My Next Watch: Mark XVIII or Spitfire?

Between those 2 options, I would personally choose the Mark XVIII

• Titanium case will be much lighter and more comfortable
• Counter-intuitively, the 35111 movement, being based on the Sellita 300-1, should be a much more reliable movement than something created in-house, like the 32110 in the Automatic Spitfire

Good luck deciding!

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, for some reason my original post cut off half way through. I've corrected it now.

Sooo...I have a question.  What is it you see in IWC?  People seem to like their watches, and I really don't get it.  I see well-made watches that cost $5,000 but look just like other well-made watches that cost $2,000 or less.  I don't get what all that extra money gets you.  It isn't a unique design or amazing movement (that I know of, not my strong suit), or crazy finishing.  You get a functional, well-made tool watch and I don't understand why that should cost so much.

As always, you should buy what you like, I'm just trying to understand.  The fact IWC is still in business tells me I'm missing something, and I'd like to know what.

I can answer this generally having just purchased one for my father in law for his retirement.

On the one hand, I can see what you're saying.  Fliegers are fliegers.  Its a standard look (obviously given the military heritage) so you're not getting a lot of design benefits.

Yet if you feel an IWC in hand, you get a sense that someone thought through all the details of the watch with great specificity.

For me, I'm referring to the mark XVIlI (ref IW327015) with the five link bracelet.

In no particular order of rhings.

• The dimensions are brilliant. 40mm diameter, 48mm lug to lug,.11mm height.  It wears low, flat and very comfortable.  Weighting is nearly perfectly balanced on wrist.
• The case is mostly brushed with a polished bevel on the lug.  Its a small thing but as a design touch helps separate it as a luxury watch
• The bracelet is best in class in my view.  Link removal is via push button in the underside of the link.  No screws, no pins, no scratches on the sides.  You can do it with a pen nib or a toothpick if you want.  The micro adjust is a pushbutton in the logo on the clasp that adjusts the bracelet in 1mm increments.  You don't even need to take the bracelet off.
• The date complication disappears because of how well they color matched it to the dial.
• It winds incredibly smoothly.

The closest analogy I can give for something like the Mark XVIII is a Rolex Explorer 1.  They're both just black dialed watches.  And yet.  

I was honestly tempted to keep it.  If I were in the market for a Black dialed watch on a bracelet, this would probably be my first pick.

Edit: you also shouldn't pay $5k for it. Negotiate with the AD on that one.

You know, the way I think about in-house movements with incredible power reserve numbers is by using a simple car analogy...

• Which sports car would you rather have?  One with a 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo that makes 300HP or one with a 6.5L V12 that produces 1000HP?
• Obviously, the latter sounds a lot better!
• Until you take into account of the fact that the 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo engine has been around for decades.  It's reliable.  It's high quality.  It powers everything.  Parts are plentiful.  Anyone can work on the 2.0L 4-cylinder, and service is cheap.  It's the definition of "workhorse"
• The 6.5L V12 is AWESOME, because it produces 1000HP...  but, when in life are you going to need 1000HP?  Speed limit on the freeway here is still 65mph.  Sure, the Valkyrie can get up to 250mph!  Except...  uh...  when are you ever going to be in a situation where you'd be getting up to 250mph???
• And, OMG, if anything goes wrong...  how much is it going to cost you to fix anything?  Will there even be parts?  And, well, this is a brand new engine, with ZERO history.  What if it, literally, explodes tomorrow?  

Swatch Group had the genius idea of putting all their Swiss competitors out of business by no longer supplying them ETA movements (but, unfortunately, the Swiss government stepped in and prevented them from doing so).  So, every manufacturer had to come up with their own "in-house" movements.  And, guess what?  "In-house is amazing!!!" is what all the marketing and advertising will tell you.  Really?  How's Nissan's "in-house" CVT transmission doing?  

So, yeah, 72 hour power reserve.  Great.  I don't know, man, I only need my watches to have like a 2 hour power reserve.  I rotate my watches every day.  I couldn't care less if they have 2 hour or 200 hour power reserve.  I take off my watch every now and then to type emails and to post long diatribes on WatchCrunch.  Other than that, I don't need my watch to have a power reserve!

Anyway, I suspect that at some point, there will be a reckoning.  Nothing lasts forever.  All these watch companies with their own proprietary, in-house movements...  what happens if they go out of business?  Will there be parts?  Will there be anyone around to service them?

Meanwhile, EVERYONE and their dog knows how to work an ETA or a Sellita movement.  Parts are plentiful.  Maintenance is cheap.  ETA's and Sellita's have proven their quality and reliability over DECADES.

So, given the choice between the Porsche Cayman with the 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo engine or the Aston Martin Valkyrie with the 6.5L V12?  I'd choose the Cayman 8 days a week.

But, that's just me!

You know, the way I think about in-house movements with incredible power reserve numbers is by using a simple car analogy...

• Which sports car would you rather have?  One with a 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo that makes 300HP or one with a 6.5L V12 that produces 1000HP?
• Obviously, the latter sounds a lot better!
• Until you take into account of the fact that the 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo engine has been around for decades.  It's reliable.  It's high quality.  It powers everything.  Parts are plentiful.  Anyone can work on the 2.0L 4-cylinder, and service is cheap.  It's the definition of "workhorse"
• The 6.5L V12 is AWESOME, because it produces 1000HP...  but, when in life are you going to need 1000HP?  Speed limit on the freeway here is still 65mph.  Sure, the Valkyrie can get up to 250mph!  Except...  uh...  when are you ever going to be in a situation where you'd be getting up to 250mph???
• And, OMG, if anything goes wrong...  how much is it going to cost you to fix anything?  Will there even be parts?  And, well, this is a brand new engine, with ZERO history.  What if it, literally, explodes tomorrow?  

Swatch Group had the genius idea of putting all their Swiss competitors out of business by no longer supplying them ETA movements (but, unfortunately, the Swiss government stepped in and prevented them from doing so).  So, every manufacturer had to come up with their own "in-house" movements.  And, guess what?  "In-house is amazing!!!" is what all the marketing and advertising will tell you.  Really?  How's Nissan's "in-house" CVT transmission doing?  

So, yeah, 72 hour power reserve.  Great.  I don't know, man, I only need my watches to have like a 2 hour power reserve.  I rotate my watches every day.  I couldn't care less if they have 2 hour or 200 hour power reserve.  I take off my watch every now and then to type emails and to post long diatribes on WatchCrunch.  Other than that, I don't need my watch to have a power reserve!

Anyway, I suspect that at some point, there will be a reckoning.  Nothing lasts forever.  All these watch companies with their own proprietary, in-house movements...  what happens if they go out of business?  Will there be parts?  Will there be anyone around to service them?

Meanwhile, EVERYONE and their dog knows how to work an ETA or a Sellita movement.  Parts are plentiful.  Maintenance is cheap.  ETA's and Sellita's have proven their quality and reliability over DECADES.

So, given the choice between the Porsche Cayman with the 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo engine or the Aston Martin Valkyrie with the 6.5L V12?  I'd choose the Cayman 8 days a week.

But, that's just me!

Sooo...I have a question.  What is it you see in IWC?  People seem to like their watches, and I really don't get it.  I see well-made watches that cost $5,000 but look just like other well-made watches that cost $2,000 or less.  I don't get what all that extra money gets you.  It isn't a unique design or amazing movement (that I know of, not my strong suit), or crazy finishing.  You get a functional, well-made tool watch and I don't understand why that should cost so much.

As always, you should buy what you like, I'm just trying to understand.  The fact IWC is still in business tells me I'm missing something, and I'd like to know what.

I think the analogy is a bit off… Both mentioned watches are a Porsche but one with a 2.0l 200Hp motor and the other with a 3.0l 450Hp motor. No matter how reliable the 2.0l might be, who’s really going to choose the underpowered Porsche..? 

Let‘s be real. If you’re servicing the watch every 5-10 years, both movements will last a lifetime. IWC’s are not known for unreliable movements. This being said I’d totally take the in-house movement as it shows more dedication and effort put into the watch AND it has a higher power reserve AND it will hold its value much better than the ETA one.

No matter how reliable the 2.0l might be, who’s really going to choose the underpowered Porsche..? 

There was another discussion in which precisely this came up:

https://www.watchcrunch.com/classywrist/posts/rolex-or-6665

At the risk of plagiarizing myself too much, this was not some random hypothetical.  It was an expression of true revealed preference as opposed to stated preference.

• I did, in fact, choose the 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo engine with 300HP and 280 lb-ft of torque Cayman T over the 4.0L flat-6 naturally aspirated engine with 414HP and 309 lb-ft of torque 981 Cayman GT4.  After many conversations with other enthusiasts, many of whom gushed over and over about "halo" car, etc., etc., some folks secretly told me, "GT4 kinda sucks.  NA-engine means there's no low down torque and it sucks as daily driver"
• Chose the "under-powered" 2.0L Cayman over the Aston Martin Vantage - panels didn't fit!  Chose it over the Bentley Continental GT - big and wallowy.  Chose it over the 911 - soft, electronic toy
• In real life, 300HP and 280 lb-ft of torque don't feel under-powered - at least not to me - especially in a stripped down 2-seater that comes in just a hair over 3,000 pounds curb weight.  Turbo means lots of low-down torque, which perfectly fits my particular use case for the car as a daily driver and grocery getter.  I can understand that one might want the GT4 if all one does is track driving...  but let's be real...  it's like everyone who buys a 300M WR dive watch - it's all cosplay (and I include myself in that group, by the way!)

So, as they say, "Opinions are like a$$holes...  everyone's got one."  What I wrote above was the just the opinion of one a$$hole.  You are free to disagree with it.  After all, you have your preferences and I have mine, and that's what makes the world such a wonderful and varied place.  Yet, when you say...

No matter how reliable the 2.0l might be, who’s really going to choose the underpowered Porsche..? 

...  you are intimating that nobody would ever make that choice.  That's where you are wrong.  I am evidence that some people do, in fact, make precisely that choice, based on a considered set of criteria to address particular desires and use cases.

My 6 year-old cannot conceive of a world in which not everyone loves strawberry ice cream, like herself.  Yet, funny enough, I find strawberry ice cream to be foul, and knowingly choose chocolate over strawberry!  I have the same inconceivable kinds of preferences with regard to watches, by choosing ETA and Sellita and Miyota and NH35 over "in-house."

****

And, because this is the Internet...  inb4 the sophomoric "only people who can't afford the GT4 would ever get the Subaru-esque 4-pot engine over the awesome flat-6!"  

No.  I'm EFF'ing rich and can afford nearly any car I want.  And, yet, I chose the Subaru-esque 4-pot!  I must be...

No matter how reliable the 2.0l might be, who’s really going to choose the underpowered Porsche..? 

There was another discussion in which precisely this came up:

https://www.watchcrunch.com/classywrist/posts/rolex-or-6665

At the risk of plagiarizing myself too much, this was not some random hypothetical.  It was an expression of true revealed preference as opposed to stated preference.

• I did, in fact, choose the 2.0L 4-cylinder turbo engine with 300HP and 280 lb-ft of torque Cayman T over the 4.0L flat-6 naturally aspirated engine with 414HP and 309 lb-ft of torque 981 Cayman GT4.  After many conversations with other enthusiasts, many of whom gushed over and over about "halo" car, etc., etc., some folks secretly told me, "GT4 kinda sucks.  NA-engine means there's no low down torque and it sucks as daily driver"
• Chose the "under-powered" 2.0L Cayman over the Aston Martin Vantage - panels didn't fit!  Chose it over the Bentley Continental GT - big and wallowy.  Chose it over the 911 - soft, electronic toy
• In real life, 300HP and 280 lb-ft of torque don't feel under-powered - at least not to me - especially in a stripped down 2-seater that comes in just a hair over 3,000 pounds curb weight.  Turbo means lots of low-down torque, which perfectly fits my particular use case for the car as a daily driver and grocery getter.  I can understand that one might want the GT4 if all one does is track driving...  but let's be real...  it's like everyone who buys a 300M WR dive watch - it's all cosplay (and I include myself in that group, by the way!)

So, as they say, "Opinions are like a$$holes...  everyone's got one."  What I wrote above was the just the opinion of one a$$hole.  You are free to disagree with it.  After all, you have your preferences and I have mine, and that's what makes the world such a wonderful and varied place.  Yet, when you say...

No matter how reliable the 2.0l might be, who’s really going to choose the underpowered Porsche..? 

...  you are intimating that nobody would ever make that choice.  That's where you are wrong.  I am evidence that some people do, in fact, make precisely that choice, based on a considered set of criteria to address particular desires and use cases.

My 6 year-old cannot conceive of a world in which not everyone loves strawberry ice cream, like herself.  Yet, funny enough, I find strawberry ice cream to be foul, and knowingly choose chocolate over strawberry!  I have the same inconceivable kinds of preferences with regard to watches, by choosing ETA and Sellita and Miyota and NH35 over "in-house."

****

And, because this is the Internet...  inb4 the sophomoric "only people who can't afford the GT4 would ever get the Subaru-esque 4-pot engine over the awesome flat-6!"  

No.  I'm EFF'ing rich and can afford nearly any car I want.  And, yet, I chose the Subaru-esque 4-pot!  I must be...

Spitfire+Mark 18 bracelet. 

Yes IWC has to be experienced in the metal. Doesn't make sense in pictures.