25-03-2015, 02:34 PM
phrede Skrev:Hehe jeg kan godt se din pointe, men hvis ETA lavede det bedste værk til disse funktioner kan man måske argumentere for at kvaliteten kom i første række?
- via iPhone
Citat:That is the argument IWC used in the old days,and it was quite right.But at that time IWC recieved the ETA calibers in kits and completly rebuilt them to IWC standards.Now the calibers are delivered already built to what IWC call their own standards.So what we have here is a kind of Frankenstein watch.Case made maybe by IWC, with a ETA caliber inside.
This is however not what IWC are telling the public about this watch.Indeed they are telling everyone that it is a IWC caliber.ETA make excellent work horse calibers,that are reliable.But they are not any where near the top branches of the watch making tree.
So the question is.Do you think it is alright to sell a steel watch with a fairly ordinary ETA caliber for 70.000dkr,and let the general public think it is a IWC watch,made by IWC?
To get back to the point about quality.It is well worth a google to learn about the way IWC used to rebuild and finish ETA calibers.
History always judges watches.Every used watch dealer in the world already knows that this watch will never ever become a classic or keep any lasting value.Used market prices will reflect this.It is of course up to the individual about what to buy.And this individual would never buy this one.
- Jeg er engelsk - bor i Danmark, forstår dansk - men foretrækker at skrive på engelsk

![[-]](https://urdebatten.dk/images/collapse.png)