Hmm, the criteria mentioned are not restricted to the 90's. - innovative: in the 00's and 10's there were more new movements than in the 90's that were revolutionary and in the end quite good, like the movements for the Big Pilot, the Portuguese Automatic, the Portuguese Perpetual Calendar, the Portuguese Yacht Club, the Ingenieur Automatic, the Portuguese Annual Calendar. - functional: all the watches from the 00's and 10's are quite functional, see the watches mentioned above. I'm not sure what you mean with functional here, which watches of the 90's do you consider more functional than the newer watches? - case material: most watches of the 00's and the 10's were in steel, gold, titanium, ceramic, as the watches of the 90's. Which materials do you miss in the 00's and 10's line-up? - legibility: I bought 10 00's and 10's watches, they all are quite legible.
So, I really don't quite get your points about the 90's watches versus the 00's and 10's watches. I could get that you like the older watches more than the newer watches, but that cannot have anything to do with the criteria you mentioned.
Can you give examples of 90's watches you particularly like?
Thanks to both Tonny and Antonio for your opinions.
It's not the first time that offensive remarks are expressed on the forum when forumers who voice opinions questioning current IWC directions.
I think it's already time to realize that there are many ardent IWC owners and collectors that have a very strong affinity with the brand, but simply do not support some policies that were implemented particularly during the last decade or. It is probably clear that in a free society and its communities everyone is entitled to voice an opinion, provided as has been mentioned so many times that it is polite and respectful. Nothing wrong about hearing opinions that someone else may not like. On the other hand, I think it can be very constructive for the company to be aware also to other voices, especially from those who are on the forum, nothing else but because they are strongly associated with the brand.
Suppose IWC sells 80.000 watches a year. According to some information Mr. Kern gave a few years ago, the average watch buyer owns about 2 or 3 watches. One has to assume that the buyer likes the watch he buys.
Suppose there are about 1.000 IWC watch enthousiasts voicing their opinions on this forum now and again. Part of them are critical about the current direction IWC is moving. They have a collection of, say, at least 10 watches, most of them being rather vintage. Those that are critical would hardly ever have bought a new IWC watch the last 10 years, chances are they will not buy a new IWC watch in the foreseeable future.
My guess is, that IWC honours these forum members for their buying actions in the past, not as prospects to sell new watches to. Because of this, the opinions of these forum members are not very important to IWC, not at all like the opinions of those younger buyers that may buy another watch to their liking pretty soon. IWC being in the business of selling new watches, this seems quite logical to me.
Those that are critical would hardly ever have bought a new IWC watch the last 10 years, chances are they will not buy a new IWC watch in the foreseeable future.
This is quite a statement on the buying patterns of collectors who are critical of the IWC of the last 10 years. Do you have any hard data to support it? Or are you just guessing?
I got my first IWC in 2010. It was a 3714 Port Chrono in gold. A beautiful watch, no question. But soon, I found out, that to my opinion, and I emphasize, my opinion, the beauty of the watch pertains not primarily, but only to the design and not for inner part of the watch...simply because it is covered. I expected that a watch that is priced at 16K CHF, will correspond to what we call cutting edge watch making and will be driven with a corresponding top value chrono movement. It was the first time, following reading the IWC catalogue of 2010, that I came across the definition of an in-house movement and to my disappointment, I found out the the new beauty I just purchased is driven by a ca. 350 CHF mass produced calibre that is used also in watches, which are sold for 20% of the price I paid for that 3714. When I started to try understand, how a brand as IWC equips top-end watches at top-end prices, with such a common movement as Valijoux 7750, the answers were of course, that 7750 is a working horse and it is havily modified by IWC. The simplest rationale that follows these explanations, is simply why IWC is not proud with that? If 7750 is such a great movement, and It Is, why the brand simply does not openly declares this in the specifications for the corresponding models? Why it does not say that the port chrono for example, is powered by an-IWC modified 7750 calibre??? Exactly as other brands that use this calibre, other ETA-based or Sellita-based, etc calibres are doing? This is simply in my opinion to be honest with your clients. This is one of the things that GK could change.
He did not.
Now why you are wrong with your assumption about critical collectors? Well, as soon as I could, I got rid of the beautifully-Designed 3714 and two new great IWCs with genuine brand- made engines.
Sorry Paul, as usual, life is not just black and white.
My post was about whether IWC would take seriously notice of the opinions of the members of the forum: I wondered whether these opinions would be important to IWC, when compared to other opinions. I started the paragraphs with "I wonder", "Suppose", "Suppose", and "My guess is", indicating that I am not sure about how this process works, giving my logic to my opinion.
Even about the amount of new watches bought by those critical about the direction of IWC I made sure to put the word "hardly" in, but indeed I think this amount is low. Often, forum members proudly show their new watches at the forum, collecting quite a lot of congrats and well wishes. I don't (or should I say hardly?) really remember seeing a new watch by one of the critics, but I remember seeing some second hand watches acquired, like pocket watches. To be sure, lately there are not many posts about new acquisitions by forum members: are there no new acquisitions, or have we become shy about showing them? I could imagine the latter, though I myself always showed my new watches with pride.
I still stand by my opinion about the importance of the opinions of the forum members to IWC. From a forum member who was critical, and at the same time close to IWC, and who left this forum a few years ago, I understood that we as forum members must not expect too much of the way our opinions are appreciated. When looking at the direction IWC went the last few years, and the kind of criticism some members delivered, I only can conclude that IWC did not take that much notice of those opinions, which I guess proves my point.
To me, IWC did quite well the last decade, it became a big brand, no longer a dark horse. I liked their collection of watches, me buying quite a few new watches: apparently the time frame was right for me, I'm not sure if I would repeat that again. To me, it were the watches alone, not disturbed and distorted by celebrities and fairy tales, which simply are not for me. As for the future? I don't know, but I wish IWC all the best, they know what they are doing, and once in a while they produce a fantastic watch that ticks all my boxes: what more does one need?
I just wanted to point out, that in my opinion the collection in the Kern era was much less boring or say more exciting than in the years before. Many more interesting and beautiful watches saw the light than in the years before. IWC always had beautiful watches but the last 17 years have bee more than the 17 years before in my opinion. And I think we haven't seen everything of it yet. Next year's jubilee novelties have also been decided and influenced by Georges Kern. Whatever the future will be - I hope as exciting as the last years - we were lucky enough to be a part of the great community and witness the development and success of a very productive and successful time in IWC's history.
I agree with you - the question that remains for me is, if becoming BIG is the only and best goal - especially if your business is luxury handmade products?
Is it good for the owner of the brand - probably (at least in the short term) Is it good for the longterm collector? - in my opinion 'not' ..
to succeed in the longterm a luxury brand must also be exclusive and constant - making "fast money" will look good for a CEO for a few years - but for companies with hundreds of years of history that is not always a good idea..
I guess the direction a watch company takes is foremost chosen based on the target market, the target clients. Just to elaborate on the fictitious figures I mentioned before: suppose that IWC sells 80.000 watches a year, and that there are 1.000 collectors voicing their opinions on this forum: what matters here is that the first figure is much larger than the second. I consider it quite possible that a huge part of those 80.000 buyers are not interested very much in the history of the brand, they just want a nice watch with enough story around it to make it interesting. If they like that package enough, they might buy a second watch later, to complement the first one: most buyers seem to be faithful to a once chosen brand.
On the long term, in a future not too well known, I guess it is vital to interest the buyers of the future, not so much the buyers of the past. If you look at what IWC offers, it indeed shows both heritage and interesting stories, as well as, most importantly, a great range of watches that interest the current clients. The older clients, sometimes aged 60 and more, may be interested in this current offering or not, chances are they may not buy a new watch, them already having quite a few watches they like and cherish. To me it would seem foolish to base the business decisions on the latter small group of collectors that hardly buys new watches. It may be interesting to hear what these collectors have to say, but that is all.
I'm sorry to hear that you didn't know what you were purchasing at the time, and your disappointment led you to selling your 3714. Frankly speaking, no one is to blame except for perhaps you who learned a hard-lesson.
If you look closer at the 79350 movement that beats the heart of the 3714, you will actually find that it is indeed a modified Valjoux 7750. It is not an exact 7750, but a modified one. If you don't know IWC is known for its mastery in modifying the 7750, to a point of building marvelous a double-chrono movement on top of it, or even Kurt Klaus' famous perpetual calendar movement, then I'm sorry, but you have missed the point of being a watch aficionado.
You may also want to know back when the 3714 was released, all of IWC's chronograph movements were based out of the Valjoux 7750. It did not have a chronograph movement on its own. Hey, back then, even more expensive brands like Franck Muller and Eberhard & Co too were using Valjoux 7750, not to mention Omega and Breitling. Patek Phillippe, on the other hand, was using Lemania movements. Vacheron Constantin and Audemars Piguet were using Frederic Piguet movements. None of these can be considered as in-house... arguably they were much more expensive than IWC's also. Why single out IWC for using non-in-house movement alone?
Also, allow me to use another bad-car analogy... does an average joe/typical consumer really care if his/her Audi comes with a Haldex 4WD system instead of the Audi symmetrical all-wheel drive system? An RS3 handles just as well in snow and in mud as that of an A4 (perhaps even more so in some situations). An Audi is an Audi. If you take it back to the dealer for maintenance, it is an Audi mechanic who is going to service your car, whether it is with a Haldex system or not. If it handles just as nice, and is serviced just the same way, should you really care?
Do you care, and must everyone tells you your Mercedes Benz, BMW and Porsche use ZF transmissions? How about Peugeot and Citroen use Aisin (ie, Toyota) transmissions? Do you really care? should you?
Yes, I agree sinking 16k CHF into a watch without knowing what exactly you are paying for could be frustrating. However, does using a Valjoux 7750 modified movement calibrated really make the watch any inferior function-wise? Chances are if you want an IWC with a 8936x chrono movement in gold, you will have to pay a lot more than that.
Unlike you, I for one when I purchased my first IWC, I knew very well what I was getting. I had a chance to buy an IW3227-02/03 (Titanium Ingenieur AMG edition with an in-house 80110 movement) or the IW372503 (Ingenieur AMG edition with the same 79350--ie, 7750-modified movement, like the one your 3714 used). The choice was tough, but in the end, I paid roughly the same and went for the 3725. Why? Because I simply LOVE the look and feel of the 3725. I LOVE the way the two chrono push-buttons seamlessly integrated into the case. I also LOVE the way the two subdials "ate" into the hourly markers, hence, making some of the numerals "broken". People could say I was a fool, but I knew that was what I liked, so I went for it. I never regretted the decision. (OK, so a few years down-the-road, I got myself an IW3227-01 as well, but that's for another reason).
As a consumer, I agree we need to know our rights. However, I don't think we can blame anyone but ourselves if we make a wrong purchase decision. (IWC did not lie to us. It never said it had an in-house chronograph movement... it just said it had chronograph functions--which it did provide). I think getting rid of it, just to get something else with an in-house movement... is even a poorer decision in my book. Certainly your mileage may vary and your needs might be different from mine. I get what I like, and if I like them both and can afford them both, I get them one at a time. No need to complain. Also, if IWC makes watches that I don't like... well, the answer is simple, I just don't spend my hard-earned money on it. No one can (and will) force me to buy something that I don't like.
I agree these are (and should remain as) IWC's core values.
Despite a few that have "slipped through the cracks" which--in my opinion--don't comply with the above standards... I think even in Kern's years, these still hold true.
Sure, IWC has released at times some rather bold designs--perhaps too bold for the weak-hearted persons like me. Generally speaking though, I don't see IWC deviating much from these core values.
I agree I too don't care about the celebrities... but what I like about IWC is that most (if not all) of the featured celebrities were actually fans of the watch before they became "spoke-person" of the brand! I can't say the same for other brands though.
Like I said earlier, the latest series of Aquatimers, for instance, has innovative designs, good use of different materials and good legibility. Their case design is also (in my opinion) functional yet elegant, without being too loud. OK, maybe the Aquatimer 2000 and the Digital Date were a bit excessive... but I think in general, the line has both form and function covered.
In the past 11 years I have bought 11 IWC watches, six of them new from AD. Why do You think I would not buy yet another one, if there is a new model I like?
Actually, I'm quite sure it is more probable that I will buy a new IWC watch, than one of Your 79000 non-collectors. Most likely he just bought himself a one nice watch, and is not interested to buy another one. After all, he is a non-collector i.e. by definition not interested in buying several watches.
Also, I don't think it is impossible for the same watch design being interesting both to collectors and non-collectors. I don't ask IWC to produce some past models not suitable for today's market. I ask them to produce new designs that are at the same time relevant to current market and fitting to the IWC brand promise.
I believe many non-collectors would also appreciate a brand that is known for always keeping its brand promise i.e. not trying to make a quick profit by selling products that are not up to the technology and quality level the brand name should stand for.
