IWC in-house manufacturer??

[dennis.T]

just to share this thread to u all......just wonder any other in-house manufacturer watches also pratice this kind of exercise??

Some interesting info from German forums (incl. IWC German forum) about the status of IWC as true inhouse manufacturer of some of their movements.

It's not a secret that IWC buys complete movements from ETA, instead of buying the ebouche and rework the movements. IWC admitted this fact. Apparently IWC has been doing so in the last few years and they claim ETA builds movements according to high IWC standards. This news has disappointed many IWC hardcore fans. Many have thought the ETA caliber in their watches (from recent years) are not just a 'normal' ETA. It was true in the past, but sadly now no more the case.

Now the discussions revealed that even the so called in-house caliber 8000 and 98295 are not built by IWC in Schaffhausen 

Caliber 30110 (Portofino, Mark XVI, Auqutimer Automatik und Aquatimer Deep Two) is based on ETA 2892 and built by ETA/ Selitta (for Portofino) for IWC.

Caliber 79320 (Portofino Chrono, Fliegerchrono, Aquatimer Chrono) is based on ETA 7750, built by ETA for IWC.

Caliber 8000 developed by IWC using 7750 as base and is built by ETA for IWC

Caliber 98295 "Jones caliber" built by Fleurier for IWC

Caliber 62060 is based on Piaget (Piaget caliber 830P)

Only the caliber 5000 and 89360 are "real" IWC caliber, as they are buillt by IWC in Schaffhausen

[ck77]

Not another Seiko-Tag saga again, please 

[Scott C.]

Hmm..this topic is not really new and has been discussed in other forum many times actually... a lot of arguing, debating whether if IWC fully in house on those model you mentioned...

honestly, to me, i have been using few models and i found the built quality and the movement is really not bad regardless if it's eta based or not..

i owned a mark XVI, eta based, no problem at all, keep very very accurate time I have owned 2 IWC 3717 chrono, eta 7750 based, no problem at all, both keep very accurate time too... one of it (3717) gain only 1 sec in 2 days....

Also, i have once seen (below pic) a IWC eta 7750 movement in their pilot range which has been adjusted to 5 position and it's engrave in their movement... it's not very well polish (is not see-through case back anywhere) but i can see IWC put a lot effort in to it...

for example: Pic borrow....




then of course the fully in house 5001/5004 movement... i have both port 7 and BP, both gain around 6 sec everyday.. but the gain is consistent.. i timed my port-7 for 2 months while i was in UK, consistently gain 6 sec everyday.. didn't really bother to time the BP that long period of time... checked once and it was around 6/7+ too... but of course, different people might have different rate... this rate is based on my wearing-style...

come to think about it, for a brand like this, i think not a lot can offer you a Mark XVI for 11K (retail), a 3717 for 14K (retail)... this make possible because they are still using eta-modified/refined-eta and if all movements are in house 100% by IWC, the cost sure shot up and i don't think they will still able sell at that price range... think about Panerai... their new in house model...all at least 25K about... sooner, you will not able to get one below 20K..

Just my opinion


Happy CNY (still... )
Scott

[lilpronaz]

I don't see any issue sourcing the entire movement from ETA. ETA's direction to provide only fully built movement to 3rd parties is already known many years back. Thank god ETA is not fully cutting the supplies of movements to 3rd party companies. Else, entry level IWC will no longer be entry level. In fact, Georges Kern clarified IWC's position in one of his interview a while back.

In the manufacturing perspective, we call it subcontracting. As long as the subcontractor manufactures the component to IWC's specification, does it really matter, academically speaking, whether the movement is assembled by IWC or ETA?

How many so called manufacturers out there can proudly claim to be capable of  producing every single component required for a watch in-house? JLC is one of the few. 5001, 5002 and 5004 also use components that are sourced from suppliers. Therefore, does that make a fully completed ETA movement less in-house than the 7 days movement if the ETA movement blueprint is provided by IWC? Subcontracting, in my view, is acceptable as long as there is no deviation in quality.

[takashi78]

1st pic looks much better. What watch is it in?

2nd pic i kinda agree, for the price they charge and no display back better to save the cost and not charge as much (not that i find their prices cheap either).

[peanut]

This in-house movement stuff is for the purists. I wouldn't care less as long as the watch performs up to expectations and I like the look/design. IWC is not the only one doing this Alain Siberstein also use ETA in their more affordable watches. Just don't be surprise also one day all the movements are made in China too! 

[collatzer]

just look at the price of a prepetual watch of IWC and compare with others brand. you will know IWC is actually quite "cheap"