Hi Forum,
I hope everyone is enjoying the summer of re-opening, and that it continues into the fall.

I've been interested in an Ingenieur 666 for some time. I would appreciate some advice on the following one (cal 853). I believe the dial is original, the bezel has some scratches and the lugs are somewhat polished. My main concern is the hands: these are baton hands, not the more popular dauphin. It looks like a yellow filler around a black frame, with maybe missing black on the center areas. Here's a photo with close-up:


The only one similar that I've found with "frame hands" is on this gold version, but with reversed colors:


But obviously there are many examples of baton hands:


Any advice would be much appreciated. I know @MikeMan2727 and @Tony C. have expertise on these.

Thanks in advance.

Mike

 

I am not convinced that the circular scratch is on the crystal... Be sure that it is not a drag mark on the dial.

 

Hi Mike,

They could be correct baton hands, but if so, have been clumsily re-lumed. And as mentioned above, it would important to confirm if the scratch is on the crystal, or the dial.

 

To be honest, I also assumed it was a drag mark on the dial, and was willing to live with it. Besides the aesthetics, does it raise a concern? The watch is $2K USD (with non IWC bracelet) which is pretty cheap compared to the typical market for these watches.

 

What is the condition of the case back and movement? Does it have the inner cap?

 

It's an auction site with limited photos & info. The caseback is in very good shape (better I think than the bezel) but the presence of the inner cap is unknown. I assumed I could find one if it was needed.
Any experience in dealing with IWC to service a vintage watch? I'm thinking of having them service it and either re-luming the hands or providing replacements, but I don't want them to "ruin" its vintage nature.

 

Hi there - The baton bands were correct for the later 853s with the IWC applied logo. A 'transition period' that the frizzellwebb site has documented neatly:

https://www.frizzellweb.com/larry/ingenieur/Ingenieur2.html

It could be the camera angle making the central part of the hands appear yellow/reflecting badly. Do you have another photo?

I not recommend IWC (or pretty much any brand) and for servicing a vintage item. Unless you have an accountable human and established track record, parts can be replaced, cases polished and original items not returned in the package given the chain of people and departments involved. Plus you are paying a significant premium for this opaqueness.

Better to send to an independent watchmaker who you can deal with directly (or see in person) who gives a photographic record of the service and you can deal directly with as issues arise. The 853 is not a mysteriously complicated movement - they are well documented and parts can be found.

Crown looks good. Is the original brushing in place on the case?

 

IMHO, not cheap for the condition... a scratch on the the dial is not a detail and has a great influence of the price and attractivity for me personally. I value more and more a pristine dial and a sharp case, I much prefer a "lesser" model in good condition to a "hot" rough one, but that's me.

If you have other pictures taken from other angles, you may determine if the scratch is on the plexi or not, compare its position.

 

So, no photo of the movement? Not sure if the inner cap is present (not se easy to replace)? Likely scratch on the dial? Case in "good" at best condition? Hands relumed?

Unless you are buying the watch to wear, and are happy to "take a shot", I would walk away. If re-sale value might ever be of any importance to you, it would likely be a poor gamble.

 

This is an interesting variation of the 666. The dial has the applied logo, which is typically seen in the cal 854 models. I have seen others like this so it is likely a late 853. Do you have the case and movement serial numbers?

The baton hands are probably correct for this type of dial, but as others have said the relume is unattractive. I agree with the other statements.

 

IMHO, unless you are getting a really good deal on a vintage watch and you are willing to risk it, I would ALWAYS insist on seeing a picture of the movement. It's going to tell you so much about the watch, its life and whether it is worth getting it serviced in the future.

My guess is that the scratch is on the inside of the crystal, as it appears to have been made by the shorter end of the second hand. Having said that, for 2k I wouldn't want to risk that either.

 

I appreciate everyone's input. I have confirmation that the inner cap is present, and based on the inside marking of the caseback it seems that the watch was serviced in 2013 or 2015 (can't tell if a 3 or 5).
The movement serial number is 14764xx and case number is 14692XX. I previously committed to buying it (I know... I know... I should have posted first), so unless something is blatantly wrong I feel that I should take it, despite the bad lume job.

Here are photos of the movement. I compared it to others online and it seems ok to my amateurish eye. I tend to agree with Geezer that the scratch is most likely on the crystal, caused by the seconds hand.



The bracelet is quite different: I'm not sure what type it's called but the seller lists it as "original". It doesn't say IWC on it as far as I can tell. Has anyone seen one of these?


All comments welcome. Thanks!

Mike

 

Glad to hear that the cap is present, but why no photo of it? The case back photo is not good, and it appears that the back may have been heavily polished. That is yet another strike against the watch.

The bracelet most certainly is not original, and the fact that the seller would advertise as being original should make you skeptical of any of his other claims.

I don't mean to be harsh, but why would you have committed to buy a watch before thoroughly researching it? And why do you still feel obligated to do so when there are issues that weren't clear at the outset?

 

As a 666 owner, I would pass on this example. too expensive for the condition. Much better ones do come to market, you just have to be patient.

 

Which is it, $2k or auction?

 

It could well had been purchased with the watch, which to most people would make it original.

 

Huh? You mean, to draw an analogy, that it should be necessary to point out that a bad redial would not be "original" even if the current owner (or seller) purchased it in that state? Or do you mean to suggest that it may have been purchased originally with the watch?

 

Sorry, you lost me?

If a bracelet is purchased with a watch from new (like a non-omega gold bracelet bought at the jeweller alongside the watch), to a lot of people this would make it original - which naturally differs from what collectors expect of that term. This could well be the case here.

My point is that the seller seller using the term isn't necessarily trying to fool anyone - I have experienced this numerous times and never has the intent being malicious.

In this case the auction house is probably relaying what the consignor has told them , which makes them borderline acting in bad faith, IMO. A more ethically minded auctioneer (to the extent that such a thing exist..!) should have guided the consignor better.

 

C'mon now. Do you seriously believe that there is a chance – even a tiny one – that this watch was originally sold with that bracelet? Setting aside that authorized IWC dealers, which were likely the only places selling original 666 Ingenieurs, would have had access to correct IWC bracelets, even if a buyer were to ask for something different, do you imagine that a third-party bracelet might have been fitted with incorrect end-pieces?

I see no chance of that having happened.

You may argue that the seller is simply naïve in this instance, but even if that were the case, would you be inclined to trust his other claims?

 

Even if it was bought later on by the original owner, I don't see it as a big issue in any way. No-one looking for one of these would spare it a second thought and I certainly don't think deception is the intent here. Perhaps we just have different experiences with these sort of things - it usually works out fine for me

The end links looks "fine" to me, they are generic spring loaded items. Regarding the inner cap I bought a DS where the amag cap wasn't mentioned nor pictured, even after the seller had been inquired about it by several people. He said it was present, I bought the watch and it was there. I am not saying that it will naturally be the case here as well, but why lie about it? It would be a clear case of misrepresentation, if it arrived missing it.