Grail found....Inge 866..

If I'm not much mistaken, 3 months has passed - this watch should be back from the menders now, right? ;)

Would love to see the finished product!

In the meantime, I have 2 things to ask -

1. What exactly is meant by a "sigma" dial? Are you saying there are different variants of this already rare blue 866?

2. Can all 866 experts please look at the following photo - the lume on the hands looks so clean... in fact, the hands look so clean compared with other pictures I've seen of the 866, that I can't help wondering if they have been re-lumed, or the hands replaced entirely?

What do you guys think?

Thanks!

Matt

The hands may have been replaced during a normal service. But if they were, they are original NOS pieces. For some people, this is anathema, but the way I look at it is the same with a car- if you drive it long enough, you need new tires.
About Sigma dials; you are fortunate to have this type of dial. It was the higher end dial, where the applied markers were made of gold. Several manufacturers used the Sigma designation to indicate a more high end version of that particular watch. Fantastic!

Nelson

Sorry for hijacking this thread but it seems as a good a place to ask as any! ;)

I've noticed some minor variations in these 866s - the one I posted above, only has 'T' next to the SWISS at the bottom (T SWISS T)

However, all but 1 of the examples on frizzellweb have: (OT SWISS TO)

If T is Tritium... what does the O stand for? (I thought maybe Oyster for the model with the original oyster bracelet but it's shown with 'O' on the model with the grains-of-rice bracelet too)

Something else - a listing not too long ago for a "like new" version of the 866 shows a watch that has a white date wheel, not the black seen in almost all other photos - again, any significance? Was this change made at IWC during the production years or are these re-fitted date wheels?

Thanks.

Thanks Nelson - how can you tell? What were the "lesser" model's applied markers made of? Steel?

Thanks Nelson - how can you tell? What were the "lesser" model's applied markers made of? Steel?[/QUOTE]

If you look with a loupe, you will see the "o" on either side of the 't' is really a sigma- which shows it to be a sigma dial. And yes, I believe the others were made of steel.

Nelson

Ah.......... sorry Nelson but are you referring to the watch the OP uploaded or the one I did? The OP's has sigma markings but I can't see them on the photo I uploaded - let me upload it again and tell me what you think...

Thanks

Matt

The "O" designation was probably connected to a certain dial manufacturer, and did denote the use of gold indices. However, I do not believe that those without the designation on the dial had steel markers. I believe that all 866 dials were fitted with gold markers.

Regards,

Tony C.

Hmm.... so we have a differing of opinion on this subject between you and Nelson!

Is it ever possible to ask IWC directly to clarify an issue when it comes up like this?

:)

So I found this article on Hodinkee about Sigma dials which is quite interesting.

Hodinkee Sigma

It seems the Sigma symbol was brought in to mark these mechanical watches as being made with precious metals, ie, to convince people that owning a mechanical watch in the time of quartz movements was somehow more of an investment.

But I find an inconsistency - on frizzellweb, there in an all gold 866 from 1974, so after the Sigma symbols were first being used - this is an 18k all gold watch... and yet there are no Sigma marks on the dial.

frizzellweb also points out that the APRIOR (Sigma symbol) was used on models with white gold hour markers... but he says just because a dial does NOT have the APRIOR symbol, does not mean the hour markers are NOT white gold (just to be extra confusing!)

frizzellweb

And this article from 1998, where the guy buys an anthracite 866 says the hour markers are white gold, and yet in the one photo, there are no Sigma markings:

Anthracite 866 owner

It's all a little confusing.

: \

There is no evidence that I am aware of that IWC used other than gold markers on the 866 models. In fact, virtually all of the evidence is to the contrary.

Why would they use gold on some, and steel on others? What purpose could it have served when there were no "Deluxe" models? How could the two be priced the same? Why were there no such distinctions made in catalogues?

On top of those points, the markers all resist corrosion in a manner more consistent with gold than steel, and note that the (steel) hands are typically corroded to some degree.

Again, the Sigma symbol was very likely an anomaly produced by a particular dial manufacturer.

Really sorry that I haven't been around much these past few months. The watch is back, it is beautiful, and I will try to post some good shots of it this weekend.

Cheers,
Todd

p.s. And my opinion of the hands on the watch above is that they are luminova service replacements.

Thought I would share a few photos of the restored watch.

Purists: please don't be too concerned about the NOS hands and crown-the old parts have been saved should I wish to bring it back to original condition.

Jack at Superior did a fine job on the movement, as well as piecing together a lovely bracelet out of the several less-than-lovely examples I had.

The NOS Luminova hands were sympathetically relumed by me using a mixture of tint and adding in non-glow lume to match the dial glow. Not my best work, as I did it when Jack had the watch in his shop so I didn't have the dial in front of me for a more accurate match. But I'm delighted with the watch overall, and love wearing it.

Cheers,
Todd

Great result, fantastic watch!

Congrats - Awesome result and a wonderful Inge!!!

Thank you both. Well worth the wait for this one...

Cheers

Great result, Todd! Looking forward to seeing it in person.

Cheers,

Tony

Hi Tony
You will find this article interesting. You may have to brush-up your French.;)

aprior 1
Aprior 2

Thank you, Antonio.

I took French for several years when I was much younger, but lack of practice has degraded it severely. My understanding of the article, and please tell me if you read it differently, is that there was an effort to create a type of guarantee the use of gold in bracelets, cases and dial, by using the Aprior symbol, much like "chronometer" certifications or Geneva seals for movements.

My understanding of that, though, is consistent with what I have claimed above, namely that gold markers were invariably used on 866 dials, and that those with such symbols were simply coincidental.

I say that not only for the reasons mentioned above, but because gold markers were used on the dials of some Omega, Longines, and other manufacturers, yet the Aprior symbols did not appear on them. In other words, I believe that it was a failed attempt to gain widespread acceptance as a standard symbol.

Cheers,

Tony

Hi
I agree that APRIOR was an unsuccessful initiative to guarantee the use of gold in watch components, in this specific case, the hour markers in dials.
I am not in agreement with you when you posit that "There is no evidence that I am aware of that IWC used other than gold markers on the 866 models. In fact, virtually all of the evidence is to the contrary."
Until proven otherwise I believe that only Ref 866 with aprior dials have hour markers in white gold. The other steel Ref 866 have steel hour markers.

Well, aside from the supporting points that I have already made, I find it very difficult to believe that IWC would have decided to use gold indexes only after, or should I say because of the Aprior initiative. In other words, the ref. 866A/AD models were introduced in 1967, a full four years before the Aprior symbol was trademarked, and three years before they first appeared on dials.

And if such a change had been made several years after the introduction of the model, would it have made sense for IWC to only use only a new, tiny, and virtually unrecognizable (to customers) symbol to herald the change? Do you imagine that they would not have trumpeted the change in catalogues and other marketing material?

Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of FULL Gold 866 that have no Aprior mark. How can that be consistent with your view? Surely manufacturers would not have only used the symbol with white gold. Here are three, found through a very simple search:

www.frizzellweb.com/larry/ingenieur/866-fr-18k-champagne-dial.jpg

www.collectorsquare.com/images/are/b1/11081b101/11081b1010161-iwc-vintage-ingenieur-reference-iwc-866.jpg

cdn2.chrono24.com/images/uhren/images_05/s9/6471905b_xxl.jpg?v=1

And this internal dial reference itself shows no such symbol:

www.frizzellweb.com/larry/inge/1808-1908.jpg

And note that the reference was for models 1808 and 1908, which were the replacement references for 866, and which began in 1971. So if gold indexes were new to the model, and were invariably denoted by the Aprior symbol, why would the symbols not have appeared in the internal reference material?

Finally, in the excellent and well-known "Dial Variations" Ingenieur reference authored by Larry Seiden, Marco Schönenberger and David Ter Molen, it is stated: "Notably, a dial lacing [sic] the APRIOR-mark does not mean the markers are not gold."

From www.frizzellweb.com/larry/ingenieur/Ingenieur3.html#8541
"The silver-dialed models with the 8541 and 8541B movements are certainly the most frequently encountered of the 8541x Ingenieurs. There might have been two types of silver dials, with a later version whose dial is said to have been finished using a mix that included white gold powder (see post-1968 examples below). These later examples are typically found with the applied "IWC" logo and the APRIOR-mark, and the dials appears to have a richer texture and color than earlier examples."

It is obvious you feel strongly about your opinion. Probably more than I feel about mine, but until there is definite evidence, not just opinion, I'll stick to mine.

First, I am referring only to the markers, not the dial itself. The quote that you excerpted above relates only to the dial surface, on which a fine gold powder was used, presumably along with other materials. It is entirely possible that the Aprior mark was, in the case of ref. 866 Ingenieurs, used to denote that. But there is no evidence at all that it was used to denote gold markers.

Secondly, the reason that I feel strongly about my conclusion is because it is supported by virtually all of the available circumstantial evidence.

Regards,

Tony C.

I have a small issue with "circunstancial evidence." Just like beauty it tends to be in the eye of the beholder. I prefer "DNA evidence."

Thanks Tony, much gratitude for alerting me to this one. Dinner on me next time!
Cheers,
Todd