The New Aquatimer Chronos: Some Wrist Shots and Metrics....

Not yet --sorry! By the way, it's a very large watch at 49mm. and it is limited to 50 pieces.

Impressive line-up. The bronze version looks stunning imho but most of all I am glad that proportions are still fine. With the exception of the perpetual that is....49mm WOW. Hopefully, one won't be drawn straight to the bottom with that weight ;-)

Thanks Michael, hope to see a wrist shot soon at the SIHH.

Michael,

Referencing the IWC "News & Events" announcement of the new AT's, Christian Knoop refers to the left side of the watch explaining the protective cover to the sliding clutch system. Am I interrupting this incorrectly, or is this what is being questioned as a He valve or other ratchet use ? Seems like it actually has a functional purpose and was necessary verses aesthetics only.

Sorry if I am "off base" on this issue. Thanks for one more clarification.

BTW, would it be correct to say that the "quick change" strap system is brand new and not compatable with the previous system licensed from Cartier ?

Again, thanks for any feedback.

Andy

Hi Michael.
Thanks for all the info so far!
Does the titanium AT 2000 have a 42mm or 44mm case?
Thanks.
BR
Klaus

More answers:

1. the quick change strap system is new, and not compatible with the prior system. The prior system was licensed from Cartier, and the new system (which I found remarkably easy to use) is born and bred by IWC.

2. The Aquatimer 2000 is 46mm, and discussed in another recent post of mine.

Michael, sorry to be pest but I find it hard to believe that IWC would stick an 'appendage' at 9 o'clock for purely aesthetics reasons.

What can I say? It does cover the clutch system, but it need not look like a crown to accomplish that. It balances the case, and makes it easier to hold while manually turning the bezel. I guess you could say that serves some function.

It is not (a) a helium valve or (b) a crown that moves or moves another part or (c) a pressure lock or similar device.

I think it looks quite good....very much a tool watch.

Is it possibly a port for oiling or servicing the clutch? I like the look regardless of what it is.

No.

Close up shots on some websites of the 2000 clearly show perforations in the device interestingly. From memory, looks similar to the D2 device?? Is it possible that it is functional on at least some models?

All I can guess is that it is a cover to stop the clutch being engaged unintentionally. It has been designed to look like a crown for aesthetic reasons and presumably slides in some way to give access to the clutch.

My guess.

Graham

Thx Michael for the inside info
A lot of questions i had are being answered

Pitty IWC left the cartier quick release system.
i had hoped the straps i already have would be exchangable..

like the bronse AT but have seen the prices

And my Ginny pig is hiding from me (LOL)

Cheers

What happened with company that I once loved so much ?
Who at IWC is nowadays designing/approving these horrible releases ?
Or maybe I'm the only one on this forum who really dislikes the new Aquatimer line up....

Maybe IWC moved on, and you did not in the same way? How long is it ago that you loved IWC so much, and what induced this love?

Kind regards,
Paul

Sad to say, but I fully agree to your comment. I think the releases look like cheap diving watches you can get everywhere. I'm afraid the only "improvements" will be made in terms of increasing prices...

I think it is too early to make a final assessment of the watches. One has to see them in person first, which will happen at SIHH. Be patient and give them a chance!

I warmly welcome the 3768 as the possible next ideal watch for me, to add to my 376706 (and other IWC-s) but the functionless thingy at 9 might be a deal-breaker for me. IWC is proud of producing highly functional timepieces and this useless thing simply does not fit. There is some time till it goes into serial production, maybe enough to think it over. This way the watch is:
- heavier
- more expensive to produce
- lends some "cheapish" look
- dangerous to some cuff-links and alike.
Would not fit to suit wear, while without it is still "under the radar".
Some competing brands could do it... (Mike plz delete this sencence if offensive - I don't think so though.)
So please IWC...!!! :-)
Other:
Hope the steel bracelet gets the micro-adjust clasp, like other IWC lineups (Pilot, Da Vinci, maybe Ingy too?). The watch is heavy and thus badly needs it: summer wear on the beach is usally loose while when swimming or at water sports tighter. And if someone has to use the rubber or Velcro only because of this, who is taking care of the valuable steel bracelet on the beach?
Hope there'll be a quick-exchange (croco) leather strap option for suit wear.

Otherwise I'd be glad to know the ref. 3768 precise size & weight data:
- watch weight on bracelet and on strap
- watch total height
- lug-to-lug length (maybe the most important for skinny wrist owners...)
- case diameter
- bezel diameter
(the ref. 3767 was officially specified by IWC 44 mm, while the case is 43.5 mm with bezel 45.5 mm!)

Excuse me for the critical remarks on some point, but this watch could be an "ideal watch" with only this modification of erasing this useless thingy at 9...

Thx for listening!
HNY!
Robert

I am trying to prevent myself from making any further comment on before I see them closely in SIHH.

No disrespect to anyone, but in my part, 2014 may have deserved better Aquatimers. Or Aquatimers have deserved better design.

Should we blame it to all this 'marketing' virus sticked to our beloved IWC?

Couldn't disagree more. I love the look of the new Aquatimers. Can't wait to see them in the flesh. I am excited by the photos. To me, it looks like they have evolved and I like what I see.

I fully agree with Jarrod. IMHO they look great, and I am looking forward to see them in the flesh.
As the like or dislike of the design of such a luxury piece is purely based on personal taste it is the most natural thing on earth that there are people who do not like the design.
What can I say other than "I'm sorry for you guys";-)

I believe the new designs were intended to be more "conservative" than some of the recent prior designs, and also to be much clearer descendants of IWC's historical diving watches, including the Porsche Design Ocean models. For a traditionalist, I think the new designs are much more "IWC-like".