Quote:
Originally Posted by
imageWIS 
In regards to the naysayers of using 'standard' movements, two prime examples of
watches that use standard / base movements:
Valjoux 7750:
Lemania 1354:
As for Il Destriero Scafusia, that is an watch that cost several hundred thousand dollars, and IWC so throughly revised the 7750 that was used that it is nothing like what one would find even in a 10,000-20,000 IWC Hell it was hardly a 7750 by that time. An IWC Double Chonograph has no where near the finishing or amount of modifications that make Il Destriero Scafusia a rather special watch. In terms of quality, workmanship, and modifications and improvements to a base movement IWC's Double Chrono is more closely related to any 3,000-10,000 watch from a different company powered by a 7750, than it is to II Destriero Scafusia.
The Valjoux 7750 is a good sturdy workhorse. There is nothing wrong with it, at least when found in a watch within a certain price range. Personally, for that kind of money Il Destriero Scafusia cost, I don't want a 7750 powering my watch. As nice as that watch was its value tanked after they were sold, unlike those of many Pateks that either stayed stable or increased in value.
As for Lemania, I'd much rather have a Lemania powering my watch than a Valjoux 7750. They tend to be less common, and found in better watches like Breget, Patek (their old chronos and perpetual calendar chronograph) and VCs. Although, I'd pass on a UN. A friend had one that spent 6-8 months of the first two years of ownership going back for warranty repairs. My friend was really sorry about making that purchase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
in stitches
it is interesting, but these types of researches/studies are often skewered. often they include only certain brands in the research or what they define as "luxury brand." hard to know what to take away from these things.
for exmaple, this;
Quote:
IWC, Patek Philippe and Zenith remained the 3 most popular luxury watch plans, together gathering 50% of worldwide market share.
is so clearly false its almost laughable. clearly they have left rolex and omega out of the "luxury" market, as those 2 brands hold more market share than likely all 3 mentioned. not saying they are better watches, but as to worldwide searches, and market share they are titans. thus, its hard for me to take these things seriously. its too easy to bend the data and present it as fact.
thanks, interesting info. i do not doubt that comfort had a hand in the change, but they replaced a work of art with a lightweight bland clasp, there had to be a middle ground. not a huge deal, just a little pet peeve of mine.
While the old style deployant isn't the most comfortable I've tried on, I agree completely with you about its looks. I can also say it felt very sturdy and as though its of much higher quality than the current thinner double butterfly styles I've tried more recently.
I also wonder if the change in clasps has anything to do with cutting costs. When making them out of gold or platinum, a thinner clasp using less gold or platinum costs them less to produce, and they can just call it a new design and not pass any savings onto the consumer, as they aren't going to reduce the price of the watch even though the clasp costs them less. Although, the cost savings idea is merely speculation on my part.
take that haters!
