@Shabbaz is offering this very nice looking IWC R820A for sale. I’m sure it’s a nice watch and in good condition and very reasonably priced but when @JwRosenthal posted, “Hellloooo!! Where is everybody!! This thing eats Seamasters for breakfast“, it got me thinking.

I’ve never owned a vintage IWC watch and don’t know much about them but are they that much better than a vintage Omega Seamaster?

 

My statement was very tongue-in-cheek, I have always put them on the same playing field as Omega, if not a slight notch above, but my view has only been perceptual and not based on any particular experience. This watch in particular has those sensational beefy angled lugs and factory bracelet- and is rare in comparison to the volume of 60’s silver Seamaster’s we see.

But it raises a question that I also am curios about- how are vintage IWC’s in comparison to vintage Omega’s?

 

Yes, they are generally a small notch above, if for no other reason than the superior movement finishing. Also, I'd choose a (Albert) Pellaton automatic movement over the admittedly also excellent Omega movements of the period.

 

Thanks for this. I checked that Thomas had no issue with the thread before I posted it - in case he felt it might affect his sale - and mentioned that he has a great collection of 60s sunburst dials - as do you.

I know that there are Seamasters and Seamasters, no surprise there, but I don’t know enough about 60s non chrono IWCs (and Rolexes for that matter) to appreciate if there was any significant difference.

 

You buy a rolex to impress your friends, you buy a IWC to impress your watchmaker...

 

Most vintage collectors have at least one IWC in the collection

 

Or three...

 

I've had a couple and yes nice watches, my favourite was this R 810 A, but TBH I find IWC dress watches just a bit boring to look at. I've always been more impressed by design than technology and the variety of dial design found in the Seamaster range just keeps me coming back for more.

 

Another perspective is the logo, or lack of one.

I like the Omega symbol, Rolex and Tudor have distinctive symbols. Longines, for which I have a soft spot have the winged, raised hourglass and even Cyma and Certina have a circled ‘C’.

But nothing for IWC - unless you count the initials.

Still, from reading the above, it really seems to be a matter of taste rather than any particular quality.

 

Not vintage but still my favorite watch:

 

You're not reading carefully. Finishing is a distinct quality, and there is no doubt that IWC movements were finished more finely than Omega. The in-house Pellaton winding system was so good that variants are used to this day, 60 years later. Etc.

 

Whenever you see a good vintage IWC for sale, you - and everyone - should avoid it, and I will take it away and deal with it for you.

 

Ok, it’s all yours
https://omegaforums.net/threads/iwc-r820a.116474/

 

Agree. $1500 opens up for a huge variety of great dial and case designs from all sorts of manufacturers, chronometer-rated Omegas and top condition vintage Seiko divers. I find the IWCs a bit bland to look at and would probably prefer a contemporary Seiko dress watch based on looks. They are $150 though and not $1500.

I am sure a lot of new collectors feel the same way, and if a rather mundane IWC dress watch like this one were to get the pulse of a seasoned collector racing, it would have to offer something more than just being from a good brand. Perhaps a condition rarity specimen? Tiffany-signed? Owned by someone special? A prototype dial/case?

I just don't see the USP, sorry.

 

It's EUR 1500. I'm Dutch.

 

Well that changes everything

 

Still paying off the instalments on this one, and my next target in steel is [*classified*].
Seriously, I agree that IWC's product range is, understandably, no match for the wonderful variety offered by Omega, and it's true that some of their dress watches - like this one - could be considered a little "worthy" (aka dull, a bit). But there's no argument about the quality of what they did!

 

I have a hard time comparing the iwc caliber 852, 853, etc, dress watches with 50's and 60's seamasters. I think iwc production rates were much lower. Not sure though. But it's quite easy to find a seamaster in good condition for reasonable money. With iwc it's more difficult.

For the boring bit. I've sold quite a few iwc's in my life and I have the impression they are bought by young professionals who want something classy but not to flashy (read: boring). It wears great under a suit. A seiko diver is just a different ballgame. You dont wear that to a business appointment unless you have the erge to express yourself. And for the seamaster... well, I can pick any week of the year a seamaster under eur 600. But how many r810a/20 or iwc pie pans (etc) are out there for under eur 1000.

Oh god, is this really a sales talk!?! Sorry...

 

But yes, you can buy beautiful omega's for that kind of money...

 

But they are nice...