• Graduate
    19 Apr 2012, 5:56 a.m.

    Hi Giovanni,

    here you can see the dial of the Pallweber I.

    Best regards,
    Á

  • Connoisseur
    19 Apr 2012, 7:47 a.m.

    Thank you Áron,
    would still be interesting to see a photo of the case and, if it possible, to know the number of the case (in 554, the case has the number 514) and the hallmarks.
    Thanks again for your time.
    Regards
    Giovanni

  • Graduate
    19 Apr 2012, 7:52 a.m.

    Giovanni,

    You shouldn't say thank you I will do my best with pleasure.

    Have a nice day.
    Á

  • Connoisseur
    20 Apr 2012, 2:36 a.m.

    Dear Áron,
    Some photos that you entered were deleted. Can you put them back together with a photo of the case of Pallweber I?

    Regards

    Giovanni

  • Graduate
    20 Apr 2012, 7:11 a.m.

    Dear Giovanni,

    I'm looking for the best place to upload them cause the recent one is quite unsafe. I will solve it soon and if you need I can send all of them to your email address too.

    Regards,
    Áron

  • Connoisseur
    20 Apr 2012, 7:36 a.m.
  • Apprentice
    22 Apr 2012, 6:39 p.m.

    Dear all,

    Unfortunately I didn’t make it to post the pics of the two movements. So I can’t clarify with the pictures but in the meantime I ask a service watchmaker to disassemble the two movements 350 and 979. The mechanisms of setting the disks are different. So as a reference for a Pallweber I we definitely have the 350. Now there is no doubt about it.
    As in Tölke/King mentioned our service watchmaker discovered the same: at a certain time you can’t set time via the crown in both directions with a Pallweber I. The mechanism of Pallweber II allows to adjust fore- and backwards. It would be very interesting to know at least which is the first known Palweber II with the new system.

    According the numbering systems: I really doubt that there was double numbering of movements; e.g. a Pallweber and a Elgin with the same number.
    It does not make sense. Please keep in mind that the 2nd numbering system was introduced to restructure sales and operative administration of IWC.

    We are researching the numbering system still; so please have a little patience until we have evidence enough to verify our assumption to the different numbering systems. Then we can make a clear statement and of course we will communicate that first to the IWC collectors.

    Best wishes and enjoy Sunday evening.

    David Seyffer
    Museum Curator

  • Master
    22 Apr 2012, 9:41 p.m.

    Interesting approach.

    Up to now we have never seen two movements with the same numbers in the 2nd numbering.
    There are around 30 movements known with numbers <1000 (3%)
    I am not strong in statistics, but there sould be, from a certain number
    of movements, an "identical numbered" pair.

    regards

    Ralph

  • Connoisseur
    23 Apr 2012, 1:25 a.m.

    Many thanks David, the Pallweber 554 is now in the lab of my trusted repairman (he is very good), and, when it possible I will try to understand if it allows to adjust fore- and backwards or not. I do not know if it will be easy to understand for the problems that presents in the mechanism of the ten minutes disk and to set time.
    Regards

    Giovanni

  • Master
    23 Apr 2012, 1:37 a.m.

    David, really interesting and a sound approach under the circumstance I believe.

    One cannot re-write history; but we can research and correct the facts.

    Lets see where this all leads us to in the form of knowledge.

    Best regards
    Mark

  • Connoisseur
    23 Apr 2012, 8:31 p.m.

    Dear all,
    The mechanism of 554 allows to adjust only backwards, but I do not know if this is due to the problem of the bridge of ten minutes disk, that is not original, but was replaced by a welded bridge system.
    Finally here the photo, without this bridge and the ten minutes disk and still with a piece of metal welded on to which was grafted the bridge added to support the ten minutes disk:
    i1069.photobucket.com/albums/u473/costi92/IMG-20120423-00025.jpg
    The plate and the brigdes are certainly of Pallweber I, but the movement in the under dial view seems varied with respect to that of n. 331 and 350.
    There is, maybe, a Pallweber I bis?
    Regards

    Giovanni

  • Apprentice
    24 Apr 2012, 11:25 p.m.

    Dear Giovanni,

    to be honest, I´m not quite sure what to say. According to the under dial photo it could be both Pallweber I or II. Interesting thing is the adjust only backwards you mentioned.
    If you maybe will visit Schaffhausen and the IWC Museum, please let me know. If you like we then ask a service watch maker to have a look on your Pallweber watch to clarify which Pallweber mechanism it is.

    Best wishes

    David Seyffer
    Museum Curator

  • Connoisseur
    25 Apr 2012, 2:02 a.m.

    Many thanks David,
    here an other under dial photo. This time the movement as it had been improperly repaired
    i1069.photobucket.com/albums/u473/costi92/IMG-20120423-00026.jpg
    Best wishes

    Giovanni

  • Master
    25 Apr 2012, 6:28 p.m.

    Dear Giovanni.

    The interesting part lies unter the wheelwhich indicates the minutes 0-9.
    The pallweber I has there only a star just on top of the wheel with the missing dents, moving directly the wheel with the minutes 0-9.
    The Pallweber II, I think, has an intermediate wheel and a star moving the
    wheels with the minuts.

    But maybe there are different variants (prototypes)

  • Apprentice
    16 May 2012, 9:24 a.m.

    hi
    i am a new member in this forum
    my name is yitchak afriyat
    i have 2 iwc pallweber that i need to find there model or caliber
    movements number is-23643
    and-17847
    thank you

  • 16 May 2012, 12:18 p.m.

    Hi yitchak,

    When you posted this same question yesterday, Hans Goerter responded with the answer. Please see
    www.iwc.com/forum/en/discussion/56796/

    In the future, kindly do not post the same question in several discussions or convert someone else's topic because of a similar keyword.

    Thank you.

  • Apprentice
    16 May 2012, 12:24 p.m.

    HI
    OK I WILL NOT
    I WILL CHECK THE LINK AND LET YOU NOW
    BEST REGARDS