extent to which IWC watches are handmade

Hope someone can help me with this:

The other day, someone admired my Mark XVI pilot and asked whether in my opinion IWC was on a par with Rolex in overall quality. I wanted to be able to reply that IWC watches are essentially handmade (I believe I read that somewhere) but that Rolex watches are essentialy mass produced (again, I vaguely recall reading that somewhere, too).

I was able to state confidently that IWC produces a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of pieces made by Rolex per annum, but as far as their being handmade is concerned, I just do not know.

Can anyone enlighten me on this matter?

By the way, the Mark XVI, purchased late last October, has by late February settled into a fixed routine: gains exactly two seconds per day, with scarcely any deviation. Not bad, huh?

Cheers to all,

Donald

yes they are hand made...

but so are rolex, just not "as" hand made as iwc. all the cases on the professional range are machine made, but the movements are hand made.
this question pops up all the time and it's really not fair to compare the two watches - they are entirely different as are their markets.
let's just say that rolex are at the entry level of high end watchmaking. they are still very good watches though.
iwc on the other hand - well, MF has a lovely saying...
"iwc are the working man's patek" -that says it all.
stephen

The difference between IWC and Patek Philippe

I always wondered about the difference between the two, as far as this mattered to me: both are fantastic brands making wonderful watches. Two aspects are important to me: looks and technology. Another aspect that may be interesting is history of the brand, but as soon as I have made a choice for a watch, and I have the watch at my wrist, this aspect looses its meaning to me, as is the case with all kinds of stories around watches and watch lines.

I think that IWC watches look a bit more exciting. Patek Philippe watches look very established and a bit dull really. Watches of both brands are excellent made, you can see it right away, it doesn't matter which model you take. It boils down to personal taste, and although I considered one or two Pateks, in the end it did not feel like my brand, my kind of watch.

From the technology point of view, the in-house movements of both brands are excellent. Patek Philippe only uses in-house movements, they have in my opinion far more experience with in-house movements, where IWC restarted with them about ten years ago after a fairly long period of absence. So Patek Philippe may have the edge here. According to some connoisseurs Patek Philippe is second to none in this department.

As the IWC technology is excellent, and the IWC looks appeals more to me, my choice is clearly favouring IWC. However "IWC as a working man's Patek" doesn't appeal to me at all: are working men only drawn to the cheaper watches? or are Patek Philippe watches only for the rich and famous? It has something degrading to IWC which I do not like, and I do not believe to be true, certainly in recent times. Certainly my choice was never based on this criterion.

Kind regards,
Paul, wearing steel VC Portuguese, not quite a typical working man's watch

you should understand the craft of movements...

...The quote about IWC being a workingman's Patek was repeated by me on this forum, but it was common among collectors in the 1970s and 80s. I believe it might be attributed to James Dowling, the well-known Rolex expert from the UK.

To my thinking, the issue about understanding fine watches is not whether they look "exciting" or simply whether the movements are "in-house" but rather one of craft and artisanship. These are mechanical objects and the ultimate difference is craftsmanship To understand that, one needs to understand movement design and finishing.

My mentor in the 1990s, and now good friend, is Walt Odets, one of the true watch experts I've ever met. I would commend you to his his Horologium and other Internet articles, where he explains and talks about the craft of movement finishing, They are all easily locatable with Google. You will see that there is a material difference between brands, and subtle but important differences. It may not make a difference in timekeeping, at least in the short run, but there is a difference in craft.

Keep in mind that I am, by personal bias and vocation, an IWC evangelist. But also I absolutely respect other brands, and will say that Patek has attributes that ordinary consumers don't understand but which are important to watch connoisseurs. I personally think they take advantage of that with "unusual" pricing. But I wouldn't dismiss them because one perceives, subjectively, their styles as staid or that they, like others, have in-house movements.

If the issue is craft and if craft is important, there may be a difference. Whether that is true depends first on learning about craft and only then the development of a value system.

Regards,
Michael

The term is pre....

...James Dowling. A lot of the dealing/collecting fraternity especially of Polish extraction use the term 'Schaffhausen'. The usage is a bit of a double header in that it part way explains that the person verbalising it is from different shores and that they are aware of the relatively unknown (at least on uk shores/pre '70) value for money of a 'Schaffhausen' timepiece (it being a working mans PP being one and the same). Bizarelly this mantra simultaneously took a bit of a further foothold around certain NY streets amongst a similar crowd.

The difference between IWC and Patek Philippe

"As the IWC technology is excellent, and the IWC looks appeals more to me, my choice is clearly favouring IWC. However "IWC as a working man's Patek" doesn't appeal to me at all: are working men only drawn to the cheaper watches? or are Patek Philippe watches only for the rich and famous?"

Thankfully collecting wristwatches is not about how much monies you can throw at a wrist watch....some quality is that cheap that the working classes can afford to collect....a win/win/win/win/win scenario.

"It has something degrading to IWC which I do not like, and I do not believe to be true, certainly in recent times. Certainly my choice was never based on this criterion"

It's not degrading at all Paul, in fact it's the opposite....bit of a nod and a wink thing really.

I don't know>>>

what parts and how many are handmade, I'd stay firm to IWC philosophy to realize meaningful innovations and, from this point of view, I don't see many differences between IWC and the crowned maison (if we talk about sporty lines), I just can say I simply prefer the first - a lot more.

btw, when I look at the chronographs produced by the Geneva sealed Maison, I don't see in-house movements, since it has a very poor tradition in producing chronographs, I see a very stubborn Lemania mass produced with some irrelevant modifications, the first in-house chrono since a long time is a these days novelty.

Regards,

roberto

again, we agree...

remarkable ,)

Michael

I stayed out of this debate but...

I have to agree with Catherine. I think most people know exactly what is meant by the Patek/IWC comparison and that it is a compliment in IWC's favor.
Look, we all know that collecting watches is not an inexpensive pursuit but the advantage for IWC is the value obtained for money. Also, IWC's willingness to produce the highest quality watches in stainless steel should not be forgotten.

extent to which IWC watches are handmade

Thanks, Everyone, for a spirited and informative discussion in response to my humble query!

I was particularly pleased with Michael F.'s emphasis upon craftsmanship with regard to IWC in particular. As I believe I recall remarking in my very first post on this forum, the build quality of IWC Mark XVI is absolutely staggering. Also the accuracy and precision of its timekeeping. Just unscrew the crown and the solid feel you get is incredible.

My Mark XVI doesn't have a see-through back, so I have no idea what the movement looks like (I read somewhere that IWC takes care to decorate their movements, whether in-house or not--not that decoration is the highest mark of craftsmanship, only I couldn't begin to evaluate the quality of a watch movement merely from visual inspection.

On the other hand, I CAN see the quality of the steel bracelet "up close and personal" every day, and it vividly calls to mind the old adage "You get what you pay for," and also what an old friend's Jewish grandmother used to say, "The best is cheapest."

Thanks to Michael also for seeming to distance himself from the "poor man's Patek "quip, which I always found off-putting.

These posts and replies, as well as the marvelous photographs (sorry, I am shamefully lo-tech and do not even own a camera, so I can't follow through with pix) are a daily delight!

Cheers!

Donald

extent to which IWC watches are handmade

"iwc are the working man's patek" Hi all, I am new to contributing to the IWC Forum, and a new collector (since 2008) and just wonder if the quote above is really being mis-interpreted - unless I am being naive! Isn't it implying that an IWC watch is a WORKING watch - a work horse and a work of art (as in the Pilots Watches and the Aquatimers and Portuguese) that performs and can function reliably in hard working or tough environments, where as Patek Watches (beautiful as they are) are "dress" watches and would not be suitable for environments that could place great stresses on them, or physical violence? Patek Watches are generally 'beautiful' but because of that also "fragile" in that sense. You sure would not want to be working on a factory floor or building site wearing a Patek, but you know you could be wearing an IWC in such strenuous conditions and be sure it would not suffer as a result (apart from you having some accident!) Does that make more sense of the comment and show that the two watches are built for different purposes and a different ethos - and for a different life style of the owner? Rather than a 'put down' of IWC and their owners, it highlights the difference between the two types ? John W Birmingham England