Should IWC have more technical emphasis in 2011?

I've thought about IWC's 2010 new models and also the discussions on this forum about them. Undoubtedly, the 2010 novelties have been well-received. The comments here, especially on matters of style and particularly dials, have been very positive. From what I hear, IWC's SIHH sales were strong. And that may be the acid test for any "for profit" corporation. That makes business sense and and shows that IWC is absolutely producing the right products for its market.

I don't know how other companies at SIHH fared, but IWC's sister companies seem to have developed a different business model. The two other companies in the "old" LMH group, Jaeger Le Coultre and Lange, emphasized technical products and new movements. JLC unveiled an astounding four new movements and its 2010 theme was "innovation through movement" --a stark contrast to IWC's romantic concept about the spirit of navigation. Lange introduced an important and innovative new automatic movement, and that followed a few months after its very different Zeitwerk movement.

Now, new is not necessarily better. In the scheme of things all movement changes can be considered somewhat minor. New movements can raise production and sometimes quality issues, and they often increase costs. Coming off a tough year--even if IWC did far better than most-- the best strategy might be to regroup, keep prices in line and produce what sells best.

Moreover, I detect a shift in IWC's market. Based on the interests and issues raised by this forum there is much more style discussion and less technical discussion. They are , of course not mutual exclusive, and most collectors have an interest in both. But there has been, to my perception, a difference in degree. There've been a lot of dial comments ("I can't get this dial out of my mind") and less technical interest. I'm surprised that no one, for example, asked about the technical characteristics or even the reputation of the Piaget movement that IWC is using in one limited model run.

This isn't necessarily bad. Good style, and indeed aesthetics, have great value (I intend right now to write more about dial design subsequently). The market is what it is, and it's IWC's job to appropriately address that market. I think IWC does a terrific job, especially compared to most of its competitors. Also, given a tough year in 2009, as mentioned it really was an optimal time to regroup and to carefully consider price points, production and market. The business strategy of the other prior-LMH members might be horologically interesting, but the wrong products at this time. Moreover to the general marketplace selling a complicated new movement doesn't allow the same "story telling" marketing that IWC's products have.

Still --I respectfully suggest that IWC can use more technical innovation, and I do hope that 2011 will produce slightly more of a shift, in degree and not kind. But I also think that it won't be easy --after all, 2011 will be the year of the Portofino, and its product line generally don't have price points that allow a lot of expensive technical innovations.

As always, constructive comments are invited.

Regards,
Michael

You make several good points....

My emphasis is usually on how a watch looks but technical aspects are equally important. Many lines like Panerai and JLC have been introducing new in house movements which have been well received. And in my view nothing was more exciting than the Lange Zeitwerk "Ghost" which to my way of thinking is a technical tour de force. But there is a limited market for an $80,000 platinum watch, especially in this economic climate.
So I think IWC has done a great job of managing the lines to get maximum value for the money.
Lets face it, the Yacht Club movement is the same one used in the Big Inge Chrono and others. But this is an intelligent use of resources.
So I hope ypu are correct about 2011. But for now IWC has straddled the line between technical achievment and good design very well.

I did!

//www.iwc.com/member/forum/search_all.asp?table=posts&name=flyrobyfly36&archived=no&id=213574

https://www.iwc.com/member/forum/search_all.asp?table=posts&name=flyrobyfly36&archived=no&id=213576

for 50% of my questions related to the new model :)

I also took pictures of the movement at the SIHH and I studied it a little.

I'm very interested in technical elements as the most intriguing and consisting part of every watch in this world.

The new port collection maked feel reassured by this point of view, since I consider cal 5000 and all its descendants (declinations/complications added to the base movement) the Summa of all IWC's technical virtues (the conversation with Kurt Klaus confirmed this opinion I had). So probably I understimated in this particular circumstance this issue too.

As an enthusiast of watchmaking and of the Brand, I'm obviously eager for technical improvements and I would like to see more if possible. It would be also great to have more tech-talks here, even if this forum looks to me already full of competent discussions about the most different arguments (historic, technical, etc.).

I stop here but the argument is very interesting, so I'll surely get back as the discussion will follow.

Regards,

roberto

Should IWC have more technical emphasis in 2011?

Dear Michael:

There seems to be the germ of an answer in your posting. You argue that IWC, by concentrating more on design and aesthetics than on technical innovation per se, has managed to thrive thus far in a difficult global economy, so perhaps there is no need for it to change its strategy, at least not in the near term.

I myself have less interest than many others in technical matters. I am pleased and amazed the my beloved Mark XVI consistently gains a second and a half daily. I do not bother about the fact that it houses a modified movement made by someone else rather than one designed in-house and featuring lots of bells and whistles. Accuracy is important to me, knowing the phases of the moon or the time in Tokyo or Budapest is not.

Two cents more: I wish IWC would furnish more of its models with the incomparable steel bracelet. St. Louis, where I reside, is a sub-tropical climate (during the second world war, British legation members, posted here in connection with munitions manufacturing, were granted a tropical-hardship supplement-- Quinine and pith helmets, anyone?). A leather strap is not likely to last very long hereabouts, whereas the steel band is forever.

I would love to save up for a Portuguese or a Portofino, both exquisite watches, but on a steel band.

Cheers!

Donald

I agree with you MF, but wouldn't 2012 be >

a more realistic time line with the time required to develop new pieces?
--
Isobars.

true, but I don't know where they're at....

For example, I don't know if a rattrapante mechanism was ever developed for the in-house chronograph calibre and "put on hold".

Regards,
Michael

Indeed Michael

but what I also think is that the vast majority of people buying an IWC watch is because they think it is looks beautiful.
And if I was in G. Kern's position and find that people are buying the watches because of the looks then I would invest much more in dials for the short and mid term.
So may be is a matter of priorities.
Concerning long term basis I would think that since IWC has always been a pioneer in technical issues I would feel very confident. Truth is that the only technical innovations in 2010 would be the retrograde function and making the Grande Complication's case water resistant.
May be they ll surprise us next year or in 2012 when the cash cows will still be milked. What I really want to say is that I would like to see IWC be top of the list in technical innovation and aesthetical criteria too. But first I have to see the new Portofinos, I bet they ll look lovely a good chance to visit the actual Portofino don't you think?

Best regards
Argiris

I think you raise a good point >>

I must admit I admire JLC and L&S for their technological developments.
Style is important too but I think it is also very important in the haute horology segment to have technological developments inside these nice designs.
Don't get me wrong, I like this years models but I was not very exited in terms of seeing any real innovations.
So yes, I do hope to see more innovation in 2011.

Yes, definitely. (nt)

IWC could have more technical emphasis in 2011

In my opinion IWC is quite strong in the technical field. Not only in base movements but in complications, cases etc.
I think the movement is something that only is discussed very much if it is not well done.
In this field watches can be compared to cars:
The engine must be good, strong, economic, well engineered, service friendly and long lasting. If all that is the case you can easily forget about it. Then you come to the really interesting points. That is design, comfortability, esprit: the more emotional things...
... like dials, cases, bracelets etc.
Nevertheless: technical innovation should be done continously. If IWC would ever get behind, what I really doubt, it wouldn't be good for the company.
In my opinion IWC does a great job in balancing between design, heritage, the story to tell about the watches and technical innovation. I think this should be kept - whatever that means: IWC knows best I guess.
Tilo

Forgot: The Piaget movement in the Portugieser ...

... I really don't care too much. The movement is OK I guess, but IWC is really strong in Portugiesers. That's why this watch is not interesting for me. There is the 5001: A perfect example of design, movement, and technology.
The new Pure Classic looks pure and classic - well. But if I would want a lower budget Portugieser than the 5001, I'd go for the chrono. It offers a chrono with 30 minutes and seconds counter and a small second and is even more aesthetical than the new one in my opinion. And the movement is very good as well.
And if I would want a hand wind Portugieser I'd go for the hand wind classic with small second and Jones caliber.

Just my 5 cents why I wouldn't care about the Piaget movement.

Tilo

Very important observations

I am afraid IWC IS putting less emphasis on technology. I was critical a long time ago when the Ingenieur concept was diluted by a display back.

I guess the problem is that most buyers don't care about the technical history. That's where the story telling marketing philosophy has it's limitations.

I would like to see IWC develop impressive movements like JLC. But it's expensive and perhaps the time isn't right.

I hope the forum will still focus on technology. I have learned a lot here!

Having ordered the PHPC I am very interested in the Piaget movement. I have learned that it's a cal. 830P and Piaget has given the IWC version number 835P.

I have also read that IWC had other plans with these movements but ended up with the PHPC.

Can you tell more about that Michael? That would be very interesting!

Jens-Kristian

I think IWC is doing fine

This is a very interesting question, that in my opinion must be preceded by another question, will the answers make sense: for whom does IWC make the watches, what do they expect of these watches? Without knowing this exactly I would say: "IWC builds watches for well to do people that expect classy first class watches". From the technology perspective this means at least that what is built must be very difficult to improve, it must be really well made and look beautiful, nicely finished. I say at least, and I am quite sure IWC is doing this, along with a few other brands.

IWC has a technology image, and I assume it wants to preserve this image. That means that something more is expected: cutting edge and pioneering. Not only twenty years ago, but also nowadays. I think that within the possibilities available IWC does a very sensible job. The last few years gave us the in-house movements like the 89360, which is quite a remarkable chronograph, the digital date perpetual calendar movement and the Deep Two mechanism. A bit older the Pellaton mechanism and the Kurt Klaus Perpetual Calendar. And then the not typical IWC mechanisms like the Tourbillon, the Minute Repeater, and lately the retrograde date. All in all quite impressive, and I would like to know what else would be worth while for the target group.

One goal could be to strive to make the mechanical movements as precise as the quartz movement. To strive, as it may be impossible. But F.P. Journe has set himself this goal, which in the long run might be very appealing when a significant result can be shown. Like Omega is trying to achieve with its co-axial movement. Another possibility is to work a bit more with a combination of technically interesting and appealing materials like titanium, ceramic and tantalum. One example is the ceramic Da Vinci Chrono, which I am sure will be quite successful. One direction that has been indicated I do not like in this respect: that the Jones movements are difficult to produce and expensive. Will they be replaced by a "cheaper", less well made movement? And the Piaget movement, which may be very nice: I am not really interested in it, it is not IWC. If I would have to look at external movements that are interesting, I again would turn to F.P. Journe.

But everything you do in the technology department must be reigned by the answer to the first question: for whom does IWC make the watches, what do they expect of these watches? Don't fall in love with your products, fall in love with your customers.

One example for me, a few years ago. I thought the Portuguese Perpetual Calendar to be the perfect watch, also from the technology point-of-view: in-house, Pellaton, Breguet, Kurt Klaus Perpetual Calendar, fine adjustment mechanism, it had it all. I really felt proud to own this miracle watch that I could only hardly afford by then. Well done IWC, you "lured" me into it with the best of arguments.

Kind regards,
Paul, wearing steel VC Portuguese

Rubber strap instead of steel bracelet

As high quality bracelets are quite expensive, I have the impression that IWC rather furnishes its more sporty watches with a rubber strap. When they are high quality too they seem to be quite comfortable, but I have no experience with them. Would you consider this to be a viable alternative?

Kind regards,
Paul, wearing steel VC Portuguese, with leather strap, which seems the only nice possibility here

An interesting thread....

The technology of IWC is something about which I am still receiving an education. I found everyone's comments to be very enlightening and informative.

Best regards,
Jim

May I give my PoV?

As I wrote it about 2 weeks ago, I think IWC had concentrated itself on "look" instead of "technology". How can we explain otherwise a 30mm movement in a 46mm case? And this applies to all the new Portuguese : "old" movement in "not so new" case. But while I do appreciate some of those new watches, I 'm a bit left on my appetite, as I like technical detail: in fact, this is what attracts me first. I do prefer a lot more the new ALS 1815 than the new handwound Portuguese, even if its look is more, may I say "drab". The movement in this 1815 is in fact more attractive and seems more technical to me than "that good old Jones". Sorry for my "franchise" but you ask for it.

Maybe, instead of putting another time the auto chrono movement in a sporty case to use it in the Portuguese line, IWC could have developed a handwound chrono movement for that Portuguese line : this would have made more sense, according to me, as the Portuguese had always be the more "classy" range. But again, look before logical.

Just my two cents.

Regards,
Jean

but, of course, although on handwounds...

...frankly the market is weak, except for a small cadre of collectors. It's also very easy to remove a rotor from a movement and call the movement a handwound, so I wouldn't get too enamored with the concept.

I like the Lange 1815, but again don't get too enamored. It had a very nice movement when it was developed for a 36mm watch. Lange decided to raise the price point with a larger watch, which is why the Richard Lange is more than double in price (and that really raises issues of integrity). Lange has taken many if its watches and just grown them for style, including with colored dials. I think the new Daymatic is a fabulous watch --after years of stagnation, but at its price --close to double what IWC's calibre 5xxx sell for--- it should be and frankly it won't sell that many.

That said, I like Lange. I just think your comparisons are unfair.

Regards,
Michael

Should IWC have more technical emphasis in 2011?

Michael, I chose here to write my response, before I read what the rest of our forum members have responded. You say it all in your post above - "new is not necessarily better"! I guess "what makes an IWC and IWC is different for every collector or fan - however whilst I did not consciously make a call on that topic for myself, I do know that today for me it's FIRSTLY about the movement! I own a GST Alarm, and like the looks - but somehow, the fact that it has a Cal. 917, based on the JLC Cal. 916 for me makes it less IWC !! Now don't get me wrong, the Cal 917 with it's 220 parts and 22 jewels and 44 hour power reserve is a great movement , for me I still prefer to have a "genuine" IWC ticking on my wrist. So I would indeed like to see IWC get more technical but raising the bar (and keeping watches affordable" is a difficult challenge. I've just had an 8541b Pellaton movement reworked (one of the greatest IWC if not all time movements produced in it's class) - and for me, that will be much more an IWC than that Piaget movement "thin thing" that IWC is now putting out. So yes - let's get technical!

Inverting the factors>>>

While I was carefully reading to all the answers given, I was thinking about the technology IWC already has developed which it seems it have not found a follow up in the latest models.

I'm talking about cal 89800 and the Perpetual Calendar Digital Date-Month, technically speaking very interesting to my opinion.

Regards,

roberto

While technical advances are de rigeur ...

I certainly applaud JLC and others for their advancements in movement designs, materials and applications, but at what cost? I'm thinking about "concept cars" that make interesting sights at car shows, but what percentage actually make it to the roads.

And for watches, if putting a unique movement into every watch, becomes a goal (remember Lange originally said that would be there signature), then manufacturing costs will surely soar. Didn't I read that a couple of years ago before Richemont acquired Dubuis that they made (supposedly in-house) more than 200 movements?

And as Mr. Kern would say, how many of my 80,000 watches are going to be sold to people who really care about the movement rather than the whole package?

I'm all for technical advances, but lets not expect IWC to turn into Renaud and Papi.

Larry

On handwound movements

I know this is not a growing market, but ALS is mainly popular on that one, so there is surely something to do for IWC in that range. Of course I'm aware that IWC and ALS don't fight on the same market, even if I find IWC greater on many points and could be very competitive. The PPC is a lot more readable than any PC from Lange or other companies. The 5001 is a true great watch, even if at half the price of many competitors. And that's just good for us. But those have "technical" details besides mere "good look" quality (the Pellaton movement or Kurt Klaus PC for instance) and those attributes made them winner amongst other models of their range.

My point was that it could be interesting for us to have something different from IWC than always about the same Jones handwound movement. or the same auto chrono 30mm movement in always larger case, even if it's a great movement. And that was why I suggest a large handwound chrono movement for the Portuguese. That would have made great sense for me and probably would have cause an "inside debate" for me, a struggle between IWC and other companies.

Regards,
Jean