Forums Latest Members
  1. Gyges Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    111
    Likes
    248
    Hello. My favourite watchmaker is selling this lovely vintage IWC. The movement is apparently cal 60 with Incabloc protection (”Inca” written on the movement). From the movement and case number I gather that the manufacturing year is 1947 (http://www.moeb.on-rev.com/dyIWC/dyIWCm.irev). The watch seems to be in excellent condition, my photographs don’t do justice to it.

    Do you have any other information on this watch? Does the price 780 euro seem right to you?
     
    EA0D87FB-FBB7-45C4-88F1-A2F317297A0D.jpeg E1EB3BEA-A198-4C56-8E81-B88AD0E7362E.jpeg 4A0A10BA-35A2-4848-AC6A-408A09F4F3F4.jpeg
  2. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,044
    The dial is not original.
     
  3. Gyges Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    111
    Likes
    248
    Could you please explain? I don’t know IWC very well but the movement seems to be in very good shape as well, as it should be with a dial in this condition. Also, if am to believe the watchmaker, this watch has a history and was bought from the owner’s daughter, who had found it in her late father’s drawer. Also, the other watches this watchmaker is selling seem perfectly legit,
     
  4. Gyges Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    111
    Likes
    248
    Mostly Omegas.
     
  5. ac106 Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    999
    Likes
    1,616
    He just means it's a repainted dial. Often done during servicing back in the day.
     
    Gyges likes this.
  6. Gyges Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    111
    Likes
    248
    Ok. What are tell-tale signs then? Is it just that the dial is wrong for the era, or is there something else?
     
  7. Dan S Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    18,604
    Likes
    42,878
    I agree the dial has been refinished. And the hands also have the look of more modern replacements to me.
     
    Gyges likes this.
  8. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,044
    Just do some basic research. A search for IWC cal. 60 will yield many dial variations, and you will see that the signature is not correct. Note, though, that dials were outsourced to be manufactured, so there will be some variation. But, to use one specific issue, look closely at the "W" in "Watch" on your dial, and then on others around the 'net. What you will find is that it is noticeably different – an anomaly that can't be explained other than it being an inaccurate redial.
     
    aap and Gyges like this.
  9. Gyges Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    111
    Likes
    248
    Well, I did look at a number of dials, but the difficulty lies in the fact that a significant part of them seem to be much more obvious redials than this one. I still find it hard to believe that it’s a redial, even if I acknowledge that I have no experience on IWC and several people are telling me the same thing - my point being: why would a watch whose movement is in such a good condition need to be redialed?
     
  10. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,044
    bec
    This is not uncommon. Movement often remain in excellent condition because they are largely protected from the elements. Dials, in contrast, are obviously exposed to them.

    Try to find another with the same signature. There are many hundreds of images of vintage IWC online.

    I also believe that the hands are replacements. Try to find other watches of that age with blued steel hands that look like they are new. Also, that second hand style is not consistent with the period that the watch was manufactured. They were typically thinner, and had a "tail", like this one shown in a 1940s catalogue:

    [​IMG]
     
    Walrus, Gyges and Dan S like this.
  11. Gyges Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    111
    Likes
    248
    Well, I suppose you are right. I googled some more and found this - the signature is not exactly the same but very similar; this is supposed to be a 1960s IWC. So my conclusion is that perhaps the first watch is a 1947 IWC that was redialed in 1960s?
    upload_2019-4-6_2-23-16.jpeg
     
  12. Dan S Apr 5, 2019

    Posts
    18,604
    Likes
    42,878
    It's not at all uncommon to find re-dialed watches with pristine movements.
     
    Gyges likes this.
  13. Gyges Apr 6, 2019

    Posts
    111
    Likes
    248
    Thanks for your replies. While I recognize that you are very likely to be correct, may I ask a further question for my own edification? I searched some more and found a few dials from approximately the same era, and found some watches with a similar (although not exactly the same) signature, especially the I in International and the W in Watch. Will all of these be redialed?

    [​IMG]
    https://vintageandwatches.com/products/iwc-schaffhausen-vintage-18ct-gold-dress-watch
    ("mint condition", according to the seller...)

    [​IMG]
    https://www.montrealpawn.com/product/rare-vintage-iwc-schaffhausen-solid-18k-gold-watch/

    [​IMG]
    https://www.ronsusser.com/inventory...solid-gold-iwc-schaffhausen-mens-watch-1950s/

    ue-galerie-iwc-cal-70-id1054-935.jpg
    https://www.uhreneder.de/en/wristwa...wc-schaffhausen-handaufzug-cal-70-6869iwc-099
     
  14. aap Apr 6, 2019

    Posts
    3,064
    Likes
    23,656
    I suggest you also look at the IWCs in this forum as most of the ones here would be original
     
  15. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Apr 6, 2019

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,044
    Good research. I remain skeptical, but here are my thoughts.

    Only two of the images that you show are good enough to compare with any confidence, the first and last. The former does have the upright (as opposed to slanted) "SCHAFFHAUSEN", which, while uncommon, was used on a small percentage of earlier models, I believe. But while the style, including the eccentric "W", is very similar, there are at least two important distinctions. First, all of the lettering is both finer, and smaller, which was typical of the period. Secondly, there is an underline below the "o" in "Co", which was also typical of IWC signatures. On a related matter, note that while the hour and minute hands are of the same style, the second hand is what I described previously as having been typical, as opposed to yours.

    The last watch shown is the closer to yours. I have taken the liberty of processing it so that it is easier to compare:

    [​IMG]

    This one is so close as to lead one to believe that minimally, they were produced either by the same factory, or by the same hand. What is interesting about that watch is that it is powered by a cal. 70, which was an "economy" (i.e. cheaper) movement produced in small numbers around the War ('40s). That, in turn, leads to the interesting possibility that these dials were produced by a lower quality manufacturer, and therefore appear less genuine than the vast majority of (higher quality) IWC dials from the mid-century.

    Having found that clue, I searched for other cal. 70 examples, and found this one:

    [​IMG]

    Like the first one that you show above, the signature is smaller and finer, and the line below the "o" is also present. What may be important is that this particular watch is presented as being near NOS, and that appears to be accurate. So, one can assume with strong confidence that it is an original dial of the general style of yours.

    Here is a link to yet another which appears to be consistent with the finer versions of the signature:

    https://www.chrono24.com/iwc/schaffhausen-cal-70-manuale-35-mm-1940--id10783114.htm#gref

    So, where I stand is that either the dial manufacturer that produced these cheaper dials was woefully inconsistent, a possibility that cannot be completely ruled out, or that those with the larger, more crude lettering, and lacking the underscore, are old redials based on the finer version.

    It is true that yours is not a cal. 70, and that begs the question of why a cheaper dial would have been used. But it may also be consistent with someone using a template from an inappropriate dial to create a redial.
     
    Edited Apr 6, 2019
    bardamu, Gyges, Shabbaz and 1 other person like this.
  16. Gyges Apr 6, 2019

    Posts
    111
    Likes
    248
    Thanks for your thorough reply. But you are actually making me less, not more, convinced that this "my" watch is a redial (I haven't bought it yet)... :)

    I'm not sure what you mean by finer lettering. There is a difference with some dials having an underlined "o" and other not, but it's not just that the version without underlining simply "lacks" in detail, because it also adds a detail that is missing in version with the underlined "o". If you look closely, both "my" dial and the second one here pictured here have a "curl" after the "o", which the underlined version does not have (it's difficult to see it in the second photo because of bad image quality, but it is there):
    upload_2019-4-6_14-31-52.png
    [​IMG]
    So I would not say that the non-underlined "o" style is just an inferior copy of the underlined style, but rather variant of its own.

    I also notice that the minute and hour hands of "my" watch are very similar to both watches pictured in your last post. The clearest argument in favor of "my" watch being a redial remain then that the second hand is untypical of the era, but are there really others? (other than the "too good" condition of the dial - but the rest of the watch is near mint as well)
     
  17. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Apr 6, 2019

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,044
    It's not just the underline issue – there may well have been a small subset of dials without that feature. It's the relative crudeness of the lettering that I consider to be most concerning, and most indicative of either a redial, or lower-quality production.
     
    aap likes this.
  18. Shabbaz Apr 6, 2019

    Posts
    4,880
    Likes
    17,830
    I would pass on this one. The thickness of the script would be a big problem for me. The font of vintage iwc is mostly much finer in my experience. I've owned a dozen and looked at hundred of dials. But again, it's hard to proofe this. I remember a thread of a repainted iwc dial with @hoipolloi. It was amazing (and disturbing) to see what a repainter can do. Can't find it now...
     
  19. aap Apr 6, 2019

    Posts
    3,064
    Likes
    23,656
    If I may add - the minute markers are also sloppy and inconsistent.
     
  20. Gyges Apr 6, 2019

    Posts
    111
    Likes
    248
    I'm sorry for being so insistent, but as as the thickness or crudeness of the script goes, I still don't quite get it. If we look at the following these two watches, couldn't we say that writing is very similar and that they stand or fall together - either they are both incorrect or both correct? I don't see how exactly the writing is cruder in "my" example?



    [​IMG]
    Is this second watch then not legit? If so, why not? https://www.uhreneder.de/en/wristwa...wc-schaffhausen-handaufzug-cal-70-6869iwc-099

    Then we have this other watch, which Tony C. was willing to accept as legit. It is true that the script is slightly different, but how exactly is the writing on "my" dial cruder or thicker?


    [​IMG]

    Zooming out a bit, note the general similarity of the style:


    [​IMG]
    (https://vintagecaliber.com/products/1945-iwc-schaffhausen-cal-70-lnos)

    But I find the idea of "low-quality production" attractive. The watch comes from Finland, and Finland in 1947 and several years after that was severely hit the war. The country had to pay large war indemnities to Soviet Russia, food was rationed (coffee until 1954) etc.