Stuck between these two Chronographs

[Joeprez]

Not a fan of any of them

Would probably pick the IWC, but I like the one you own better.

[Panerai7]

Thanks Joe. Maybe I'm creating a need I don't have

[gr8sw]

Zenith... very hot!

[spring-diver]

Z ftw!

[Panerai7]

Had an opportunity to try IWC
Still can't decide

[JP Chestnut]

That ceramic case finishing is so unimpressive to me. IWC could do this


and this



but they don't bother.

[Panerai7]

Agree, those sides of the moon series definitely have some nice finishing on the case with brushed and polished surfaces where IWC is more like powder coated. But I guess that's the point of it being matte and stealthy?

[JP Chestnut]

Agree, those sides of the moon series definitely have some nice finishing on the case with brushed and polished surfaces where IWC is more like powder coated. But I guess that's the point of it being matte and stealthy?

I'm almost 100% sure it's due to construction technique not a stylistic choice. The Omegas, and the new AP, are created by milling a billet of ceramic. This is time consuming and expensive. Omega is the first brand that I'm aware of bringing this technique to watches.

I'm pretty sure the IWC is a metal core with some particulate ceramic compressed around it - exactly the same construction as the 20 year old 3705. I don't know it for a fact, so I'd be happy to find out for sure, but it's pretty likely I think.

On edit - the piss lume Omega is fully brushed so pretty stealthy while still not looking like it was formed out of playdoh.

[Nellipj]

Omega does ceramic so much better. I like the IWC, but the Zenith is still the winner for me.

[Panerai7]

Yeah my BP Bathyscaphe is like that from a single billet of ceramic and has different brushed surfaces. I thought IWC was all ceramic as well.

[JP Chestnut]

Yeah my BP Bathyscaphe is like that from a single billet of ceramic and has different brushed surfaces. I thought IWC was all ceramic as well.

It could be, but I've definitely seen images of "modern" ceramic IWCs that have failed showing a metal substructure.





Frankly, I'd be surprised if IWC did anything more than the bare minimum. This guy

wasn't exactly chasing excellence.

[Panerai7]

That's not pretty at all. I'm not paying ceramic money for a baked on solution

[JP Chestnut]

I could be wrong, but I'll continue operating under this assumption until I learn otherwise.

[Joeprez]

Yeah my BP Bathyscaphe is like that from a single billet of ceramic and has different brushed surfaces. I thought IWC was all ceramic as well.

It could be, but I've definitely seen images of "modern" ceramic IWCs that have failed showing a metal substructure.





Frankly, I'd be surprised if IWC did anything more than the bare minimum. This guy

wasn't exactly chasing excellence.

That's... eye-opening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sierra11b]

There's photos of a broken DSOM with a metal skeleton underneath floating around omega forum:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/bad-day ... oon.19011/

As much as I love the looks of ceramic it's truly big boy toy territory and gutting if it breaks. I'd feel better buying a $11k watch from steel than a any ceramic for $7k.

I still consider one. I wonder if my jewelers mutual policy would cover such damage?

[Panerai7]

No that looks like a full on ceramic with caseback visible, Iwc is clearly caked on ceramic

[JP Chestnut]

There's photos of a broken DSOM with a metal skeleton underneath floating around omega forum:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/bad-day ... oon.19011/

As much as I love the looks of ceramic it's truly big boy toy territory and gutting if it breaks. I'd feel better buying a $11k watch from steel than a any ceramic for $7k.

I still consider one. I wonder if my jewelers mutual policy would cover such damage?

Probably. Your homeowners would.

[Panerai7]

Yep all watches are under my HOI so I'm not worried.

[Jeep99dad]

Had an opportunity to try IWC
Still can't decide

Was this the used one at ECBLuxe?

[koda240]

Zenith. Personally I find the finishing on the IWC a bit half baked comparatively

[sierra11b]

As said before, I loved the IWC in the flesh, and even more so the Big Pilot of the same Top Gun line because it wore smaller being black, BUT the chrono movement issues would be my concern and sway me to the Zenith, UNLESS IWC has fixed the issue.

People literally bust a nut over the 3705, myself included, and this is the modern interpretation as you know and done so well. You and Jacob are right... It's built around a skeleton but I wonder if that makes it stronger given the inherint hardness scale of ceramic? Sure, the Omega appears to be solid ceramic (I read your post -- thanks) and has some cool lines, but you wore the IWC like me and know it's a winner.

I guess the question aside from the potential IWC cal.89361 faults, is which ceramic method is stronger? The Omega clearly snapped as well as the IWC, but I wonder the exact forces involved? I guess we'll never know...

My money is on the IWC being stronger and here's why... As a previous maker of knives, long time collector of knives, and lover of Japanese kitchen knives, I know that forge-laminating soft steel over an inner-later super hard core (the cutting edge) and outer softer steel (like lead in a wooden pencil) offers a lot of dampening. With the steel backing the ceramic is might be a way to offer that durability rather than it being cost-cutting. Just my thought.

I've tried swinging a few homegenous 62+ HRC stainless steel chef-style knives and they're garbage. It's like trying to work a seashell on a cutting board or using an ice skate on the cutting board in that you will get a lot of chips and the over-ridgenness literally sends chills down your spine. Try a Watanabe (Takeda, etc) where the inner forged core is 63-65HRC with an outer steel of 55-56HRC, and it's like pure silk. It's precisely why I always hardened my stock removal (non-forged stock billet) knives to the 58 HRC range after getting some sage advice from the masters themselves.

[Panerai7]

Thanks Eric for interesting points

[kurt behm]

all day long!

[flyskate]

Zenith all the way! That is a gorgeous piece!

[ericf4]

Agree, those sides of the moon series definitely have some nice finishing on the case with brushed and polished surfaces where IWC is more like powder coated. But I guess that's the point of it being matte and stealthy?

I'm almost 100% sure it's due to construction technique not a stylistic choice. The Omegas, and the new AP, are created by milling a billet of ceramic. This is time consuming and expensive. Omega is the first brand that I'm aware of bringing this technique to watches.

I'm pretty sure the IWC is a metal core with some particulate ceramic compressed around it - exactly the same construction as the 20 year old 3705. I don't know it for a fact, so I'd be happy to find out for sure, but it's pretty likely I think.

On edit - the piss lume Omega is fully brushed so pretty stealthy while still not looking like it was formed out of playdoh.

even my Blancpain ceramic is that beautiful brushed finish which IMO is far better looking than the powder coated look.