Are the older Aquatimers underrated?

[bydandie]

As I'm now waiting for my A/T 354805 to arrive next week, I thought I'd ask if the 3538, 3548, 3719 and 3723 are unfairly dismissed?

The 3536 GST is feted as being a classic, but the 3538/3548 have three O rings in the bezel crown stem that disengage the bezel below 6-8m under the water, 3719 has a dual action bezel crown and chrono stop function, and the 3723 is a split timer.

So, what does the 3536 bring that these A/Ts don't? Are there any other Aquatimer features that aren't well known?

Let's get some pictures up here as well of the rarer A/Ts (thinking split timer)! 8)

[andy_s]

I think the 3536 is such a nice watch because it is just very plain but very well executed - especially the titanium version which had the dial cohesion nailed; it doesn't bring much to the table at all, but has a simple, unadorned look which is surprisingly difficult to do as manufacturers can't help themselves adding shiney bits here and there (note the s/s version dial/hands). The bezel is a cool feature I suppose - especially the push-to-turn aspect, but just its simplicity really, for me at least. The size is spot on and the crystal is lovely too...

(Refresh my memory - was Lowther Schmidt involved with IWC when these were designed still or had he moved to Sinn already - there are strands of commonality between this and the EZM series if you look at it - ).



(As another aside, the IWC PD features are also carried across to the EZM10 - )




But anyway, back on topic - having said all the above I don't think the 3548 generation/series to be any worse than the preceding 3536, the 3536 is probably imbued with a sense of extra 'vintage'ness and scarcity that also makes it appealing as much as anything.

I think there was progression, technically certainly, when IWC moved the Aquatimer on, even at the base model level - the internal bezel was a good move that distinguished it from the previous generation and overall it had a far more modern look. The size went up a few mm, which for me was a bit of a backwards step, but swings and roundabouts... I remember at the time swithering about getting one, even before I knew even less than I know now!

The technical ones had great features which were overlooked I think, the split timer certainly, I don't know whether you had to be an AT fan to really sniff out the details and so they perhaps passed a lot of people by (including me as far as the 3719 goes until more recently), but I really like them. The Deep One was a doozy.

If I had an equal choice, I really don't know where I'd go to be honest - although I've been spoilt in terms of chronograph design by those wretched 5100s...so it may have to be non-chrono, in which case, probably the 3536 titanium; I like the bezel, crystal, dial, finish and overall design, but I wouldn't kick one of the next generation out of bed for farting!

To me, the 3536 was a great interesting alternative to a Sub; while the next generation set a design style specific to IWC, introduced some interesting technical features and looked distinctive.

The current generation leaves me flat as a fart. They perhaps have some great features but I've not really paid that much attention to be honest as there's nothing really that does anything for me; but as ever thats just a personal take on things.

So, the Daddy IWC Aquatimers for me are:

3536 in titanium -



3723 in titanium with split-minute -






But don't forget the Deep One - the one that bridged the gap between the generations and again, features a great 'complication -



Yum!

Andy

(Apologies for uncredited pics)

[ATG]

Having owned the Ti one pictured above.. the older non chrono version... and also owned this steel chrono version I have to say the chrono version is the best IWC watch I have ever handled...

[bydandie]

Originally Posted by ATG

I have to say the chrono version is the best IWC watch I have ever handled...

Why's that Al? I'm intrigued, as you must have handled a few IWC's. There is a very good bargain on the bay for one recently serviced one with bravelet and rubber for £2400!

I was very tempted, but the draw of a NOS one was greater for a 40th birthday watch, so the 354805 won!

[ATG]

because its just such a solid 'tool' watch... ask Gary.. we sat staring at it on my kitchen table some years ago and I decided it had to go or I would never own another watch again.... the internal bezel controlled from the chrono reset button, brilliant military hands and the lume was excellent....

[Noodlefish]

...that I don't get on with modern IWC designs (the Deep Two almost broke my heart). But, that AQ is superb. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has produced a better bezel than that. It's superb.

Practical. Precise. Perfect.

One day, I'll find a Deep One. But, until then, the 3536 remains atop my list. Sorry.

[mattjmcd]

Originally Posted by bydandie

As I'm now waiting for my A/T 354805 to arrive next week, I thought I'd ask if the 3538, 3548, 3719 and 3723 are unfairly dismissed?

The 3536 GST is feted as being a classic, but the 3538/3548 have three O rings in the bezel crown stem that disengage the bezel below 6-8m under the water, 3719 has a dual action bezel crown and chrono stop function, and the 3723 is a split timer.

So, what does the 3536 bring that these A/Ts don't? Are there any other Aquatimer features that aren't well known?

Let's get some pictures up here as well of the rarer A/Ts (thinking split timer)! 8)

I have a plain Jane 3538 in Ti and it's a great watch. One cool feature people overlook is the brilliant bracelet with the push-button link release system. I don't hate the new AT2000 but they are boat anchors, no doubt.

[MvR]

The 3536 Ti is a fantastic looking watch. I've seen one IRL only once, a few years back and I'm still amazed by the fantastic looks of that watch. Perhaps the best looking watch ever. Period. Perhaps I should start saving for one (and say goodbye my Tudor Black Bay plans).

Menno

[bydandie]

I was in T5 yesterday, and tried the current AT2000 on as I had my 3548 to compare; I was very underwhelmed with the quality and size of the new watch. It was solidly built, but didn't have the finesse of the older model IMHO.