Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MJ1958

IWC Pilot Mark XVII movement?

Recommended Posts

 

I just bought a used IWC Mark XVII from a jeweler. It came with all boxes and cards. The serial number on the card matches the back of the watch. However, there are two issues I am having with this concerning authenticity. And since IWC, unlike Omega, does NOT give any watch info based on the serial number, I decided to mention these issues here in order to try and authenticate this watch:

1. When I received it, the rotor on the movement was super loud. I then opened up the back to take a photo of the movement. After I closed it back up, suddenly the loud scraping noise of the rotor was gone. How did I fix this? What was wrong with it before? Could simply a loose back plate have caused this noise? I still hear the scraping noise every once in a while, but rarely and a little less loudly, whereas before I opened and closed the back the sound was consistent and a little louder. My Omega watches never made a rotor noise. Ever.

2. Here is the photo of the movement. The watch itself looks perfect on the outside, and it is impossible to authenticate it that way, so I am only attaching photos of the inside. I am concerned that underneath the rotor, there is no inscription that tells me how many jewels are in the movement. I know that some other IWC watches DO have this jewel count inscribed on there, but for some reason this one doesn't (I turned the rotor around all the way to check the entire movement for the inscription, but nothing). Please take a look and let me know what you think. I know that the Mark XVII is a relatively new watch, so there are no photos of it online. So what I am asking for is this forum's expert opinions. Thank you!

BTW, from what I've read, the movement in this watch should be a modified ETA 2892, but I'm not sure...

IWCmov.jpg?t=1371672489?213

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looks good to me.

Lots of indiactions it is not fake. Fakes have simpler 1 piece rotors, no decoration except the top surface, the printing on the plate is always uneven...

Can't explain the scrapping noise, rotor bearing may be crooked from a drop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. I've read that the current replicas of movements are pretty well decorated. They are making it hard to distinguish the fakes from the gens.

What I find in my Portofino (also C. 30110) is this:

IWC30110_zps79406cf3.jpg

It can be that your movement is an newer version and they changed the movements.

You should ask it at the IWC forum, people will know it for sure there. Perhaps an trip to an AD isn't a bad idea, to clarify if it's real or not. Judging by its movement, I don't know....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have the Mark XVI (same movement) and the rotor has always been louder than any of my other 2892 based watches (Omega 1120, TAGHeuer Cal 7). Yep it sounds exactly like a 'scraping' noise. I figure it must be a characteristic of the 30110 and I've never given it a second thought. Good on you for cracking her open and having a look at the movement - I've never been game enough to do that with any of my watches!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you guys. But with the contradicting assessments, I still am not sure. Albranius, I'm new to this site. How do I find the IWC forum? Is it a forum within watchuseek or is it a separate site altogether?

Does anyone else have any expertise to share about the looks of this movement? I still find it strange that there is no jewel count. However, this watch did come with box, booklet, and the card with the hologram sticker (and the serial number on the card matches the watch).

I appreciate everyone's help.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I noticed a couple other issues. Here is the photo of the dial. The 12 o'clock index (the triangle) is ever so slightly shifted too much to the left (about a half millimeter) and the 3 o'clock index is crooked (it is angled downward as it moves toward center). With all these indications I would say that this was a replica, but again, there is the box, booklet, and card with hologram with the matching serial number to the watch.

Someone please help! And please, only offer your opinion if you are an expert with this watch. Thank you!

Here is the photo of the dial:

20150923180312_rvjylzjdkje.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hope you have already determined if it is real or not. Looking at your photo, I agree that the 3 o'clock marker appears to be slanted downward a bit. The 12 o'clock triangle looks fine to me, although the 6 o'clock marker appears to sit slightly to the left, not perfectly centered between the two second half-batons. It also appears that the sweep second hand is more squared at the tip than the one in the IWC website photo. And the red date triangle is not pointed at the center of the "17" as it should be, in contrast to how the red triangle points at the center of the date in the IWC website picture; moreover, the date window should show only 3 full numbers, not 2 full and 2 partial. I guess if the date indicator were properly aligned, the window would only show the 16, 17 and 18, so maybe for some reason the date has not yet fully changed over at the presumed 2:50 AM time pictured; but that seems strange. Finally, though internet pictures can be deceiving due to lighting, angles, etc., when I compare your photo to the enlarged Mark XVII photo on the IWC website, the bezels look different in that the IWC bezel appears to have more facets, nuances, and angles to it, whereas the case/bezel in your photo looks flatter and less faceted, if that makes sense. But it is quite possible that the bezel differences are only perceived rather than real. As for the minor position defects in the 3 and 6 o'clock dial markers, the second hand, and the off-centered red date indicator, if those are indeed real and not just perceived due to photo angles and lighting and an incomplete date change, well all that is a bit odd and certainly worth investigating. I know I'd be concerned. I hope you get it sorted out and post your conclusion, as I'm very curious about this too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi. Thanks for the assessment. The red arrow and date window were perfectly fine when I tested it out. For some reason it was just not aligned right for the photo. And most of the other things seemed to check out OK too, which was why even while in my hand I couldn't tell if it was authentic or not. The biggest problem, however, was that the 3 o'clock index was slanted. That, unfortunately, is NOT a matter of the angle of the photo and is an actual defect.

Good news: I have returned the item (shipped it out today) and the seller has agreed to refund me. Basically, I couldn't prove the status of its authenticity, but the back plate came off the watch when I initially pulled it out of the box because the rubber gasket was loose, making it impossible for the back plate to screw in tight. The seller blamed this on the previous owner who may have opened the back and caused the gasket to flatten. In any case, I hope the seller honors his end of the bargain and refunds me once he receives it. It looks like he will as he has already relisted this item. (He has relisted this item as being 99% new, and omits the fact that the back of the watch was opened, thereby possibly compromising the movement. In fact, he downplayed the entire defect throughout our correspondence.)

The only thing I'm really upset about is the fact that I had to pay $52 to ship this back to him using Priority mail with high insurance. The seller REFUSED to refund even a small fraction of this fee stating that no matter what it is the buyer's responsibility to pay return shipping. The fact is, it's only the buyer's responsibility because eB can't force the seller to pay return shipping, but they do state that the seller should try to work with the buyer in the case the item was not as described. I'm actually considering sending the photos of the questionable movement and dial to IWC hq and reporting this seller. I just don't feel right about another buyer paying thousands for this watch that I KNOW has had the back unsealed or even open for a significant amount of time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...