Just because: The IWC Aquatimer Automatic 2000
By The Prodigal Fool, published on 25 November 2009
Just because we woke this morning to an email from our friend – and all too occasional commenter on this site – Matt raving about it, we thought we’d share the IWC Aquatimer Automatic 2000 with you.
In his email, after calling it “lovely” Matt goes on to say
finally, one that will stand the test of time.
In all honesty, we’re not so convinced.
If you read our recent post about buying cheap vintage watches, you’ll have seen our Prodigal rules of watch buying: we look for watches that are timeless, classic and great-looking.
While we love (and indeed own) the IWC Portuguese Chrono and have long coveted one of their pilot’s watches, we’ve always been a bit on the fence about the Aquatimer range. Great-looking? Yes. Timeless or classic? We’re not so sure.
When it comes to diving watches, our thoughts turn more readily to Sea-Dwellers, Panerais and even Omega Planet Oceans.
But that’s just us. What do you think? Will this Aquatimer “stand the test of time”?
Just because: The IWC Aquatimer Automatic 2000
Just because we woke this morning to an email from our friend – and all too occasional commenter on this site – Matt raving about it, we thought we’d share the IWC Aquatimer Automatic 2000 with you. In his email, after calling it “lovely” Matt goes on to say finally, one that will stand the [...]
This section is supported by the patronage of:
11 Responses to “Just because: The IWC Aquatimer Automatic 2000”
-
Matthew
27 November 2009
Ironically I love it for all the reasons you have outlined!! OK maybe they could lose the yellow, but where you see a crude, heavy monolith, I see a simple, utilitarian design. Where you see questionable bezel dimples, I see a considered design feature that will enable me to actually use the bezel in all sorts of conditions….. you know a bezel actually serves a purpose other than to look pretty, right?!
Love Straight Six, and for that matter the Guide. AND love the watch….
-
Matt
I’m really on the fence on this one. I like it. But, honestly, if I were shopping for a slightly over the top, not too crazy expensive diving watch, I still think I’d have to opt for the Omega Planet Ocean. I tried one on yesterday (check my Twitter feed, there’s a photo), and I have to say, I was rather taken by it.
Having said that, the Aquatimer is an enticing option. It’s just that I don’t think it has the classic good looks to endure the decades…
-
-
Straight-Six
27 November 2009
oh, screw it!!! Can’t we all just get along?
-
[...] as the latest example of the brand’s renaissance; uncovering a left-handed Rolex Sea-Dweller and rubbishing one of our friends’ suggestion that the IWC Aquatimer Automatic 2000 was a timeless cla…, we also found time to advise others on how to spend £1,200 on a vintage [...]
-
underthedial
18 July 2010
My own tip for an IWC timeless classic would be the Ingenieur, not the Aquatimer. As dive watches go it works on most levels – though the date complicates the dial unnecessarily for me – but I think that the Blancpain 50 Fathoms has more of a chance at the classic status. And I even though that the ceramic dials of the usually soporific Rolex may stand the test of time.
The Aquatimer is a nice watch if you like the style, but I’d also put my money on an Omega Planet Ocean. And I seriously just might do that.
-
I’m with you on the Planet Ocean. I’ve been quietly lusting after one since they announced the Liquidmetal version. Did you see our preview?
-
-
SImply perfect in ever way. Must see this in person. Very few watched these days have a classic look to them. One that will still look good in 25 years. THis watch is my fave. A must buy for those looking to upgrade from a Submariner or looking to dress up a suit. Versatile, well made, and perhaps the sharpest looking watch in my collection. Understated elegance.
-
I will say this: photos don’t do this watch justice. It looks much better in the metal.
-
-
I spent a lot of time on the IWC versus the PO, and in the end bought an IWC. In person, it’s surprisingly dark and understated, the yellow is more muted. With few polished surfaces and a mostly dark dial and bezel, it works, and well. Hate the proprietary lugs and overpriced bracelet/strap, though.
I have to strongly disagree on the hands and markers, too, with all due respect. I’ve had many less legible divers than this, but none more readable under any conditions.
It’s a brick, though, as commented, 145g on the rubber strap. I do wish they’d kept the titanium case from the 3536.
-
Straight-Six
22 October 2010
Paul,
Happy to hear that it worked for you and respect the fact that you openly acknowledge what should be righted.
But, please reassure us that you won’t go anywhere deeper than the bath with it: we might never see you again!
Cheers,
Straight-Six
-
Straight-Six
25 November 2009
This is wrong on so many fronts I don’t know where to begin….Actually, yes I do!
Um, yellow. I mean YELLOW as an accent colour?!
And that’s before we turn to the dial configuration and the manner in which the indexes are jammed up against the bezel; the unpleasant font of the minute markers; the questionable bezel “dimples”; the dull hand(s) design and finally, cause this is IWC we’re talking about, you can expect this baby to absolutely massive, heavy and the easiest way to stop using diving weights to sink you to the bottom of the ocean. Where you and your Aquatimer will hopefully stay forever.
Love Matt. Hate the watch.