ANSWERING THE CRITICS ABOUT MOVEMENT QUALITY

Jack - I think that we agree on the result of having inferior quality, but not on the timeline. For most of the people here buying frequently new watches of this brand the (long term) quality won't matter, as the issues arising will only show after some time. The less you wear the watch, the longer it will take for the issues to show up. But even for a "frequent wearer" of IWC watches, the delay will be at least 7 to 10 years - the period until the watch first comes to a service. Now, looking at the average time senior management is in place in companies like IWC nowadays, I don't think their main concern is how the perception of the quality will be after that lifespan of 10 years. Their main concern is - and this is what they are measured against by the group - the margin they are able to realize on the products sold and the total value. It is all about incentives - IWC is no exception here.

Having said that, it is possible to produce a heavily reliable, mechanic calibre with high quality standards, four days power reserve, quite antimagnetic and 100% swiss made for a price of less than 50 USD, even being completely produced by robots and meeting COSC standards. SISTEM 51 is the example for it, and I consider this product as a revolution. But to accomplish that, there is the need of investments in the right place, research and interest to do so by "entrepreneurs", resulting in absolutely no necessity to buy movements from other manufacturers.

I reread this a few times, and I don't get it. Somehow you imply that the quality of the watches is becoming inferior, probably when compared to the IWC watches of a few years ago. But it are mere hints, nothing specific is mentioned. You suggest it could be that in the long run watches would need more or more heavy service: also when compared to the watches of a few year ago? Is this what you imply? Then, I think that you say that that more inferior quality is due to cost cutting, the drive to please the top management to maximise profit, am I right? Please, if so, could you indicate where the watches have become more inferior? Is it the cheaper oil? A less than perfect regulated watch, which could influence the need of service? I am no expert, so I would like to get out of the realm of rumour. If it stays in that realm, I start to find it difficult to believe you because it doesn't make sense when compared to the findings of Jack, a long time professional watchmaker.

Kind regards,
Paul

Yes. I am with Paul here. Please David, and Jack. Fill us in on specifics. We spend a lot of money on these high-end watches. We would like to know what you know, if there are quality issues.

I think this is normal that a mechanical watch needs some service. And if it's after 7-10 years it's a very lasting watch of great quality.

OK, Georges Kern is in place now for 12 years and there is no hint that he's going to leave. I haven't heard of special problems that have been produced in his first years.

Sorry I cannot follow the argumentation that is used here.
First cost cutting should be the problem why IWC watches decrease in quality - without telling one proof for that claim.
Then it is propagated that if the right processes are used a watch could be produced very cheaply.
Comparing apples and pears.
Sorry, I'm in this forum for more than 12 years now and I've read lots of these discussions over the years. And none of these "issues" have turned out to be a real problem yet.

Mike, it was not my intention to discourage you from buying another IWC; I just wanted to highlight that also Jack's story has two sides, like any other story too. One should buy the watch where joy and emotions balance the money invested. Regarding my personal experiences: I don't think it would be fair to publish a list of issues I witnessed with watches and service, because at the end, people at IWC took care of them and as I mentioned before, the perception of value for money is purely personal.

You are not discouraging me. But I am interested in what you have to say, as well as what Jack had to say. And, David, I respectfully disagree with you and think you should detail your issues with IWC so that we others can see whether they are issues that do or could affect us. If, for some reason , you strongly disagree, you could email me if you want.

I'm late to the party on this one but want to add my appreciation for the long-term, technical view. Watch movements are complex machines and certain to be imperfect. As a computer scientist, I'm just glad that they are of higher quality than most software.

+1 - well put!

Check your inbox.

Guys, I thought the idea of a forum was for enthusiastic's to share there experiences, good or bad so we all have the best insight into what to buy, what not to buy or at least to be advices by those who are more experienced in these matters.
I would hope, no matter how IWC may look down there noses if there are quality issues that may affect the long term accuracy of the watch then we should be sharing these quality issues, no matter what IWC may think.
I have just ordered a portuguese automatic and intend to pass my watch down to my son for him to enjoy and therefor want it to last that long. If it is going to struggle then can somebody tell me so?

Best regards

David

Gentlemen:

I have read thus far all the pros and cons and, due to limited time, would like to conclude with the following thought:

Since I'm not privy to internal manufacturing decisions taken by IWC's management nor do I feel qualified to answer all questioned raised point by point I hope my initial analysis which I presented is fair and comforting to those who are concerned about their current IWC timepieces or future purchases.

When evaluating a manufactured product as complex as a mechanical timepiece it is important to look at the total picture: the company, its history, its manufacturing capabilities, its after-sales-service and, above all, its commitment to customers.

Therefore, as I said in my opening post, the fact that IWC continuously upgrades its movements at their own expense should give most customers a sense of admiration and respect that the company is not out to get away with cost cutting measures which may compromise the timepieces produced.

At the end of the day, it isn't easy to keep huge factories going without considering all the important elements raised by many of you.

In conclusion, I hope my remarks shed some positive light on the subject of IWC's movement quality and that my post will be appreciated for what it's worth.

Regards to all,
Jack Freedman

That's a great conclusion of the subject, Jack.
I'm sure there's always something that could be made better at any timepiece and IWC like every other company in the world has to keep an eye on the costs. Anything else could be dangerous.
But I feel treated very well.
An IWC watch is not a cheap product and thus service cannot be cheap too.
But if it's well done it is worth every cent.

Thank you, Jack.

Perception is reality. It seems that some IWC buyers here are very satisfied with the products - and this is very good news for them. For me, the perception is different, but again - it is very personal and about your own experiences. I am curious to see how IWC will evolve.

Hi guys,
I've been running the UK IWC service centre workshop for about 15 years and servicing IWC watches for about 20 but this pales into comparison to Jack's years with IWC on the other side of the Atlantic...Almost double mine!
His expert opinion cannot be taken lightly.
As you approach the end of trawling through this thread, with its polarised opinions, take some time to reread his opening and closing posts and trust in the informed perception of a long-term IWC insider.
Leo

Hello Leo,

I'm deeply honored about the all out support and recognition you have given me for my years of association with IWC. This is even more flattering when it comes from an IWC colleague across the pond whom I've never met or knew of. Thank you.

I posted my remarks with the hope that my many years of service for IWC would leave readers with a positive frame of mind regarding the operating platform of the company. But, as with nearly every issue in life, the most reasonable explanation based on experience can be diluted by skeptics whose negative perception overwrites logical rationalization. As was expressed in this thread 'perception' becomes 'reality'.

In the end, however, I hope that my posts have served a worthy purpose of laying out the good work IWC has been doing and continues to do going forward. And, for that, I'm grateful to have shared my thoughts on this great forum.

Regards,
Jack Freedman

Hi Jack,

For the record, you had me at "my many years of experience".

Always appreciate your point of view and advice.

Best,

Andy

Well, to me it is quite clear. Me not liking something that looks like a conspiracy theory, I find the explanation of two professionals like Jack and Leo completely convincing, and in line with what I experience with my watches built by IWC over a period of roughly twenty years. I am not quite sure about what triggers the sceptics and critics, maybe an incidental mishap with one of their watches. What I do know is that most of these critics and sceptics are not professional watchmakers, and that some of them had some beef with the current IWC management. So it looks sometimes like spite is the motive for being not too positive about the brand. When questions about specific information on these quality issues are not answered, then my conclusion about these sceptics is to ignore them, just to point out that their level of expertise may be insufficient.

Kind regards,
Paul