Zenith has the more masculine design, but IWC decidedly larger

Both running at 28.8K, 20mm bands, priced similarly

Which one would you choose and why?

(not the actual watches below)

1970s, 34mm


1960s, 30mm

(I think this one belongs to a forum member)

 

I like the Zenith. To me the IWC case looks a little clunkier in design and I really like the funky date placement on the Zenith.

 

If the condition of the watches was the same I think I would plump for the Zenith.

For me, these are both dress watches. The Zenith looks classier and, like @Waltesefalcon , I like the date window placement.

I would be happy with either though!

EDIT - Just seen the size of the Zenith. That is a game changer for me. IWC gets my vote.

 

Each has its own charm but I'd find the size of the Zenith to be off-putting.

 

I believe that I used to own the Respirator that is pictured. The dial and hand design of the Zenith are, in my view, superior to that of the IWC. But the (likely) cal. 854 used to power the latter is the superior movement.

 

n/a

 

I'd take the IWC based on the quality of the caliber, position of the date window, and slightly less angular case shape.

 

I had a Respirator, though briefly, as my example had a significant movement and was returned. Great looking watch, would like to trip upon another one in acceptable condition someday, with a more interesting dial than the OP's example. On the wrist, it sat up rather high and IMO is quite thick for the size. The IWC... never owned any watch from them.

 

I'd go for the IWC. I think the 8541 movement is excellent and the size is right.

 

Been looking at the Respirator for some time, and forgot about it... Many different variations of this model out there..
Came to think of NOMOS' Tetra:

and then this..

 

Zenith as I like its bold styling better. I wouldn't say no to the IWC but that Zenith speaks to me. I also find the dark-dialed one above super attractive.

 

In terms of design, certainly the Zenith. I however intensely dislike the name 'respirator'. I'm sure its just their 1960s way of telling you it's dust-proof (like 'Seamaster') but to me it sounds creepy and I couldn't bear to look at it on the dial all day.

 

You should try doing some research next time before arriving at such a confident, and in this case erroneous conclusion. The name actually refers to the patented waterproof case, as it was designed to "breathe". I went into some detail when I reviewed the one shown by the OP (I owned it at the time). Here's the link:

http://www.watchprosite.com/page-wf.forumpost/fi-17/ti-491011/pi-2946321/

 

I'll assume you're referring to my dust-proof remark and that you're not actually telling me that I'm wrong about finding it a creepy word. I'm under no obligation to perform such 'research', especially when I'm clearly taking a stab as to the reason for the name, as opposed to a arriving at a confident conclusion (in the English language "I'm sure it's just X" rarely connotes "I've done exhaustive research and conclude X").

Moreover, I am well aware of the meaning of the origins of the word respirator and I daresay my guess wasn't entirely uninformed: respirators are typically breathing devices meant to keep out dust, and I'm sure you're aware (see what I did there? I'm not actually sure!) that in the early days of wrist watches, dust-proofing a case was as important a challenge as water-proofing it. One might even argue that in some cases 'water-proof' was - at least partially - a marketing term for the watches' equally relevant but less 'sexy' dust-proof qualities.

OK, so I was wrong(-ish) in this case, but I must say I don't much care for the pedantic way in which you went about informing me of this. Addressing new members in this tone renders it less likely that they'll go the extra mile for well-researched contributions.

 

You call this "clearly taking a stab"?

I take language seriously, and when someone asserts that they are "sure" of something, I assume that they mean what they say. If being "sure" of something is no longer synonymous with "arriving at a confident conclusion", then it has lost all of its original meaning.

Nice try, but you are again attempting to rationalize your "stab". The model name refers to how the case seals tighter under water pressure, not in dust storms.

I could have been more kind and gentle, but if your response to an accurate criticism given in a sharp tone is to ignore it, and stubbornly do the opposite, then you have more than semantics to worry about. And by the way, the "extra mile" in this case would have amounted to about five minutes of Google-based research.

 

I think "Respirator" is kind of an adventurous name, this:

Instead of this: