is the aquatimer future-proof?
is the aquatimer future-proof?
When compared to the last decade of the Submariner, or the Planet Ocean (or even the Heuer Aquaracer for chrissakes), the changes between each have been largely incremental at most. But the Aquatimer has taken a different path, with three dramatically different iterations over the course of the same time period. Personally, I love the current 3290 iteration, but I can't help but feel like IWC designers missed a chance at creating a truly future-proof diver by wildly disrupting its design language every four years. Does anyone agree? More importantly, does anyone care?
Oh, and which one will still be cool in 10 years?
Oh, and which one will still be cool in 10 years?
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Eh - the fact that they keep producing dive watches called "Aquatimers" is what will solidify the line and legitimize the "Aquatimer" name as a legit dive watch. The decision to make only incremental changes to a design is good if you really want to create a classic and almost trademarked aesthetic, but I think there's also a plus side to a watchmaker like IWC innovating aggressively on their sport watches.
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Simpler is better and IWC lost that plot here.
only accurate watches are interesting
- SCM64
- Global Mod/Sinn fanboy
- Posts: 16523
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:27 pm
- Location: N27° 56.79', W82° 27.55'
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Loved the one I had (the middle one). Hated the proprietary strap. The actual watch was close to perfection.
Steven
Sexually Desirable RockStar Moderator
Sexually Desirable RockStar Moderator
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
As much as the planet oceans 20,000 new derivatives. So yes?
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
3536 / 3538 series are the sweet spot IMHO
which is why I recently bought this
which is why I recently bought this
Last edited by andy tims on Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Andy
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Agree.andy tims wrote:3536 / 3538 series are the sweet spot IMHO
- rain_maker
- Posts: 2493
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:55 pm
- Name: Fred
- Location: NW of Boston
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Rahul,
Interesting post...the new Aquatimers may very well be innovative, and could be future proof based on IWC's continued existence. Outside of that there are several brands that I would reach for before I purchased a new one with a Sellita movement. Like the Mark series, I think IWC has missed the "boat" by not offering a 40-42MM dive watch with an in-house movement (in the $6-9K range). I've owned two of the ones you show above. The Chrono on steel is the one I wish had bought.
Mike
Interesting post...the new Aquatimers may very well be innovative, and could be future proof based on IWC's continued existence. Outside of that there are several brands that I would reach for before I purchased a new one with a Sellita movement. Like the Mark series, I think IWC has missed the "boat" by not offering a 40-42MM dive watch with an in-house movement (in the $6-9K range). I've owned two of the ones you show above. The Chrono on steel is the one I wish had bought.
Mike
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
The 3536 is one of my favorite dive watches, ever. When I first started getting into watches about a decade ago, I thought it went toe-to-toe with the 16600 as one of the two best divers of the 90s-2000s, period. For whatever reason, I'm not sure its legacy is what I once thought it would be. I do think that by radically changing the design of the AT so often, IWC has made these a bit less iconic.
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Agree. For the price, there are so many (arguably better) options out there now.jimyritz wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:20 amRahul,
Interesting post...the new Aquatimers may very well be innovative, and could be future proof based on IWC's continued existence. Outside of that there are several brands that I would reach for before I purchased a new one with a Sellita movement. Like the Mark series, I think IWC has missed the "boat" by not offering a 40-42MM dive watch with an in-house movement (in the $6-9K range). I've owned two of the ones you show above. The Chrono on steel is the one I wish had bought.
Mike
- JP Chestnut
- Posts: 17820
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:40 am
- Name: Jacob
- Location: Ithaca, NY USA
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
My 3536 is much much nicer than my 16600. It's nicer than every Rolex I've ever examined. IWC produced extremely high quality watches back them.
is the aquatimer future-proof?
Totally agree. While I actually like the 16600 more (mainly because I like that old-school Rolex diver aesthetic and those amazing oyster bracelets), objectively the 3536 is better.JP Chestnut wrote:My 3536 is much much nicer than my 16600. It's nicer than every Rolex I've ever examined. IWC produced extremely high quality watches back them.
I too miss the days of the old IWC. Not only did they produce high-quality pieces, but they had such great designs. There was a time when IWC made more watches I wanted to own than anybody else. That's no longer the case.
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
SCM64 wrote:Loved the one I had (the middle one). Hated the proprietary strap. The actual watch was close to perfection.
Yep this is how I feel too.
Loved mine but hated the luge. And I have a "rubber strap failure" that landed it in service in Texas for a new crystal and crown.
Does the new one have regular lugs ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DEATH FROM ABOVE
- JP Chestnut
- Posts: 17820
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:40 am
- Name: Jacob
- Location: Ithaca, NY USA
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Yes it does Ben.
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
The original was nice but the integrated lug design certainly dates it.
This one has a design that would be somewhat future proof, except for it is too large to be a daily wearer. Arguably, most classic designs are more "wearable" for a larger portion of the population. I so wish they made a 41mm version.
This one has a design that would be somewhat future proof, except for it is too large to be a daily wearer. Arguably, most classic designs are more "wearable" for a larger portion of the population. I so wish they made a 41mm version.
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
That's an interesting point – it's almost as though the platform itself is a legacy for innovation, rather than being home for a singular, iconic design.matt.wu wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:17 pmEh - the fact that they keep producing dive watches called "Aquatimers" is what will solidify the line and legitimize the "Aquatimer" name as a legit dive watch. The decision to make only incremental changes to a design is good if you really want to create a classic and almost trademarked aesthetic, but I think there's also a plus side to a watchmaker like IWC innovating aggressively on their sport watches.
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Or they can just settle on the design and become iconic like Rolex Sub. This is not a HONDA I don't need a new body or a facelift every 5 years
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Don't get me wrong, the innovation and drive is rad, but there's very little in the way of aesthetic that gets carried over from edition to edition. Each one is basically built from scratch, with zero carry-over from its predecessor. It's cool, but irritating at the same time, with so much disparity between each.
Re: is the aquatimer future-proof?
Sure, IWC may be driving technology in their sport watches, but how much of this technology really impacts overall case design? Probably not much? Most of the technology is in the movement, lume application, quick change bracelet features, etc... which do not really impact the appearance.
Last edited by dnslater on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.