Vintage duel—the IWC Yacht Club vs. the Rolex Datejust
It's a long time since I've posted here. One reason for that is that I have quite a lot of other interests and commitments besides vintage watches. Another is that I'm sometimes not even sure if I'm really a "watch guy" at all. If I'm completely honest, not all aspects of watch culture appeal to me. I find most modern mechanical watches rather pointless (derivative aesthetically, unambitious and anachronistic technically), and I can't afford any of the genuinely horologically innovative ones that cost as much as a house. Similarly, on the vintage side, it seems that scholarship and intelligent commentary (from which I exclude endless picture-only social media content and videos accompanied by terrible music) increasingly focus on "collectable" references from the usual suspect brands (Rolex, PP, etc), that sell for five-figure sums. While I could perhaps afford one or two such watches if I really wanted them, I couldn't afford to have a significant collection.
This dominance of the vintage watch collecting conversation by the uber-wealthy (and those who make a living by catering for them) is one factor lending a flavour to the culture that I personally find a little alienating. It's more politically conservative than it is progressive, more business-centric than philosophical, more extroverted than introverted. And often it's simply far too narrowly focussed. While I can appreciate the nerdiness of obsessing over tiny dial variations in Rolex Daytona references that sell for five or six figure sums, I dislike the implication that comparable diversity in brands and models of similar quality and with a similar heritage, but which can be had for a fraction of the cost, are not worth the effort of documenting (or making a Fratello podcast about).
Which perhaps leads on nicely to the subject of this post, and two further shorter ones I have planned. The vintage IWC Yacht Club, made between 1967 and (possibly) some rather indeterminate time in the 1980s, is very frequently compared to the vintage Rolex Datejust in terms of its style, dimensions, quality, robustness and functionality. But while it's impossible for any Rolex (even a vintage Datejust) not to be at least a little bit extroverted and "blingy", you can wear a vintage Yacht Club without.... well, without wearing a Rolex.
So how do these two watches really compare? While several online articles such as this, and this, and this (in German) put forward the case for the Yacht Club as a Datejust rival, it's remarkably difficult to find any images of the two watches together, or first-hand accounts of what they are like to wear and to live with. This article aims to address that. I'm lucky enough to own two IWC Yacht Clubs (from 1968 and 1970), as well as a 1601 Datejust from 1970, so am in a position to closely compare equivalent examples of these two watches side by side.
I'm a big fan of Ridley Scott's first film, "The Duellists", which portrays a series of duels between two French cavalry officers over many years, against the backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars. The film's strength lies in its portrayal of the complexities of the two protagonists' characters, which are as diametrically opposed to each other as their martial skills are perfectly matched. The Yacht Club and the Datejust are rivals in an analagous sense—extremely well-matched technically, functionally and aesthetically, but with utterly different personalities. Let the duel begin!
The cases
On paper, the dimensions of the cases of these two watches are almost identical. Both are 36 mm wide (excluding the crown) and 43 mm lug to lug. However, the total height of the Datejust including the crystal is 11.5 mm, while the Yacht Club is 13 mm. This contributes towards a marginally more chunky appearance of the Yacht Club on the wrist.
The Datejust of course has the classic oyster style case with its concave-tapered lugs (i.e., looking down on the watch, they curve inwards above and below the dial and then straighten out towards their tips). The side surfaces of the case are polished and convex, however, lending a certain softness to the profile. The design would perhaps appear more dated than it does if it hadn't been in continuous production for the best part of a century and wasn't so utterly familiar. The IWC on the other hand is a classic "c-case"—the design reputedly first used by Gerald Genta for the revamped Omega Constellation of the early 1960s and immediately copied by many other brands throughout the 60s and 70s. Here, the lugs have an unbroken convex taper that reflects the curvature of the dial and integrates the whole case into a single coherent form that would have been perceived as very "modern" in 1970. This more filled-out shape, combined with flat side surfaces and sharp, right-angled edges, further contributes towards the watch appearing very slightly larger than the Datejust on the wrist despite it being exactly the same length and width.
The sides of the Yacht Club case are longitudinally brushed to compliment the brushing on top of the lugs, further helping to unify the design. While both watches are brushed on their upper lug surfaces, the brushing on the Datejust is diagonal, while the Yacht Club has vertical brushing.
My 1601 has a white gold fluted bezel. Arguably, a 1600 with a smooth steel bezel might provide a more perfect comparison with the Yacht Club, although the 1601 is perhaps the "default" Rolex Datejust (it was certainly the most common variant in 1970). The Yacht Club's steel bezel is very thin, and polished to contrast with the brushed lug surfaces. In fact, it's so thin and so closely fitting that it might easily be assumed to be just part of the case that has been machined and polished (I assumed so myself until recently), but it is actually a separate part.
Both watches have screw-down case backs requiring proprietary wrenches to open. The Datejust has Rolex's screw-down crown, which despite being no longer patent-protected as such by this time, was aggressively defended by Rolex's lawyers through patented modifications and other means. The Yacht Club used an internal o-ring in the crown tube that was compressed when the crown was pushed in, and was claimed to increase resistance when external water pressure further compressed the crown. The crown is embellished with IWC's iconic fish logo to signify water resistance.
The Yacht Club has a unique feature intended to increase resistance to mechanical shock that was much touted in the marketing of the watch. The case and movement are designed to leave a gap between them, inside which a series of rubber "bumpers" fit within the channel created. Imagine a square-sectioned rubber gasket cut into short lengths, with these pieces lying between the case and the movement, cushioning the latter from shocks. How well it worked is anyone's guess, but it was an idea ahead of its time. Nowadays these "bumpers" are a bit of a liability as the rubber has generally perished and hardened over the decades and will easily shed fragments unless handled very carefully, while it is necessary to remove them in order to take out the movement or service the watch.
Like the Datejust, the Yacht Club R811 was available with either a stainless steel case or a solid 18K gold case, the latter in yellow or white gold (although white gold examples are rare). There was also a solid 14K gold model with a steel case back (ref. R911). Just like Rolex (but unlike most other mass-market brands at this time), IWC did not stoop to making gold-plated, gold-filled or gold-capped watches.
A word on case references. The Yacht Club photographed here is an R811AD, with "R" designating a model with a round case (or at least a round dial) and "811" the specific case style. If present, the letter "A" specifies an automatic watch and "D" a date complication. Interestingly, the number 811 is used for both steel and solid 18K gold cases, but the 14K model with a steel case back has its own number, 911.
The bracelets
The Datejust and the Yacht Club were more often than not supplied on bracelets, and in each case there were at least a couple of common options. For different reasons, the bracelets of both watches are somewhat iconic. In the case of the Rolex, both the Jubilee and Oyster bracelets are design icons in their own rights, with histories of continuous manufacture going back to the 1940s. For the Yacht Club, it's because at least some of the bracelets were manufactured for IWC by the celebrated Gay Frères, and signed as such with the famous chamois goat head logo. Very similar bracelets graced many of the more prestigious watches of the day, including those from the "Holy Trinity", while Gay Frères designs practically identical to the IWC ones were used by brands such as Heuer and Zenith.
One bracelet option for the Yacht Club ("Ref. 10" in the IWC catalogues) was of the Rolex Oyster style, although this seems not to have been manufactured by Gay Frères, but rather by Orflex / Ateliers Réunis S.A. (the clasp bears the the sun logo associated with that company). To rival the Jubilee, the Yacht Club had two slightly different Gay Frères designs—the "Ref. 13", pictured here, and the "Ref. 11", a more classically styled "beads of rice" bracelet. There was also a three-row design used for solid gold bracelets, as well as a rarer steel bracelet (perhaps only produced near the end of the Yacht Club's production period) with stepped interlocking single links resembling a three-row design. The Refs. 11 and 13, like the variant of the Rolex Jubilee made in the same era, used "folded" links for both the inner and outer rows. This is perhaps surprising, given that bracelets from brands such as Omega and Longines were already using solid links on at least the outer rows at this time. It may be that the established reputations of Gay Frères and Rolex carried with them a certain degree of design conservatism.
The Dials
The dials and hands of these watches are very typical of the era. Both are high quality, and in this period quite possibly made by the same or very similar 3rd party dial manufacturers using exactly the same techniques. The Datejust came with very many dial variations and finishes over the decades. My example has a matt grey dial with narrow applied baton markers, but silver-dialed Datejusts are very common and would have had a very similar sunburst finish to that on the pictured Yacht Club. Both dials have crisp pad-printed text, applied metal logos and date windows, the Rolex one framed by the famous cyclops of course. The Yacht Club date window has a silver surround, which like the minute track dots (see below) is made by cutting into the dial surface to expose the underlying metal.
Each of these dials has an interesting and characteristic feature. The 160x series Datejusts of this period have so-called "pie-pan" dials, with the edge slightly recessed where the minute track sits, providing depth and three-dimensionality to an otherwise flat surface. Yacht Club dials achieve three-dimensionality through doming, and most have the minute track picked out with tiny silver dots that at first glance (and second!) appear to be raised half-domes, like miniature metal versions of the semi-circular lume dots. This is a highly convincing optical illusion, however. These are actually tiny circles that are drilled into the dial, exposing the base metal underneath the applied dial paint and lacquer. The eye flips these out and sees them as projecting rather than recessed, perhaps partially because the lume dots are there to provide a prompt to the part of the brain that makes sense of visual ambiguity.
While the sheer variety of Datejust 160x series dials is unrivalled, there is a relatively small number of Yacht Club dials that are at all common. A few of the rarer ones (some perhaps one-offs or very limited runs) are discussed here. The most common dial style is the silver sunburst pictured here, however, while the second most common is a blue version (also with a sunburst finish). A slightly rarer dial variant has a grey finish, usually vertically brushed rather than with the sunburst style. Interestingly, these vertically brushed dials have painted lines rather than incised dots for the minute markers. I believe that vertically brushed dials with line minute markers were also produced in silver and perhaps blue variants, but most silver and blue dials have the sunburst finish and most grey dials are vertically brushed.
The movements
When you research the movements of these watches you encounter the same set of adjectives. Both are universally regarded as extremely robust and reliable, combining high quality with a "workhorse" approach to design and function. Both are loved by watchmakers for the ease of working on them, and both are better finished than might be expected (although the IWC definitely has the edge here).
My 1970 Rolex Datejust has a 1575 movement beating at 19,800 bph. The 1575 was introduced in 1965 and was used continuously in the Datejust until the introduction of the 3035 in 1977, although the base calibre (the 15xx series) goes back to 1957. These movements were made for Rolex by Aegler. It was only after 2004, when Rolex purchased Aegler, that they could strictly be said to be "in-house".
The 1575 is an automatic movement of course, using Rolex's usual bi-directional rotor system based on reverser wheels. Unlike in the IWC, the balance wheel is free-sprung, so rather than being regulated by a pin that effectively shortens or lengthens the balance spring, the timing is adjusted with tiny screws on the perimeter of the balance wheel itself. This has the advantage that the setting is more robust to knocks, but the disadvantage that it requires more technical skill to undertake. The movement uses indirect centre seconds, meaning that it retains the traditional wheel train layout with the centre wheel (the 2nd wheel, driving the minute hand) in the middle of the movement and the 4th wheel (driving the seconds hand) off-centre and powering the seconds hand indirectly.
Although it's often stated that hacking was introduced with the 157x series movements, in fact it wasn't implemented until around 1971, and my 1575 Datejust from 1970 lacks this feature. More significantly, the 1575 lacks any form of quickset or even semi-quickset for the date, meaning that you literally have to wind the watch forward by up to a month to set it. This is a serious inconvenience if you wear it irregularly (which, admittedly, very few people would have done in 1970). The IWC 8541B, by contrast (see below), has both hacking and an extremely effective semi-quickset. Where the Rolex does win out, however, is in its instantaneous date change, the date flipping over in a fraction of a second at midnight with a satisfying "clunk".
The 1575 movement is moderately well decorated with perlage and chamfering on the bridges and baseplate, while the two reverser gears for the automatic winding system have a reddish-pink coating, helping to give the whole movement a highly distinctive look.
The IWC 8541B calibre that powers the Yacht Club has an equally legendary reputation as a high quality workhorse. Also an automatic movement with a date complication beating at 19,800 bph (a relatively sedate frequency by this period, although one that is perhaps more able to withstand neglect than a "high-beat" 28,800 or 36,000 bph rate), it is definitely a little better finished than the 1575, while being equally robust. Concentric, curved Geneva stripes adorn the bridges and rotor, while (like the Rolex) there is perlage on the base plate.
Also like the 1575, the base calibre of the 8541B has a long and distinguished history, going back to the original 81 in the very early 1950s. The centre seconds version of the 81 was the 85, which was incrementally updated to the 852, the 853 and finally the 854 in 1964. The 8541 is the variant of the 854 with a date complication, while "B" denotes a change in the design of the balance assembly. Also using indirect centre seconds, as in the 1575 there is a tension spring that needs to be adjusted properly to keep the seconds hand from stuttering. This solution was almost ubiquitous in watches of the 1960s with a "sweep" seconds hand, and it was only really in the 1970s that direct centre seconds, practically universal today (where the 2nd wheel is offset and the 4th wheel is placed in the middle of the movement to drive the seconds hand directly), became common. I've always found it remarkable how little-known this fundamental shift in the layout of mechanical watches is, and how little it's talked about. The traditional arrangement, as used in the Rolex 1575 and the IWC 8541, had effectively remained unchanged since the early 1500s when spring-driven watches were first produced. The Rolex 1601 Datejust and the IWC Yacht Club were part of the last generation of mass-produced watches to be designed in this way.
The most technically interesting aspect of the 8541B movement is the Pellaton automatic winding system, invented by Albert Pellaton in the late 1940s and first used in the 81 calibre, the 8541B's ultimate progenitor. Just as efficient as Rolex's reverser wheel based system and also bi-directional, it is considerably simpler, more elegant and more ingenious. The Pellaton system uses two sprung pawls and a cam wheel in a design that allows one of the pawls to engage and pull the ratchet wheel on each opposing directional rotation of the rotor. The mechanism is a masterpiece of parsimonious functional form, so much so that it really has to be observed rather than described to be understood. The ingenuity lies in the shapes and geometries of the parts and their interactions, as can be seen in this excellent article in the watch-movements.eu blog, and especially in this video. The Pellaton system has some similarities with Seiko's "magic lever", although it predates it and is certainly more refined.
As mentioned above, the 8541B (at least the version used in the Yacht Club) is a hacking movement. While it doesn't have a true quickset function for the date, it has a type of semi-quickset that is arguably superior. A semi-quickset allows the date to be advanced by winding the minute hand back before midnight and then winding it forward again past midnight. Many watches of this period have this functionality, but generally it is necessary to wind the hands back to at least 10 pm and then forwards again to midnight for each day advanced. With the 8541B, however, you simply need to go back to 11:45 and then forwards again, something that can be done in a fraction of a second without adjusting your grip on the crown. This makes it possible to go forwards by a whole month in less than 30 seconds, which is as quick as many true quickset mechanisms allow. Related to this, the date itself, while not flipping over instantaneously at midnight like the Rolex, turns over extremely quickly. The entire date transition period is between five and ten minutes, as compared with the best part of an hour in many other watches of this era.
Value and valuableness
It shouldn't really need to be stated at this point, but a vintage Yacht Club is in no way an inferior watch compared to a vintage Datejust from the same period. It may be significantly cheaper in the current market, but in every physical sense it at least equals its better-known contemporary. It is just as high quality, just as robust and reliable, and was just as much a "luxury" product at the time it was made. That's perhaps not something you can say for many other dress-sports watches of this era from other well-known brands. Comparable watches from the likes of Omega, Longines and others may have been of similar quality and equally representative of the zenith of mass-market watchmaking in their own ways, but they mostly sat a little more towards the dress end of the dress-sports watch spectrum. They also tended to be a little more horologically highly-strung, with movements that were sometimes slightly less robust, while at the same time arguably a little less well-finished.
This is reflected in the retail prices. Although it's often said that the modern placement of Rolex as a higher-end luxury product significantly above the likes of Omega and Longines is a modern phenomenon (and this is true to an extent), the prices in 1970 in Swiss Francs (CHF) show that even then Rolex targeted a higher price point. A Datejust 1601 in steel with a steel bracelet at this time would have cost you about 1100 CHF, compared to about 600 CHF for an Omega Seamaster De Ville or 700 CHF for a Longines Ultra-Chron. Even a c-case Omega Constellation 168.027 (the variant with the date function and white gold bezel), near the peak of Omega's range at this time, was priced a little below a Datejust at around 950 CHF. An IWC Yacht Club was priced identically to a Datejust, however. It was very intentionally designed to rival it in exactly the same commercial niche.
There is an alternate universe, perhaps, in which the Yacht Club remained in continuous production throughout the quartz crisis and was updated and refined until the present day, becoming an icon to truly rival the Datejust. As it is, it remains a relatively little-known model even within IWC's own historical portfolio, despite being one of the brand's best-selling models throughout its production run. This is exactly its appeal, however, if what you are after is functional elegance, impeccable quality and horological significance in a watch that will only be noticed by those who truly appreciate such things.
Returning again to "The Duellists"— I suspect that Feraud would have worn a Datejust and D'Hubert a Yacht Club, had such watches been available in the 18th C. Watch the film (if you haven't already seen it), and tell me if you agree!
Comments