Ingenieur or Aquatimer?

[bigmingo]

which one would you prefer? an Inge 3227-01 or an Aquatimer. anyone has anything to say about the internal bezel of Aquatimer?

[NightScar]

I like both but if I had to choose, it will have to be the AT.
I like the internal bezel, it is quite unique.
The 2000 AT is my grail though so I might be too biased.

You can't go wrong with either one though.

[bigmingo]

on my way to Taiwan in few days, going to visit the IWC boutique in Taipei 101 and visit an AD i know. hope to come back with a Inge or AT.

http://www.presentwatch.com/spacer.gif

[craniotes]

My answer would be both, since that's what I'm going to have just as soon as I move my Ikepod to free up some cash. However, if I could have only one, it would be the Inge by virtue of its in-house movement, overall history, and superlative case finishing.

Regards,
Adam

[JYogi]

I have the AQ Ti Chrono and LOVE it

[tlinn]

Ing.

Had a AT for a very short time(only a couple months). My least favorite IWC that I have owned.

T

[bigmingo]

what are the reasons that you did not like the AT?

[JYogi]

Ing.

Had a AT for a very short time(only a couple months). My least favorite IWC that I have owned.

T

K, so you didn't like your AT... Explain what it was you did not like about it so the OP can know what problems you had and see how he feels about them when considering the watch. Just saying I didn't like it does not really help

[tlinn]

Sorry guys for the lack of info on my last post. I would be happy to share what I did not like.

My first IWC was a Port Chrono (reverse Panda). Loved the fit, finish, and size. It now rests on the wrist of one of my friends who always admired it under the stipulation that if he ever decides he does not want it, it will come back to me.

The AT was my second IWC. I have had a number of dive watches and to be honest I was not a fan of the internal bezel. I believe it wore smaller than the Port Chrono even though they are essentially the same size. I preferred the "size" of the Port. I also was not a fan of the rubber strap and the inability to change to a different strap (other than the bracelet).

I also have a 3717 that I absolutely love. Fantastic watch, finish, and wears at a great "size". If you have not considered it I would try one on before you purchase. It can be dressed up or down.

The AT was the watch I felt had/has the least wrist presence. I have had the pleasure of trying on an Ing but have not had the pleasure of owning one. The manufacture movement is a plus to me but not a deal breaker. I just think it is a more attractive watch that better represents IWC.

Hope this was of more help.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thanks.

Tom

[bigmingo]

Tom,

great info. thanks. i guess the bottom line is, once you try them on, you will know which one to get. since i am an engineer, i am leaning towards the Inge.

[JYogi]

Tom
Thank you for the reply.
I LOVE my AT Ti Chrono
BUT
Seeing as you really used it for a dive watch I can see what you are saying.
One thing which may have helped you like it more would have been the velcro dive
strap.
Still, I see many shortcomings with this really as a diver.
I think it is silly the bracelet has no dive extension, sure you can easily add
links or remove them but I do not want to lose those tools or links
on a rocky boat.
I like the internal bezel but if you were diving and wearing gloves I can see it
being hard to adjust the bezel.
For a regular daily do anything watch I love it myself.

The only other IWC I REALLY want is the Port Regulator SS (LOVE the blue hands!)

[Kiwi Mac]

I had an AT in Ti - don't know model but it was an external bezel that you pressed down to turn.

Clean face but never really liked it much - I traded a Sea Dweller for it and always regretted doing so.

I have a new 3227 Inge (not even a week old!) and I love it - best watch I have ever owned bar none (from 2 Breitlings, 5 Rolexes and 2 IWC's) and it is the only one I have owned that I know now I won't trade.

The AT's have always been a bit of a disappointment to me personally (and I stress this is personal opinion!!). I have always felt a little as though someone in IWC thought that they ought to have a dive watch in the lineup but were not going to give so much resource to it.

I know that they are fine watches but - IMHO - no AT I have ever seen or read of so far has demonstrated a build quality, finish or movement that even approaches the 3227 Inge.

As a diver, I would not use an AT as a tool - I'd take a Kobold SEAL (for example) any day over the AT as a tool. The Kobold trounces the AT hands down (sorry! ;-) ) for toughness and readability. Watches get dinged a lot on the back deck of a diveboat with all those people in weight belts and tanks lurching around - my Suunto is covered in battle scars from that - and I would just hate to see an expensive IWC suffer that (unless you can afford not to care - in which case, go for it as I am sure it will survive).

At the end of the day, get whatever you like and don't listen to our prejudices too much! But for me, the Inge would be a clear winner here.

[NightScar]

I had an AT in Ti - don't know model but it was an external bezel that you pressed down to turn.



Don't tell me you had this one?
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb47/TLex_05/IWCAquatimerGST2000m.jpg?t=1242318815

That is my grail, I have been hunting it down for months now.

[Kiwi Mac]

Yep, that was the one.

[MAJJ]

Hi,

Aquatimer.

Especially I prefer the "older" GST Aquatimers, titanium 3536-01 or ss 3536-02. Ocean Bund (IWC/Porsche) or Ocean 2000 (IWC/Porsche) are nice too (Ocean Bunds, Die Taucheruhr 3509 or 3529 automatic, Die Minentaucheruhr 3519 automatic and Die Kampftaucheruhr 3314 or 3315 quartz are collectors' timepieces - very expensive). Anyway, having used both Ocean IWCs and GST IWCs, I personally prefer GSTs over Oceans as GSTs are more solid and robust ones (a little bit better technology too).

Anyway, new 2009 Aquatimers really look nice as well, I like them. |>

With the new 2009 AT lineup plus vintage AT, I would go for Aquatimers over Ingenieurs, but I quess that's the matter of taste, since both lineups offer excellent IWC watches.

Choose the one you like the most and pleases you; that's usually the best choice.

Hope this helps a bit.



BTW I posted this following "story" on dive watch forum today; I quess I should post it here IWC forum too as it's about IWCs, enjoy:


Hi,

Very good posts Subkrawler, I totally agree with you. I also have the utmost confidence in IWC’s doing exactly what they say they'll do.

When IWC introduced its titanium Ocean 2000 in 1982 with WR of 2,000m, the Ocean 2000 actually exceeded easily the pressure ratings of Rolex SD (1,200m WR), Omega Ploprof (600m WR) and Seiko PD (600m WR). While IWC was officially claiming 2000m WR, Ocean 2000 watches were actually tested to 3,200m WR. The very same thing happened with GST Aquatimers introduced in 1997; officially rated as 2,000m WR, but actually tested to 3,200m WR.

Noteworthy issue is that IWC pioneered the use of titanium in dive watches to a totally new level and standard. In the late 1990’s (1997) IWC achieved a very high level of Vickers Hardness of 2,400 HV for the bezel of titanium GST Aquatimer (3536-01) using nitriding process for hardening titanium. In addition to that IWC was able to harden the case (grade 5 titanium alloy) of the titanium GST Aquatimer up to 360 HV on a Vickers Hardness scale. However, the bracelet (grade 1 titanium alloy) of the titanium GST Aquatimer has only 180 HV on a Vickers Hardness scale (180 HV is a typical Vickers Hardness for titanium watches even currently). IWC’s titanium alloys contained vanadium and aluminium with a tensile strength of 1,000 MPa plus an extreme high temperature stability. At the same time IWC developed techniques for polishing and abrasive blasting of titanium with sapphire beads.

Anyway, IWC was truly losing money on each Ocean 2000 produced, hence plus due to the end of collaboration with Porsche, the Ocean 2000 and the IWC/Porsche Design lineup was phased out in 1996-97. Similarly, IWC was still losing money on each titanium GST Aquatimer produced and this in turn ultimately led to the discontinuing the GST Aquatimer lineup in 2002. With current lineup of titanium and stainless steel Aquatimers IWC isn’t losing money anymore, as the R&D costs have already been covered and lessons learnt, but it has been a very long road, over 30 yrs, for IWC to develop technology involved (e.g. IWC began to develop titanium technology in 1977). BTW AFAIK all current Aquatimer 2000s and 2009 Aquatimer 2000s are tested to 3,200m WR, even though the stated WR is 2,000m.Actually, 2009 Aquatimer 2000s have a family resemble with GST Aquatimers, don’t they.

Every dive watch is resistant to external overpressure (WR), but often forgotten fact is that IWC’s dive watches are also resistant to internal overpressure similar way as IWC’s Pilot watches. IWC’s with 200 bar WR can withstand internal case pressure at least 60 bar. Therefore, these IWCs don’t need helium escape valves, as they can withstand internal case pressure for maximum safe saturation diving depths. IWC also mentions that if a saturation diver worries about internal case overpressure, he or she needs to unscrew the internally threaded crown in order to release any build up of helium during the rather prolonged decompression cycle.


IWC could develop an extremely deep automatic diver that would break all existing automatic diver WR records, if IWC just wanted to. There’s no doubt about it. IWC does have the knowledge, technology and capability for that. Maybe IWC does it again…who knows, only time will tell…

Hope this helps a bit.

[craniotes]

It's good to note here that in order to meet ISO requirements, a dive watch must be tested to at least 25% beyond the listed water-resistance, which is why most divers can actually safely exceed their rated maximum depths. My UTS 3000M has been tested to 4000M of static pressure, while the Rolex DSSD, which is rated to 3900M has actually been tested to 4850M of static pressure. FYI, "static pressure" is just that. Any movement of the case will dramatically increase the pressure exerted, hence the ISO's requirement that the watch be able to exceed the depth listed on the dial or in the manual by such a wide margin.

Regards,
Adam

PS - And yes, when it comes to titanium, IWC was there first.

[MAJJ]

Hi Craniotes,

FYI, ISO requirements, i.e. static pressure testing (WR) and 25% safety margin for diver’s watches are watch industry standards (have been quite a long time already) and are self-evident; hence there’s no need to repeat it and write down all the time (everybody who dives or has dived knows them). ;-)

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=1922162#poststop (http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=1922162#poststop)

The first point being here (little IWC story) is that already 1982 IWC had 60% safety margin, not only 25%. The second point is that for sure IWC has knowledge, technology and capability to build record breaking auto diver, if IWC wants to; there’s just no need for IWC to do it at the moment; maybe later, who knows…. The third point is that IWC divers have quite high internal pressure resistant compared to other divers. The fourth point is IWC’s titanium technology advantage. The fifth point is IWC’s pure overall engineering excellence.

Sinn is another form follows functions and simple/elegant design philosophy watchmaker, who wants to excel in pure engineering, the use of submarine steel is a good example.

As for Rolex DSSD, think twice why Rolex is using Grade5 titanium in its case…

Hope this helps a bit.


A few links to some of my earlier comments/writings (sorry, I have deleted the pics long time ago) to give you an idea why I basically consider watches only as tools for the trade in the first place. And believe or not I've used Rolex Subs, SDs, Omega SMPs, IWC ATs, Sinn UXs and other watches in extremely harash conditions, but these stories don't belong here...

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=118213 (http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=118213)

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=853593#poststop (http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=853593#poststop)

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=738824#poststop (http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=738824#poststop)

http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=728520#poststop (http://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=728520#poststop)

[craniotes]

While I certainly appreciate the time and effort that you have put into your research, I don't agree that it's a waste of effort to restate that which may not, in fact, be obvious to others. IWC's reputation as a technically-inclined manufacturer of watches, divers and otherwise, is not up for debate; however I do feel that reporting of their "over testing" should be leavened with the knowledge that this is SOP in the industry, and not unique to them. As I pointed out, UTS, a boutique manufacturer with but one watchmaker and correspondingly limited resources, has managed to build a diver that exceeds the official ratings of any IWC ever manufactured, and likewise they have tested it to far beyond their own official ratings (it's also impervious to overpressure, and to this end, does not have a helium escape valve). As for Rolex, their achievements in this regard -- past and present -- speak for themselves.

Of course none of this should detract from IWC's accumulated diving acumen, and should they so desire, doubtless they could produce pieces equivalent to UTS, Rolex, or even GP and Breitling, which all feature 3000M diving watches. Perhaps more importantly, however, is that IWC has lead the way in terms of diving functionality. I think we can all agree that a watch that is water-resistant to beyond 1000M is an excercise in grandiosity, and not necessarily practicality. To this end, IWC created the Deep One (an automatic diving watch with a mechanical depth gauge), and the AT Chrono Split-Timer, which allows for easy computing of remaining air and deco stops. Who cares if both are only water-resistant to 120M? That's more than enough to get the job done for most divers, recreational or otherwise.

Regards,
Adam

[craniotes]

.

[Kiwi Mac]

If depth is your grail, look no further than the Bell & Ross Hydromax!

Surely 11,000 meter WR has yet to be topped!

[Kiwi Mac]

I think also, "which AT" is a good question - they do seem more fashion-driven than the 3227 which remained unchanged for about 4 years I think.

AT's seem to change annually!

[JYogi]

I can't recall which watch it is BUT the B&R Hydro is not the deepest going watch.
I had one and bought it as I had the DSSD which is or was (?) the deepest auto so
I bought the B&R Hydro as I thought it was the deepest period.
Search for my old post in the B&R thread if it is still there and someone points out what is the deepest watch BUT thats a mute point as you body would explode before you got anywhere near that depth.
The deepest dive ever was just done in a special military suit it was 610 meters.
The deepest normal scuba dive is just over 300 Meters
The deepest point on earth is 11021 meters
The DSSD is no longer the deepest mechanical diver it is now the CX Swiss Military watch with a rating of 20,000 ft

To be realistic VERY few people will ever test the depth rating of a watch like a Rolex Submariner let alone the Sea Dweller.

[craniotes]

Actually, you wouldn't explode (but you would die). As for the B&R Hydro, the Sinn UX, and other oil-filled quartz divers, their depth rating has been revised recently to about 5000M (I think). While they won't implode, the movements stop working past a certain depth.

Anyway, I think we're getting a bit off-topic here... ;-)

Regards,
Adam

[MAJJ]

Hi,

Yeah, bit OTT ;-), but

Quoting Shane once more:

Who cares? it really boils down too, you or the individual really liking the watch 12,000 10,000 5,000 1,000M depth rating, is bragging rights really as all these depths are impossible to achieve for a Human anyway, Except Patrick Duffy (Man from Atlantis). If I liked the watch, as longs as it is depth rated to a min 200m then it is all good, I can use it in the knowledge that it will work when back on the surface, the greater depth rating REALLY means it is pretty solid in the build department.

I already said that I couldn’t agree more with Shane. Shane does points out the right issues:
1. Depth rate of 200m or even 120m is already enough for most divers whether mil or recreational (see IWC's own definition on the WR rates: http://www.iwc.com/collection/inside/waterproof_frame.asp?l=en (http://www.iwc.com/collection/inside/waterproof_frame.asp?l=en) ),
2. Extreme depths are impossible to achieve for humans anyway and
3. The greater depth rating really and usually (as a rule of thumb) means solidity and robustness in the build dept. (but not always, since the materials of the watch need to be taken into consideration as well as the movement itself – some movements are robust engines and some aren’t).

The ultimate strength of a tool watch is the key issue; the ultimate strength = the maximum stress (pressure) a material can withstand. In other words, the "ultimate strength" or "toughness" of an object is the point at which fracture occurs. The strength can be said to be the combination of the yield strength (stress), the tensile strength (stress) and the hardness itself. It should be also realized that the hardness is not a fundamental property and its value depends on the combination of yield strength, tensile strength and modulus of elasticity.

The ultimate strength pretty much in practice means solidity and robustness in a case of a tool watch.

Again once more quoting Shane as he said it so well:

If you use ALL the horses your car has, then it is not enough ponies under the hood, same as watches, if it is depth rated to 200m then that is pretty much enough, However it does not stop us buying watches with a 1000M depth rating? by far more than any of US can use.

And again I couldn’t agree more.

As for what comes to my “research” that is done in the real life field operations and I only speak about watches I’ve used & owned and what my team mates use & have used. As for the automatic divers I’ve seen and experienced in the use of NATO teams plus some neutral countries’ teams, who train with NATO, in the past 25 yrs have been following (no ranking or whatsoever order):

IWC Ocean Bunds, IWC Ocean 2000s and IWC GST ATs
Omega SMPs, Omega 300s and some Omega POs as well as Omega Speedys
CWC RN Divers
Benrus Type I and Benrus Type II (pretty much the only divers/navigation auto combos)
Sinn U1s and U2s
Cyma RN Divers
Rolex Subs and Rolex SDs
Precista PRS-18 Divers and Precista 300 Divers
Seiko PD 300m, Seiko PD 600m and Seiko Diver’s Automatics
Marathon SAR Diver and Marathon G-SAR Diver
Tudor Divers
Bell & Ross Divers
Eterna KonTiki Eternamatic
Citizen PDs
Tutima Divers
Blancpain Fifty Fathoms (not new reissue models)
Ollech & Wajs Early Bird, Ollech & Wajs Caribbean 1000m, Ollech & Wajs Cougar Divers and Ollech & Wajs M1/M4/M5 GMT/M6 GMT
Breitling Colt Auto, Breitling SuperOcean and Breitling Avanger Seawolf
Plus miscellaneous number of diver’s auto watches which I can’t remember or haven’t been able to id.

Now, I haven’t ever run into any GPs, Chopards, UNs or UTSs though. I’ve also excluded mechanical aviation/pilot and pure infantry auto watches from above list, since they aren’t truly diver’s watches.

As for nuance, Sinn UXs are still the deepest divers as their cases are effectively waterproof down to 40,680 ft = 12,399 meters (i.e. down to the deepest point on earth @ 11021 meters) with safety margin down to 50,850 ft = 15,498 meters:

Depth ratings of Sinn UX models

German Lloyd guarantees the real life depth rating of 500 bar for the movements of Sinn UX models, i.e. 500 bar = 500 ATM = 16,950 ft = 5,166 meters @ 4˚Celcius/39˚Fahrenheit water. With industry standard 25% safety margin i.e. 625 bar = 625 ATM = 21,188 ft = 6,458 meters @ 4˚Celcius/39˚Fahrenheit water. In addition, Sinn and German Lloyd made pressure tests, which proofed that the vacuum tube that shields the movement's quartz (UX models) collapses at about +800 bar, not before; 800 bar = 800 ATM = 27,120 ft = 8,266 meters @ 4˚Celcius/39˚Fahrenheit water.

Thus, there’s convenient safety margin, 500 bar vs 800 bar, for the movement.

German Lloyd guarantees the real life depth rating of 1,200 bar for the cases/casing of Sinn UX models, i.e. 1,200 bar = 1,200 ATM = 40,680 ft = 12,399 meters @ 4˚Celcius/39˚Fahrenheit water. With industry standard 25% safety margin i.e. 1,500 bar = 1,500 ATM = 50,850 ft = 15,498 meters @ 4˚Celcius/39˚Fahrenheit water.

Thus, there’s convenient safety margin, 1,200 bar vs 1,500 bar, also for the case/casing.

Plus Sinn U-series models have the best combination for strength, corrosion resistance, scratch resistance and anti-magnetism, since they use HY-100 submarine steel.

However, as pointed out already many times above, extreme depths are impossible to achieve for humans anyway and the greater depth rating really and usually (as a rule of thumb) means solidity and robustness in the build dept. of a watch.

The right and good question is really "which AT"?

After discontinuing GST lineup, IWC shifted to more fashion-driven divers, but now IWC seems to be shifting back to normal “form follows function” philosophy at least a little bit.

As I said already, with the new 2009 AT lineup plus vintage AT, I would go for Aquatimers over Ingenieurs, but I quess that's the matter of taste, since both lineups offer excellent IWC watches.

Choose the one you like the best; that's usually the best choice. :-!

Hope this helps a bit.