New IWC Aquatimer

It does not appear to have their micro adjust clasp.  At that price….

I'm not a fan at all of micro adjust clasps.  They bulk up the clasp, and significantly extend the overall length as well.  I know I'm a broken record, but I never found any of my Swiss watches to be comfortable on bracelet whatsoever.  Realized that they all had micro adjust!  Whereas none of my Seiko's or GS's did, and hence why the Seiko's and GS's were always so much more comfortable on wrist.

I don't understand what you're excited about.  It is still the same ETA 2892-A2 as the previous model.  

The 30120 in the previous version is a different movement (not that there’s anything wrong with the ETA)

I have been up and down on my micro adjust all the way through the 1WC.  I’m not sure I could complete the challenge without it... at least not comfortably.  

Again, nothing wrong with an ETA 2892, but make no mistake, this is still an ETA 2892, granted tuned differently, but definitely not unique to IWC as many others are getting longer reserves out of the 2892 now. That’s always been my issue with buying IWC; well built watches, but they are one of the most expensive watches for a basic movements found in $1000 watches.

‘I will give it to IWC, their micro adjustment is one of the best without adding a ton of bulk. Their MkXVIII is a perfect example.

I am not putting down the ETA movement.  My point is the IWC 30120 Calibre which was in the older version and the IWC 32111 Calibre both use the same ETA 2892 base movement.  IWC may now do more modifications to it but not enough for me to care if I get the older model or the newer one.

This is something I need to learn more about - I understood the movement wasn’t manufactured by ETA or from any ETA base (though maybe a similar design?) - but was made by Richemont owned Val Fleurier. I’m guessing there is a limit to what’s disclosed but anything you can add on this? Again to be clear I don’t have any issue with the 2892, it is superbly accurate in my Mk16.

In the case of IWC, they use either ETA, or a Sellita version of it. They are not making/utilizing any in house movement except in their top lines Portugueser or Perpetual Calendars. Again, nothing wrong with that at all, just a lot of $ for what you get.

I'm far from an expert, but from what I've read, the entire movement is manufactured by ValFleurier and doesn't rely on any ebauches from ETA or Sellita.

I think a good comparison might be Nomos' "Alpha" caliber. These movements are made in-house by Nomos, but are based on the Peseux/ETA 7001 caliber (same dimensions of the baseplate, same height, same arrangement of the gear train etc.), but finished to the standards of Nomos and produced in Glashutte.

The IWC cal. 32111 is essentially an ETA 2892-A2 clone, but manufactured in-house by ValFleurier and then finished to a higher standard (with 3/4 plate for the bridges), given a silicon escapement and an increased power reserve.

Sigh....utterly untrue.  Yes, it uses the same architecture but its completely manufactured in house, totally new silicon escapement and almost no parts are interchangeable.

 

I stumbled across this thread when searching for discussions on the Cal. 32111 movement. ETA based or not, no one seems to be picking up on the fact that this movement has a 5 day power reserve. I mean... this is blowing the competitions out of the water isn't it? 

Take the new IWC Mark XX that houses this movement for example, other than a bunch of Panerai's with much bigger cases, and the Evolution 9 series GS Spring Drives which costs 2x, there's nothing in this case size and/or price point that competes!