.C. / B-Uhr, while the Mark XV and XVI is an extension of the line originating from the 'fabled Mark IX' or the IWC W.W.W. (Watch,Wrist,Waterproof) (so called Mark X), before the launch of the Mark XI in 1948.

Both wrist watches with "military" (whether or not military-issue) leanings, but I say their provenance differs.

my 2 cents only :)

have a great weekend ahead guys.

Hi Evereyone,

I own a Mk XV1 and love the watch. However, when I look at the dial I think it would be so much better if both the 3 AND 9 were on the dial. To achieve this would mean moving the date window to the 6 position, or (very unlikely) doing away with the date altogether. This would achieve symmetry about the vertical axis of the dial, which would suit me.

Cheers.

Hi, Ricks!

I can't imagine IWC's doing away with the date window altogether. Maybe a pilot watch purist would prefer its removal, but these days, I can only imagine that most potential buyers just assume that any non-dress watch is going to have a date display, so its absence could be a "deal breaker." Or so it seems to me.

Cheers!

Donald

Andy--

I agree with you completely about the likelihood of the new Mark (XVII, I suppose, unless it turns out to be an unlucky number somewhere on the globe) being 40 or even 41 mm., but I'll be very surprised if the Mark XV hands return--that would seem to be out of step with what I see as the ongoing "evolution" of the pilot's watch, as interpreted by IWC, at least.

I also think the date window might be enlarged somewhat--a lot of people have commented that it's disproportionately small in the present model.

As for the return of the "9", I am completely up in the air--which is only to be expected for a pilot enthusiast, I suppose.

Cheers!

Donald

Great topic Donald - and I always like to have time to pass between similar themes since some people's views also evolve with time too.

Although no excuse I seem to like the presence and absence of the 9 for the reasons outlined above. Therefore I have a Mark XI (no date), XII, XV, XVI, 3717 (chrono) in my collection and with such a trend am pro-standing in line to buy the next classic simple three hand watch in the pilots heritage 2012.

Donald,

Wanted to clarify some of my predictions.

Date Window - I too have read some think the window a bit small ( I think it's fine). By EXPANDED, did not mean bigger but rather expanded like the date part of the "Top Gun" model.

Hands - I think they "might" go back to the XV or previous Mark style hands. I personally like the current propeller hands. They sing "Pilot" !!. If they do change hands, my bet is all the pilot models will be the same.

Finally, if a Nylon strap ( like the Top Gun ) is offered, that would make me very happy. It's a great pairing for the Mark.

Can't wait for the 2012 Pilot Lineup...

Andy

I think having no "9" creates balance. Looking at my Mark XVI there are markers at the 3, 6, 9 and 12, subsequently balancing the watch. adding the "9" I think would be unbalanced.

So now that the "Year of the Pilot" has come and gone and this post has been reactivated, some of my predictions regarding the MARK XVII emerged.

In particular, the 3 level date window was incorporated. While not a big fan of it, there are some models that it fits well and creates dial balance.

IMO, the MARK XVII was not one of those models. In fact, of all models with the expanded date window, it looks the most odd in the XVII. Again, IMO it looks as though it was crammed in just for the sake of making it consistent throughout the collection.

Don't like it...the Mark should have been kept more classic in nature. The addition of the 3 level date emits confusion to the iconic image this historic watch deserves.

My opinion, what's yours ?

Andy

Apologies to the original poster and to any members with comments after the reactivation. In my haste to share some thoughts on some of the original content, I lost track of the topic "9 or no 9".

I will start a new thread as I would like to hear what others think.

Thanks Everyone,

Andy

Hello Donald,

with your question you applied a litmus test, as we call in GE due to Goethe. ;)
In a puristic sense to the B-Uhr and Mk11 there has to be the 9 and the 3,

I like the 9 on all the black dialed pilots from the Mk 12, UTC Classic up to the 5002,

and the more balanced without 9 on different coloured pilot dials.


Just my 2 cents :)

Best regards

EDITED