IWC Tribute to Mark XI - It's Official

[logan2z]

Complete with the usual array of moronic comments from Hodinkee readers...

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/iwc-p ... to-mark-xi

[Panerai7]

Really looking forward to you getting and seeing live shots

[sukUbus]

I went to the IWC site, clicked on the pic and I got this " you are not allowed to view this page".?? Weird.

[JP Chestnut]

I'm not sure how you can take such a harmonious design and then produce that, but richemont gonna richemont. Maxi hands - check. "Vintage lume" - check. Date half way across the dial - check. Good idea. Poor execution.

[logan2z]

I'm not sure how you can take such a harmonious design and then produce that, but richemont gonna richemont. Maxi hands - check. "Vintage lume" - check. Date half way across the dial - check. Good idea. Poor execution.

Not sure what you mean by 'maxi hands'. Essentially the same hands as the Mark XV (maybe scaled up slightly for the bigger case/dial). The vintage lume is a love-it-or-hate-it thing and I don't hate it here. The date isn't perfect but I think the placement looks much better on this watch than the standard XVIII due to the longer hour markers that put the numerals closer to the center of the dial. At least the data window lines up vertically with the 2/4. All in all I like it and have a refundable deposit on one. If it disappoints in the metal then I'll pass.

FWIW I've seen a 'live' photo of this watch and it looks a lot better than in this rendering.

[JP Chestnut]

Look how much fatter the minute hand is. They definitely beefed up the thickness of both hands - really for no reason because it's not a diver where max lume matters.

All they had to do was make a 1:1 version of the xv at 40mm.

[logan2z]

Worse comes to worse I'll have 'Hodinkee 1/25' engraved on the back and sell it for $8K

[hoppyjr]

I like it fine, but it would be better with no date & normal lume.

[logan2z]

Look how much fatter the minute hand is. They definitely beefed up the thickness of both hands - really for no reason because it's not a diver where max lume matters.

Hmm, not sure you can really tell from that rendering. I'll take my XV for comparison when the watch comes in.

[logan2z]

Look how much fatter the minute hand is. They definitely beefed up the thickness of both hands - really for no reason because it's not a diver where max lume matters.

All they had to do was make a 1:1 version of the xv at 40mm.

It's a tribute to XI, not XV. OK, some would say the date makes it more akin to a XV but look at things like the font, the markers etc., much more like the XI.

[JP Chestnut]

It's a modern XV. It has much less in common with this

It uses the same bubbly font as the newer BP's.

[JP Chestnut]

Actually, I can see it a little bit here:


The fat hands from the rendering actually look pretty similar - though the hour hand is too long.

[logan2z]

Actually, I can see it a little bit here:


The fat hands from the rendering actually look pretty similar - though the hour hand is too long.

It's a rendering. Tough to know if that accurately reflects what will ship. We'll see...

Edit: The XV hour hand looks longer. Maybe it's a Mark XIII

[nweash]

I liked the ho comment about getting a 3705 tribute. Really want an IWC ceramic pilot.

[rockmastermike]

Very interested in seeing the released version - the rendering looks good to me.

[R@cerx]

Complete with the usual array of moronic comments from Hodinkee readers...

This one is my favorite... "The two colours of lume on the numerals and indexes is extremely stressful"

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/iwc-p ... to-mark-xi

[Panerai7]

A little disappointed that it's not ETA2892. And NATO on a Pilot is just wrong, they need to stop that

[jimyritz]

Exclusive to Harrods ....

Too bad IWC still can't put an inhouse in these.

[JP Chestnut]

Exclusive to Harrods ....

Too bad IWC still can't put an inhouse in these.

Honestly, I'd much rather not deal with that from them. Lower price and an ETA would be an improvement.

[logan2z]

Exclusive to Harrods

Only for the first couple of months.

[logan2z]

A little disappointed that it's not ETA2892. And NATO on a Pilot is just wrong, they need to stop that

I'm trying to confirm which movement is being used in the Tribute. If you recall, Hodinkee originally reported that the standard Mark XVIII used a Sellita movement but then corrected themselves after IWC confirmed it was ETA.

Re: the NATO, based on photos I've seen of the original Mark XI, the watch was often worn on a NATO. So I think IWC is trying to emulate that look.

[Panerai7]

Keep us posted if you find out it's ETA

[logan2z]

Keep us posted if you find out it's ETA

Will do.

[hoppes-no9]

To be honest, it looks great to me. Usually don't like faux vintage lume but it works here. Fatter hands? big deal. I'm a fatter guy.

Only issue I see is the price. At <$3K I'm intersted, over $4K no.

[logan2z]

Keep us posted if you find out it's ETA

Will do.

According to the IWC site the watch uses IWC caliber 35111, which looks to be based on the SW-300. Still waiting for my AD to confirm but I assume the info at iwc.com is accurate.

http://watchbase.com/iwc/caliber/35111