Please rate- IWC 666 Ingenieur, cal 852

[Tony C.]

It doesn't require "courage" to assess vintage watches, but a certain amount of objectivity is required.

When you make the claim that a vintage advertisement leaves "no doubt that everything in my watch is as it left the factory", it is an obvious example of confirmation bias. It is understandable that you are "invested" in dial originality, but as mentioned in my most recent post, the advertisement is only confirmation of a basic dial style.

The service photos that you have provided are obviously more clear than the previous ones, and they do assist in objective analysis. The lighting in the macro images is a bit confusing, as the indices, hands and lume all appear to have much more oxidation than in the other photos.

The signatures appear to be of good quality, though my original questions remain (e.g. non-italics, different W than typically found on ref. 666, etc.), and the faint second line below the lighting bolt arrow raises some obvious questions, as it would be disappointing if such a flaw were to have appeared on an original factory dial.



My position hasn't changed: I believe that it is possible that the dial is original, but there are some questions that prevent me from arriving at a confident conclusion.

 

[Geezer]

Given the pristine condition of the case, the radium burn on the dial and the unmolested screws on the movement, I would be quite surprised if this is a refinished dial or a service replacement.

 

[watchyouwant]

Repainted. What happened now to the white edges on the 3 o'clock marker ? Different light or removed ?

 

[skand]

Tony C.

It doesn't require "courage" to assess vintage watches, but a certain amount of objectivity is required.

When you make the claim that a vintage advertisement leaves "no doubt that everything in my watch is as it left the factory", it is an obvious example of confirmation bias. It is understandable that you are "invested" in dial originality, but as mentioned in my most recent post, the advertisement is only confirmation of a basic dial style.

The service photos that you have provided are obviously more clear than the previous ones, and they do assist in objective analysis. The lighting in the macro images is a bit confusing, as the indices, hands and lume all appear to have much more oxidation than in the other photos.

The signatures appear to be of good quality, though my original questions remain (e.g. non-italics, different W than typically found on ref. 666, etc.), and the faint second line below the lighting bolt arrow raises some obvious questions, as it would be disappointing if such a flaw were to have appeared on an original factory dial.



My position hasn't changed: I believe that it is possible that the dial is original, but there are some questions that prevent me from arriving at a confident conclusion.

I received two additional photos from the watchmaker. According to the watchmaker, it was a manufacturing error.

 

[Tony C.]

skand

I received two additional photos from the watchmaker. According to the watchmaker, it was a manufacturing error.

That is possible, but wouldn't one expect to see other examples, if that were the case? Have you seen others? Conversely, if it was a "one off", would it not be odd that IWC's quality control would have missed it, and allow it to be sold?

Keep in mind that I tend to be very critical, and skeptical of vintage dials that are not clearly original. Also, two points in favor of the argument that it is original:

1) there were a number of different dial manufacturers employed by IWC over the years, so not all signatures and fonts were precisely the same

2) your watch was a first generation ref. 666, and it is therefore more likely that there may have been dial issues with them, than later generation versions

 

[skand]

Tony C.

That is possible, but wouldn't one expect to see other examples, if that were the case? Have you seen others? Conversely, if it was a "one off", would it not be odd that IWC's quality control would have missed it, and allow it to be sold?

Keep in mind that I tend to be very critical, and skeptical of vintage dials that are not clearly original. Also, two points in favor of the argument that it is original:

1) there were a number of different dial manufacturers employed by IWC over the years, so not all signatures and fonts were precisely the same

2) your watch was a first generation ref. 666, and it is therefore more likely that there may have been dial issues with them, than later generation versions

I don't panic, because the repainted IWC dial is probably the easiest to recognize. I haven't seen a perfect repainting of dials so far, no one has done it yet. Moreover, as you mentioned, this is the first version of 666 and the dials of various subcontractors. It occurred to me to show the differences between the various subcontractors based on the Connie 2852. This dial is absolutely not similar to the others, but it is original.

 

[watchyouwant]

Your Dial will not become original with that reasoning. I have serviced a lot of IWC models ; especially liked Ingenieur's . In the 90's , we got Factory replacement Dials through our Factory contacts. I have seen and evaluated many IWC Dials. This one here would not have passed the Quality control.

 

[Fallout Boy]

Can we see the back-side of the dial?

 

[skand]

watchyouwant

Your Dial will not become original with that reasoning. I have serviced a lot of IWC models ; especially liked Ingenieur's . In the 90's , we got Factory replacement Dials through our Factory contacts. I have seen and evaluated many IWC Dials. This one here would not have passed the Quality control.

Does this mean that you are 100% sure that the dial is repainted? Have you ever seen such radiation from a repainted dial? I bought the device and did the test as soon as I got the watch in my hand.

 

[Adam2941]

Tony C.

...and related to this: paint on the edges of the three index, and none on the nine index

Looking back at the original photo, I think what appears to be paint on the wdges of the 3 is in fact reflection.