Mk 11 1948

Hi new to forum.
just got this watch from my late great uncle who was in the RAF .
And was wondering if it was a iwc watch and any other information would be great. 
Many thanks john.

l believe it isnt an IWC from your photos and the dial features - but the best way to check is look at the movement. If you go to a qualified watchmaker to open the case back you will be able to check if the movement is from IWC. Please come back when you do that so we can learn more.

Hi John
It is a RAF Mark 11 from 1848 with the correct cal 89 Angl, without INCABLOC.  The dial is either a very poor repaint, if it is made of soft iron, or an outright fabrication, if not.  The hands appear to be from the first generation Mark 11, with the "white 12" dial.

The image does not help at all.  The dial is definitely a repaint, but it would be essential to remove it to determine if it is made of soft iron to complete the faraday cage, which gives the Mark 11 its protection against magnetic fields.  There are many Mark 11 from 1948 with fabricated, i.e. fake, dials and I suspect this is one of them.  
A forum search would provide a lot of information, but unfortunately the seach fearure has been deactivated, but you can find a lot of information here:
www.gregsteer.net/IWC/Mark_11/mark11a-en.pdf

Your lot looks fine enough Glas...service replacement dial of non iron variety..exactly how they would turn-up arriving straight from the military (mu14), presumably the british deemed this set-up fine and dandy...though there are german surplus dealers wanting credition for such a dial swap..it's a shame your late uncle could'nt tell us if he had stumbled across such characters in his life. Thanks for showing

PS...the military Omega 53 arrived via the military in exactly the same manner...in more or less exactly the same numbers 

Well, I also found a 48 model with a brass dial.

After a dial exchange it has the correct magnetic shielding again.

Those were sold without the former radium dials and so other dials were mounted instead.

We had this discussion before.  It is irrelevant who replaced the dial of a RAF Mark 11 with a dial that does not protect the movement against magnetic fields - the RAF, a dodgy dealer, the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick-maker,  If the dial is not made of soft iron then the watch is no longer a Mark 11, it is at best a Mark 10 1/3.

Dear all

these are the dial and hands from a Hamilton 6B 9101000 General Service wristwatch, sometimes referred to as "Hamilton Mk. 11". To be more precise: MoD replacement dials for the "Hammie".

I have a collection of "non-standard" dials and hands for the IWC Mk 11, amongst others these "Hammies". All such "Hammie" dials I own or had the chance to check are made of brass and have no dial feets. Because made of brass they have no antimagnetic properties. Due to the fact, they have no dial feet, but the diameter of IWC Mk. 11 dials they easily can be mounted on an IWC Cal. 89.

I have no documentery proof, who mounted these dials. However, considering the fact, that the RAF had much more IWC and JLC Mk. 11 than needed in times of peace, I assume those dials were not mounted on watches designated to be issued as navigational wristwatches on active military service. It appears they were mounted to foster the sale: Maybe by MoD watchmakers to lift the bids on the surplus auctions, maybe by civilian dealers who bought watches without dials and had to get them marketable by mounting those dials acquired separately. And as the MoD for sure sold bags of IWC Mk. 11 watches without dial, it appears more plausible, that the dials were not fitted by the MoD, but the dealers, who bought the watches on auction. Nevertheless: Those IWC Mk. 11 with "Hammie" dials were frequently seen when the first RAF Mk. 11 from surplus auctions were offered by civilian dealers in the mid 1980ies. And my conclusions given are not supported by documentary evidence.

A set of these dials and hands is currently about 30 Pounds, while an all original set of IWC dial and hands is about 500 Pounds Sterling. So the judgement of the community is quite clear, though not neccessarily correct.

Regards

Th. Koenig

Thanks for your post Mr. Koenig (i'm not too sure the hands are from a hamilton offering).

The hamilton 6b watch mentioned is intresting enough to this thread with it owning a dial that married/fused brass-to-iron to provide a reduced screening, i say intresting because it was reduced again and with the camera watch it does kind of indicate that the mod were more than thinking less gauss in a period well before the mid-80's. 

Dear Victoria

Just to be sure what the three points are, you want to make:

(i) Do you assert, the dial of the "camera watch" (I assume we talk about the modified Mk. 11 Store Ref. 10AF/807 for the Lightning weapon recorder) has no antimagnetic properties? That would be quite surprising to me. I have two of theses watches plus a box with many spare parts including parts of the case and as well dials (unfortunately no backs marked 10 AF/807 in the box). One of my watches came direct from the spine of a Lightning when some volunteers started a restauration project and sold parts they were not interested in to raise money. The box with the "spares" came from a at that time well known London dealer who had "converted" the camera watches into wristwatches and dumped the cases, dials, hands of the camera watch in that box he gave me for free as useless for him . All dials for the camera watch I was able to check including those I have in stock are without exemption made of soft iron. What is somewhat delicate is the white coating, which obviously never becomes dry. But beneath this coating and the dial is soft iron (and of course those parts of the dial not coated in white.
(ii) Do you assert, the "camera watches" had no incabloc movements? I have thirty of these watches in my database and saw another about ten. Apparently many camera watches were cannibalized in the 1980ies and 1990ies to "produce" Mk. 11 wristwatches and only later on some people tried to make of the remainders "new camera watches". So it is hard to distinguish between "dealer put togethers" and [i]original ones. Amongst those not clearly to be classified as put-togethers I saw mainly incablocs of the Mk. 11 series procured in 1952. There are some lates ones, some of these sold by IWC to civilian customers outside the UK and the Commonwealth, so at least debatable, but anyhow with Inca, and four without Inca. Do you know about camera watches WITHOUT Inca and WITH TRACEABLE PROVENANCE back to the RAF allowing to say no dealer had the chance to alter the watch? That would be interesting.
(iii) Regarding Mk. 11 wristwatches I understand you deem watches without or with lower antimagnetic properties to have seen services as well. Do you refer to wristwatches issued as Mk. 11 or to watches downgraded from navigational wrist watches to General Service watches? Or do you have no information on a possible downgrading?

Regards

Th. Koenig

Regards

Th. Koenig[/i]

i Regarding Mk. 11 wristwatches I understand you deem watches without or with lower antimagnetic properties to have seen services as well. Do you refer to wristwatches issued as Mk. 11 or to watches downgraded from navigational wrist watches to General Service watches? Or do you have no information on a possible downgrading?

I think i mentioned the hamilton 6b owning a bi-metal dial...[/i]

Didn't mean to start an argument was just asking because I don't know about watches . Very thankful for all info on my great uncles watch. 

Sorry for not phrasing and/or reading precise enough:

Do you assume/know that Mk. 11 without full antimagnetic shielding have seen actual military service and if so as Mk. 11 6B/346 or only downgradedas watch, wrist, general service? 

I could imagine that watches downgraded to General Service were equipped with Hamilton dials: The Hamilton dial is cheaper. And the Hamilton dial would indicate "Hey, this is no navigitional wristwatch 6B/346, but a downgraded one".

Regards

Th. Koenig