New to me - an addition to my collection!
Discussion
My latest acquisition - arrived today 
Been a bit quiet on the watch front for a while and I simply couldn't resist. It was either this or a 16600 SD, but whilst the Rolex is a superb watch, I'm really not keen on the direction they are going with their current range and besides, you see *so* many Subs and SDs around, at least where I work and live. Of course, many of these are fakes / counterfeit / replica - and there is also the issue of the fact that a certain factory in China makes an absolutely *superb* replica of the Sea Dweller (uses an ETA 2836-2 movement, which is a common workhorse movement anyway, and has been tested by saturation divers and worked fine... very interesting article out there on the teh intarweb about this 'super-replica' Sea Dweller, a fake that actually walks the walk as well as talks the talk). Also, my cousin has a (real) SD and we always have to be different 
So it had to be the IWC - which was also good for my finances because it was quite a bit cheaper than a similarly mint used 16600 SD. It also does 2000m depth against the SD's 1220m, though I don't dive so the stats are utterly irrelevant to me The new Deep Sea bests it, but IMO the new Deep Sea is too vulgar for me.
The things that I love most about the IWC are the twin crowns at 2 and 4 o'clock (just love the 'different' look but it's still perfectly symmetrical), the bracelet design (absolutely legendary - the connecting / retaining mechanism for each link is brilliant and the bracelet is superbly comfortable, superior IMO to the Oyster bracelets I've had on the Explorer and Daytona I used to own), and the internal rotating 'bezel' - clean and uncluttered, unlike any other 'dive' watch with the usual one-way ratchet bezel. Also, it's titanium - and titanium done well, with a surface treatment to increase hardness so it won't scratch to hell like my other titanium watch (the Porsche Design PAT which got knackered due to the soft titanium bracelet not being able to withstand a bit of abuse) - it's hardly 'lightweight' but it's very light considering it's a 2000m dive watch.
It's also subtle - even the splash of yellow doesn't make it lairy, since the dull texture of the titanium is the very opposite of bling. The Sea Dweller is perhaps more of a 'classic' and will potentially retain value better, but I like being different, and whilst it's *guaranteed* that at least one person within visual range in my train carriage to Cannon St in the morning will be wearing a Rolex Sub or SD (some will be fakes, of course), I've not seen many Aquatimers about. I've seen more of the chronograph versions, and I didn't want a chrono - the IWC uses a 7750 with 'quality bits', and there's only so much I'll pay for a 7750-based watch. Besides which, I reckon Sinn are better value for money for that style of chrono, and I've got a Sinn 356 II which I love.
My wrists are rather thin for my height - I'm pretty skinny all round - and thus was initially a bit concerned about the size of the watch. The modern trend for bigger and bigger watches is a right pain in the arse for me, as anything over 42mm looks silly. From experience, 40mm is the sweet spot for my wrists and I've always been happiest with this size. Both Rolexes I had previously were 40mm, and I've tried my cousin's Sea Dweller which is the right diameter, but blimey it's a thick (tall) watch! The IWC is listed at 42mm, but I've measured the visible diameter of the round case and it's more like 40-41mm. The crowns being at 2 and 4 instead of 3 also makes it 'seem' narrower than it really is, and the brilliant bracelet design is happy curving immediately off, since the watch case itself covers my whole wrist. So whilst I'd normally be put off by 42mm, the IWC doesn't feel or look like 42mm to me, and I'm very happy with the size of it on my wrist. It's thinner than the SD too, so doesn't stand up too far.
As you've probably guessed, I'm rather chuffed with this acquisition It's better in reality (having worn it for a few hours as compared to trying it on for less than a minute) than I thought it would be. It's early days yet, but this has all the hallmarks of a keeper - I reckon it'll be a permanent member of my modest collection.
I haven't opened it up yet to admire the movement - I've opened most of my watches up but there's probably some trick involved with a watch that's meant to be waterproof to 2000m. It looks like my Jaxa three-pin tool would do the job using the round pins, but I'll have to find out if there's anything else involved before I pull it to bits! The Jaxa tool bits are steel and I'd have to be *very* careful not to scratch the titanium. If a relatively hefty torque is required to seal the case back up again then it'd be very easy to leave marks in the titanium. It doesn't look like it's ever been opened up...
So, what do you all think? All positive and negative commentary welcome I'm very happy with it, and I'm not thinking 'should have plumped for the SD' at all, on the contrary I'm beginning to think that it's the best looking 'deep' dive watch of them all, and that's including the Fifty Fathoms which I've always liked.
Been a bit quiet on the watch front for a while and I simply couldn't resist. It was either this or a 16600 SD, but whilst the Rolex is a superb watch, I'm really not keen on the direction they are going with their current range and besides, you see *so* many Subs and SDs around, at least where I work and live. Of course, many of these are fakes / counterfeit / replica - and there is also the issue of the fact that a certain factory in China makes an absolutely *superb* replica of the Sea Dweller (uses an ETA 2836-2 movement, which is a common workhorse movement anyway, and has been tested by saturation divers and worked fine... very interesting article out there on the teh intarweb about this 'super-replica' Sea Dweller, a fake that actually walks the walk as well as talks the talk). Also, my cousin has a (real) SD and we always have to be different So it had to be the IWC - which was also good for my finances because it was quite a bit cheaper than a similarly mint used 16600 SD. It also does 2000m depth against the SD's 1220m, though I don't dive so the stats are utterly irrelevant to me
The new Deep Sea bests it, but IMO the new Deep Sea is too vulgar for me. The things that I love most about the IWC are the twin crowns at 2 and 4 o'clock (just love the 'different' look but it's still perfectly symmetrical), the bracelet design (absolutely legendary - the connecting / retaining mechanism for each link is brilliant and the bracelet is superbly comfortable, superior IMO to the Oyster bracelets I've had on the Explorer and Daytona I used to own), and the internal rotating 'bezel' - clean and uncluttered, unlike any other 'dive' watch with the usual one-way ratchet bezel. Also, it's titanium - and titanium done well, with a surface treatment to increase hardness so it won't scratch to hell like my other titanium watch (the Porsche Design PAT which got knackered due to the soft titanium bracelet not being able to withstand a bit of abuse) - it's hardly 'lightweight' but it's very light considering it's a 2000m dive watch.
It's also subtle - even the splash of yellow doesn't make it lairy, since the dull texture of the titanium is the very opposite of bling. The Sea Dweller is perhaps more of a 'classic' and will potentially retain value better, but I like being different, and whilst it's *guaranteed* that at least one person within visual range in my train carriage to Cannon St in the morning will be wearing a Rolex Sub or SD (some will be fakes, of course), I've not seen many Aquatimers about. I've seen more of the chronograph versions, and I didn't want a chrono - the IWC uses a 7750 with 'quality bits', and there's only so much I'll pay for a 7750-based watch. Besides which, I reckon Sinn are better value for money for that style of chrono, and I've got a Sinn 356 II which I love.
My wrists are rather thin for my height - I'm pretty skinny all round - and thus was initially a bit concerned about the size of the watch. The modern trend for bigger and bigger watches is a right pain in the arse for me, as anything over 42mm looks silly. From experience, 40mm is the sweet spot for my wrists and I've always been happiest with this size. Both Rolexes I had previously were 40mm, and I've tried my cousin's Sea Dweller which is the right diameter, but blimey it's a thick (tall) watch! The IWC is listed at 42mm, but I've measured the visible diameter of the round case and it's more like 40-41mm. The crowns being at 2 and 4 instead of 3 also makes it 'seem' narrower than it really is, and the brilliant bracelet design is happy curving immediately off, since the watch case itself covers my whole wrist. So whilst I'd normally be put off by 42mm, the IWC doesn't feel or look like 42mm to me, and I'm very happy with the size of it on my wrist. It's thinner than the SD too, so doesn't stand up too far.
As you've probably guessed, I'm rather chuffed with this acquisition
It's better in reality (having worn it for a few hours as compared to trying it on for less than a minute) than I thought it would be. It's early days yet, but this has all the hallmarks of a keeper - I reckon it'll be a permanent member of my modest collection.I haven't opened it up yet to admire the movement - I've opened most of my watches up but there's probably some trick involved with a watch that's meant to be waterproof to 2000m. It looks like my Jaxa three-pin tool would do the job using the round pins, but I'll have to find out if there's anything else involved before I pull it to bits! The Jaxa tool bits are steel and I'd have to be *very* careful not to scratch the titanium. If a relatively hefty torque is required to seal the case back up again then it'd be very easy to leave marks in the titanium. It doesn't look like it's ever been opened up...
So, what do you all think? All positive and negative commentary welcome
I'm very happy with it, and I'm not thinking 'should have plumped for the SD' at all, on the contrary I'm beginning to think that it's the best looking 'deep' dive watch of them all, and that's including the Fifty Fathoms which I've always liked.I saw one of these in the metal recently at a jewellers and I really liked it. I agree with you, the yellow is toned down nicely by the overall look and colour of the watch and I liked the fact that in my opinion, it somehow manages to look both retro/vintage and modern at the same time. I think the balance of the colours and the 40mm size (i.e. not oversized as is the current fashion) help a lot in this respect.
A very nice and unusual choice, slightly left of the mainstream and one that I would notice with quiet acknowledgement if I were to see someone wearing one.
A good choice me thinks, enjoy!
A very nice and unusual choice, slightly left of the mainstream and one that I would notice with quiet acknowledgement if I were to see someone wearing one.
A good choice me thinks, enjoy!
I adore my Spitfire but if I have any criticism of IWC it is the bracelet. Yes, it looks gorgeous but there is no fine adjustment so you either have it loose or take a link out and have it a bit tight. Frankly, they could learn a lot from Seiko in this respect - I wear my Monster more than the IWC at the moment.
Lovely, but can you set the inner bezel underwater? The older 3536 ti aquatimer is a watch that has been on my hit list for a long time now. It will have to wait though until I have a bit of a clearout. One thing I am finding though is that I really do love ti as a watch material, it takes some getting used to as like you say it marks very easily but they do seem to blend in the marks after a while and the not so blingy looks are a real grower.
lowdrag said:
I adore my Spitfire but if I have any criticism of IWC it is the bracelet. Yes, it looks gorgeous but there is no fine adjustment so you either have it loose or take a link out and have it a bit tight. Frankly, they could learn a lot from Seiko in this respect - I wear my Monster more than the IWC at the moment.
They've been so clever on the link connection mechanism that there isn't really space for the fine adjustment you get on Rolex and Seiko Monster bracelets. I've got a Monster and have had several Rolexes with their tinny, shoddy feeling clasps, and whilst IMO the Monster clasp feels better quality than the Rolex clasps, they both do the job and allow fine adjustment. Both are simple pressed steel and give a 'box' like clasp on the back of the watch, whereas the IWC bracelet feels as if there's no clasp, just a bracelet that has no ends.In terms of adjustment, the IWC bracelet has one 1.5 sized link. I've taken this out to get the right size for my wrist, however when it's very hot or I'm doing any form of exercise, due to natural swelling the bracelet can feel a little tight (but no big deal or uncomfortable because of it). Swapping one of the normal links for the 1.5 sized link solves this, but then it's a bit loose when cold or in normal conditions. You'd have to be a completely in-between size for the IWC to be uncomfortably tight or loose either way - the single or 1.5 sized link gives millimetre sized adjustment.
Given how easy it is to remove and replace links on the IWC bracelet, I can forgive it that - it's a really simple operation and unlike removing links on the Rolex (screws, can end up damaging the screwheads over time and risk stripping threads) or the Monster (terrible design with pins and sleeves that invariably get lost eventually), you can regularly remove links on the IWC bracelet without risk of damage.
The multi-hole positioning on the 'box' clasp w.r.t. Rolex and Monster are the best for fine adjustment, I agree, but aesthetically they're not particularly pleasing. I understand that Rolex have finally sorted it out with the new Deep Sea but that's too big and vulgar for me. I also managed to get a nice scratch along the side of my Daytona clasp when pushing in the springbar to move the end of the bracelet a couple of holes
Funnily enough I find it more comfortable to wear a box-type clasp bracelet a bit loose so it's never too tight (this applies to Rolex as well as the Monster), whereas smooth 'invisible clasp' bracelets like the IWC and my Breguet are more comfortable when sized so they're a snug fit. The Breguet doesn't have any fine adjustment - not even a 1.5 sized link - so it's lucky it is a good fit on my wrist...
What would be great would be a clasp like the IWC that doesn't leave a large rectangular box on the back of your wrist, but had the fine adjustment potential of the box-type clasps. Not sure if that's easily achievable. It's a good thing everyone likes different things - for me the bracelet is one of the highlights of the IWC!!
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff