or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 2598  

post #38956 of 48312
It's still a movement that isn't visible. Why put unnecessary finishing on it when only a watchmaker will see it? Would you pay an extra premium if they do that? An extra gran do two added to the retail price? Would you finally buy an IWC if they polished up some of those pieces inside?


I just find it ridiculous to use that as excuse over and over and over again against IWC. They have proven then can make movements look pretty so crucify them because they do not bother making an unseen movement with a geneve seal?

lol8[1].gif
post #38957 of 48312

Prime example: Rolex don't need no fancy movements

post #38958 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TradThrifter View Post

Prime example: Rolex don't need no fancy movements
Rolex's chronograph movement for comparison:

Rolex_Daytona_4130_Movement.jpg

Not fancy, but not exactly cheapass either.
post #38959 of 48312

^I was just going to start posting pics of Rolex movements. They aren't fancy, they aren't meant to be, but there is certainly finishing. 3156 isn't bad looking either.

post #38960 of 48312
And a non-marketing pic looks like this.









Again, if IWC make those very slight tweaks and adds $2k-$3k to the retail so when you open it up it looks slightly more impressive, would the bitching on IWC end? Would you actually pay 5 figures for that watch if it had a handful of polished parts?
post #38961 of 48312
Looks pretty good to me under non-studio lighting, too. What I see is a well-finished movement.

The point is that IWC is charging Daytona prices for a watch on a cheap strap with a movement that doesn't have any finishing whatsoever. Part of why people pay that much for a watch is knowing that it has something a bit special inside, regardless of whether you can see it. I'd expect at least some evidence that the maker gives a crap about its product, and it shouldn't have to cost 2-3K extra to get something with non-joke finishing quality.

This type of cynical approach to watchmaking — along with their reputation for gouging customers on service — is why I'm not interested in buying anything from today's IWC. Others may feel differently.
Edited by Belligero - 12/16/14 at 9:37am
post #38962 of 48312
So the in-house movement isn't enough? That isn't the thing that is special inside? No polishing or finishing means the maker doesn't give a crap? On a non-visible movement? It's not like it affects the watches performance. No possibility that they are thinking it'll make the watch overall cheaper for the consumers, right?


I mean, am I the only one who is finds this ridiculous, to count out a watch just because the movement isn't something you'd want to stare at for hours and that is hidden?


How do you know that it shouldn't cost a few thousands to give those pieces extra polishing? Extra machines or time in the machine? Extra man hours who hand polish each and add a pattern? And obviously they have to charge a premium to make a profit.



Also, IWC straps are cheap? All IWC straps I've handled are top notch along with their bracelets and even rubber straps. I've also experienced nothing but great service from IWC too.
post #38963 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

I mean, am I the only one who finds this ridiculous, to count out a watch just because the movement isn't something you'd want to stare at for hours and that is hidden?

No. You're not the only one.
post #38964 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

So the in-house movement isn't enough? That isn't the thing that is special inside? No polishing or finishing means the maker doesn't give a crap? On a non-visible movement? It's not like it affects the watches performance. No possibility that they are thinking it'll make the watch overall cheaper for the consumers, right?


I mean, am I the only one who is finds this ridiculous, to count out a watch just because the movement isn't something you'd want to stare at for hours and that is hidden?


How do you know that it shouldn't cost a few thousands to give those pieces extra polishing? Extra machines or time in the machine? Extra man hours who hand polish each and add a pattern? And obviously they have to charge a premium to make a profit.



Also, IWC straps are cheap? All IWC straps I've handled are top notch along with their bracelets and even rubber straps. I've also experienced nothing but great service from IWC too.

 

The question of integrity is often mapped to the hypothetical "What do you do when no one is watching?"  I think Belligaro is saying that IWC is cutting corners by not finishing the movements, knowing full well that they are behind an opaque cover, and very few end users will actually see them. I'm inclined to agree with him atleast in theory, it is a luxury product and the entire product (not just the outside) should represent a commitment to excellence -- even parts that are not seen.

 

Back up a little and we can have a debate about what mechanical high end watches really are today. Some would argue that they are purely jewelry, and that you are paying for the visual aspect of the watch. Others would argue that watches are complex machines and you're paying for the engineering, features and technical performance of the watch. I am a bit more pragmatic, I feel that watch companies will use whatever means they can do justify their pricing, and that often means incremental improvements or differences that are not truly significant to the functioning of the watch. I'd group the matter at hand into this group -- for a luxury watch maker, it is table stakes, a point of parity.

 

I'm not an insider in the watch industry, but I'd be shocked if IWC's margins are below 50%. The idea that some additional machining would increase the price by thousands is crazy. If they've already made the decision to cut back on the internals in order to make their watches 'more affordable', they've got deep problems than unfinished movements.

 

And I should say, I really like some IWC watches and would love to own one.

post #38965 of 48312
All I'm saying is that George Kern's priority is pricing power through image, and he's very proud that "you can increase prices by 30% and you have no decrease of your volumes." ("And this is the beauty of our business.") The they'll-queue-up-for-it-anyway movement in the CF3 is a result example of that attitude.

If someone wants to buy it anyway, that's fine by me. Personally, I wouldn't accept an unfinished movement on a $1.2K watch, let alone a $12K one.
post #38966 of 48312
I am not going to get in a drag out brawl on this but I am just putting an instance out there that if IWC indeed make the movements slightly polished then you guys would buy? I mean even if they do not add thousands, it'll still add some extra there.


Because I simply find that completely ridiculous that if the in-house movement functions perfectly well and is robust isn't enough for it to be "special".

I've also seen that movement posted a handful of times already and I've only returned to this thread a few months, it's like you just want to pound it into everyone's head that IWC sucks. lol8[1].gif
post #38967 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

So the in-house movement isn't enough? That isn't the thing that is special inside? No polishing or finishing means the maker doesn't give a crap? On a non-visible movement? It's not like it affects the watches performance. No possibility that they are thinking it'll make the watch overall cheaper for the consumers, right?

I mean, am I the only one who is finds this ridiculous, to count out a watch just because the movement isn't something you'd want to stare at for hours and that is hidden?

How do you know that it shouldn't cost a few thousands to give those pieces extra polishing? Extra machines or time in the machine? Extra man hours who hand polish each and add a pattern? And obviously they have to charge a premium to make a profit.

Also, IWC straps are cheap? All IWC straps I've handled are top notch along with their bracelets and even rubber straps. I've also experienced nothing but great service from IWC too.

 

Yes, sorry but an in house movement with little to no finishing isn't enough.  Thanks, I'd take a VC or Cartier with a  Lemania, JLC, F.Piguet, or Piaget movement that is well finished over an in house IWC movement with bead blasted finish.  Just because something is in house doesn't make it a movement that is better than something from a high quality movement manufacturer.  In house movements can be great, but IMHO they don't win against a nicer better finished outsourced movement. 

 

I don't see it as merely a matter of counting a watch out because the movement isn't something I'd stare at for hours, as much as I would have to question at IWC's price level am I truly getting my money's worth.   The photo you provided is merely from further distance so you see less detail.  While its not as finely finished as something from PP or AL&S its still well finished.   

 

As for the cost of finishing the movement, its certainly not thousands of dollars to do that.   There is no R&D that is going into giving the watch a basic but nicer finish.  The machinery is the same machinery that is probably used to finish other movements they produce.  Yes, its a few more man hours, but nothing insane.   

 

I can't speak for Belligero, but I think his reference was in comparing value and paying  Daytona money for an IWC with a bead blasted finish, and a strap that is far less expensive than the bracelet of the Daytona. Even if its a really nice strap, its not as costly as the Daytona's bracelet. 

post #38968 of 48312
A Seiko 5 has an in-house movement that functions perfectly well and is quite robust, but I wouldn't pay 12Gs for one of those, either. Sorry, I just see too many lapses in design and manufacturing integrity with IWC to consider getting one; it seems to me like a company where the bean counters and marketing guys are running the show, which is too bad because I appreciated so many of their pre-Richemont designs.

Anyway, it's not like they make the worst watches or anything. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
post #38969 of 48312
Quote:
I don't see it as merely a matter of counting a watch out because the movement


You don't, obviously others do. That is what I gathered being in this thread for a short period of time.


Belligro ninja-edited it where he practically says that is the main reason he isn't doing business with IWC along with the "gouging service". I do not see IWC gouging services any different than other watchmakers unless there is something I am missing here.


In-house vs outsourced i a whole other beast that I just don't have the energy to tackle so I am not even going to touch on that.
post #38970 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

A Seiko 5 has an in-house movement that functions perfectly well and is quite robust, but I wouldn't pay 12Gs for one of those, either.


I wouldn't even how to respond ot this ridiculous statement. baldy[1].gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)