On auction, I won an IWC cal. 60, in what I can tell a pretty good condition. I’m far from an expert in these, so I would like to get some more information and input about originality and price paid (600€ incl.). Case, crown, movement loon correct to me. Also the dial seems in excellent condition, however, I find it hard to spot a redial when it is not obvious, and the font etc looks correct to me.

Thanks in Advance.

 

The engraving "International Watch" looks strange...like done with a laser. (Compared with my cal 83. No 109XXXX) Look at the first I . Ranfft does not list any .60

And: The design of the crown looks good, but IMO should be signed (??). What is stamped inside the case-back?

 

I have owned more than a few IWC, though the earlier models, like this one, are far from being an area of expertise.

I would say that the dial and hands look original, and the case, assuming a correctly signed (inner) back, likely is as well. As for the movement, I think that it is correct. It is true that the engraving appears less precise than one might expect, but it is very similar to the orphaned movement from Switzerland shown below, and I doubt very much that either was engraved later. I do not think that it was done with a laser, as that would look more clean. Also, note that this example is also a cal. 60, and the serial numbers are very close together.

I would not expect a signed crown on that style of relatively thin, snap-back case, from that period, so it could be original.

 

Thank you guys! The movement looks indeed similar to the one shown on your photo, and with serial numbers so close to eachother, I beleve it is correct. I think the caliber is c60, I dont know where the 'c' stands for. I think the signed crowns came a little later, correct?

 

I don't recall exactly when the signed crowns appeared, but I would guess a touch later. The more relevant point, I would say, is that it is very unlikely that a watch with that style of case would have been waterproof, and the IWC "signature" found on crowns was, of course, a fish, denoting water resistance.

 

Thank you!