Jump to content
When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
  • Current Donation Goals

Aquatimer 2009


RobbieG

Recommended Posts

There has been an ogoing thread on TZ about the direction of the AT line and how they really dropped the ball this year. Sure some of the designs are pretty enough, but pretty common looking too. We are all sort of confused in the thread about why IWC would choose to abanodon the things that make teh line complpetely unique and historically inconic - the internal bezel system, the most confortable and interesting bracelet system ever, and my favorite an abandonment of Titanium...

No Ti after they managed to be the only brand to present that metal in such a way so as to make it actually seem like a luxury item and not cheap costume jewelry like everyone else? Nobody executes Ti like IWC. And anyone who has spent any time with one of their Ti pieces knows it.

But anyway, those three items alone and seperately make for a watch which is unmistakeably IWC and the bailed on all of them. I happen to own the version that preserves all of those iconic properties and I will never sell it. Not saying that I wouldn't like one of these - maybe the black piece (which is rubber coated SS) - but it will never be an Aquatimer to me really. Not like this. And I have a 2008 Vintage Jubilee in steel on order too so no matter what I can preserve the vintage AT from 1967 in a time capsule so to speak. Now these are what Aquatimers should look like...

AT1.jpg

AT3.jpg

ATmini1.jpg

aquam.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also huge - the D2 is 46MM but wears like 48MM with the case shape and crown system. The others are 44MM, up two MM from the old 42MM AT standard. Of course the old AT has the internal bezel which makes for an "all dial" appearance and wears like 44MM because of that. So size-wise nothing has really changed with the standard models because of that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been an ogoing thread on TZ about the direction of the AT line and how they really dropped the ball this year. Sure some of the designs are pretty enough, but pretty common looking too. We are all sort of confused in the thread about why IWC would choose to abanodon the things that make teh line complpetely unique and historically inconic - the internal bezel system, the most confortable and interesting bracelet system ever, and my favorite an abandonment of Titanium...

No Ti after they managed to be the only brand to present that metal in such a way so as to make it actually seem like a luxury item and not cheap costume jewelry like everyone else? Nobody executes Ti like IWC. And anyone who has spent any time with one of their Ti pieces knows it.

But anyway, those three items alone and seperately make for a watch which is unmistakeably IWC and the bailed on all of them. I happen to own the version that preserves all of those iconic properties and I will never sell it. Not saying that I wouldn't like one of these - maybe the black piece (which is rubber coated SS) - but it will never be an Aquatimer to me really. Not like this. And I have a 2008 Vintage Jubilee in steel on order too so no matter what I can preserve the vintage AT from 1967 in a time capsule so to speak. Now these are what Aquatimers should look like...

Totally agree on all-of-the-above... Reason most of us became 'IWC addicts' after our initial adventures with flamboyant watches like Breitling, Rolex or Panerai was it's simplicity and classic style. But now it looks like they are going the Graham Chronofigther route with their button protectors and outragous colours.

Personally I'm still a huge fan of the former models and will stick to my gen mk XVI forever and expand the rep collection with more pilot's, GST's, ingy's and portugueser watches from the 'old skool'. Just embarked on a Franken mk XV project so will show off asap...

@RobbieG: Where did you source the jubilee AT? Is it a Gen or a rep? If a rep exists, I'll definately pop the cherry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Ti after they managed to be the only brand to present that metal in such a way so as to make it actually seem like a luxury item and not cheap costume jewelry like everyone else? Nobody executes Ti like IWC. And anyone who has spent any time with one of their Ti pieces knows it.

Dewitt uses Ti in some of their models...they feel incredible on the wrist.

Thanks for the guide!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dewitt uses Ti in some of their models...they feel incredible on the wrist.

Thanks for the guide!

Yeah they execute Ti very well also - forgot about that. Also UN now has the 45MM MMD in a polished Ti which is pretty nice. One thing that bugs me about Dewitt though is they can look cheap sometimes from the alloys. They use too much rhodium in the mixes and it gives the gold that wet look. Some like it, but too me it looks like plated plastic in certain light. Other guilty parties for that are Dubuis and BRM. Overall, I think the Academias are cool but I have a fundemental problem though with thirty grand for an unmodified 7750 though. Fifty grand gets you a 1940 which is at least a cool remanufacture antique Valjioux 71 handwind chrono. Those are cool. Then all the really high end stuff is done in house. But I just think the cases are really cool looking designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny AND tragic at the same time... Couldn't agree more; starting to look just like "any" diver's watch now.

Sorry, I don't see the Seiko - although they do look less unique due to the choices they haev made. And I had been leading that charge on the gen forums too. I wouldn't go so far to call the pur crap though. Make no mistake - they are very nicely made watches and a step above most of the others that they now look more like. And as the owner of a gen Ti AT chrono from last year I will say the fit, finish and feel of the new ones is a step above believe it or not, design issues aside...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up