Reply With QuoteI owned a very simple C5 dress watch from them as my very first nice watch, it was lovely. I am sure this would be too, and as you say, very good value.
I don't ever recall making a post asking people's opinions of watches, and I never have amongst my watch enthusiast mates either. I don't ordinarily care, I buy what I like and not what popular opinion would dictate. However I am at odds with this one. CW is not a brand that I have been previously drawn to, though I certainly understand the appeal with popular designs and great prices. The C9 is not a fortune compared to other watch brands, so its not the price putting me off. I just cannot make my mind up on it. Its not my usual kind of watch, but I find it stunningly attractive. Any insight would be appreciated
I owned a very simple C5 dress watch from them as my very first nice watch, it was lovely. I am sure this would be too, and as you say, very good value.
This has been discussed recently:
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...ight=moonphase
I think it's good value but personally there are other moonphase watches that I prefer.
For some reason I like Moonphase watches having a Zenith Captain moonphase but after seeing the CW moonphase at Salon QP I picked one up.
The 40mm case is pretty much off the shelf but is good quality and size with double sapphire crystals. The front crystal having an Anti-reflective coating. The dial is excellent with different layers and finishing to give it real depth and the colour is excellent with a subtle sheen in the midnight blue with a matching date wheel. The Moonphase complication is what this watch is all about and the large sized and textured Moon really stand out. The strap with Bader deployant is also top drawer. The movement is based on a ETA 2836 which is a day date movement.
However, Johannes Jahnke has modified this by removing the day wheel and gearing and replacement them with the Moon wheel and new gearing that now ties in the moon to the time therefore making the Moon travel with the time to make the Moonphase even more accurate than the normal 24 hour jump a normal moon phase movements makes. The watch has an exhibition back but apart from the rotor and a few blue screws there is little to no decoration.
Overall, £1300 it is not cheap but when you think it is 4x less than my Zenith Captain Moonphase then it does look like good value in my opinion
Here the Zenith to compare!
I absolutely love the Zenith. Top cat IIRC had one for sale and kindly sent me some shots. Thought it might wear big on me so went for a DJ 1. Both lovely watches and the cw does look great.
Ah, I have missed that threadOriginally Posted by Rocket Man
@ paw3001 - many thanks for your input, I am sorely tempted and like you say, comparitavley inexpensive compared to the likes of Zentih
I prefer several of the other watches posted in the thread. A moonphase watch is almost always nice but that one is missing something to really make it standout,my opinion for what it counts
I like it but not with "Chr.Ward".
The white face is not for me . . . And my mum said that if you don't have anything nice to say . . .
But the blue face is simply lovely. I am also not keen on the square 'Chr. Ward' stuck in the middle but could certainly live with it! The fact the moon looks like the moon is a nice feature and makes the whole effect more like the night sky. I really like it.
I've been thinking about this as I had previously criticised the use of the abbreviation myself.
Indeed many on the Christopher Ward forum would agree, judging from the result of this poll. http://www.christopherwardforum.com/...=8481&p=105895
By chance this evening I was reading about my favourite building in London, St Clement Danes, opposite the Royal Courts of Justice at the end of the Strand. To say nothing of its prior history which dates back over a thousand years ,the church we know today is named for the patron saint of Mariners and was constructed by Sir Christopher Wren in 1680.
After being gutted by German bombs in 1942, it was eventually rebuilt in 1958 to become the central church of the Royal Air Force.
This Latin inscription was added under the Royal Air Force coat of arms after the rebuilding.
AEDIFICAVIT CHR WREN
AD MDCLXXII
DIRUERUNT AERII BELLI
FULMINA AD MCMXLI
RESTITUIT REGINAE CLASSIS
AERONAUTICA AD MCMLVIII
"Built by Christopher Wren 1682. Destroyed by the thunderbolts of air warfare 1941. Restored by the Royal Air Force 1958."
It would seem the use of Chr. as an abbreviation is not quite so naff as I had first thought.
I met these guys at Salon QP and we discussed this actual watch. I think it's a show-stopper and a tremendous looking piece. My partner at the show agreed and though not normally (or ever) into watches is now pestering me for one for Christmas - that's how good this watch was!
The blue face is rather attractive and different looking then usual moonphase watches.
I seem to remember that Mr. Chr. Ward claimed at the time that "Chr." had historical validity.I've been thinking about this as I had previously criticised the use of the abbreviation myself.
Indeed many on the Christopher Ward forum would agree, judging from the result of this poll. http://www.christopherwardforum.com/...=8481&p=105895
By chance this evening I was reading about my favourite building in London, St Clement Danes, opposite the Royal Courts of Justice at the end of the Strand. To say nothing of its prior history which dates back over a thousand years ,the church we know today is named for the patron saint of Mariners and was constructed by Sir Christopher Wren in 1680.
After being gutted by German bombs in 1942, it was eventually rebuilt in 1958 to become the central church of the Royal Air Force.
This Latin inscription was added under the Royal Air Force coat of arms after the rebuilding.
"Built by Christopher Wren 1682. Destroyed by the thunderbolts of air warfare 1941. Restored by the Royal Air Force 1958."
It would seem the use of Chr. as an abbreviation is not quite so naff as I had first thought.
BUT... As far as I know, it has always been common place to use adhoc abbreviations on Latin inscriptions, going right back to Roman times. It doesn't necessarily suggest that "Chr." in particular is common usage (not that common is necessarily bad). Also, 1958 isn't exactly a classical period, unless you like mental images of the introduction of brightly coloured plastics into the home and of overly colourful and excessive flouncy women's dresses. ;-)
I'm jesting really. I still just think it looks weird, historical precedent or not. It's not right to my eyes in the modern era.
MDCLXXII is 1672 :)
Good spot! Moral of the story, always check your Roman numerals when quoting from Wikipedia.
I agree. I think my issue with Chris Ward is it feels like they release a new watch (a lot of them seem to be limited editions) every week.
Saw them both at SQP and for the price was impressed. Prefer the blue as to me it seems more understated.
If you look at handwritten registers from That Kind Of Time these abbreviations of forenames are quite common.
I do feel for them - Christopher Ward is a bit long, Ward is too short and isn't only a surname, C. Ward would look rubbish. Chr. Ward I suppose is meant to bring overtones of our glorious past, but that seems to go over a lot of people's heads.
I wonder if Daniel Wellington will rebrand as Dan. Welling. one day
'D-Well" for the win.
I won't Dwell on it too much
For similar money you could have this Frederique Constant watch (although some think this name is also naff) much prefer this
http://www.watchshop.com/mens-freder...p99969236.html
Sorry I like some of the Fred. Constant moonphases but that one looks terribly tacky to me!
Plus the point with the CW is that the moon complication is a major feature of the watch rather than the usual small moonphases we see like on this Fred. Constant!
If you want the moonphase truly dominating the watch....
Indeed but that is a tad more expensive!
I tried the CW on at QP, with a 15% discount if you bought at the show I almost did it. I still feel that with CW you get a lot of watch for your money. And, as I'm still getting to know the technical side of things, I just think it looks and wears bloody lovely :)
I saw this at Salonqp and was quite unimpressed, especially as they looked so good in the photos I'd seen beforehand. The dark-faced one was ok, but the white-faced one had to my eyes the appearance of a cheap Chinese copy of a nice watch. Neither was as nice as I had hoped though. Not for me. I also met one of the guys that owns CW and he came across as a real knob, which has really put me off the brand.
I guess that's a given. If you don't, you wouldn't like this watch regardless of the name on the dial.If you want the moonphase truly dominating the watch....
On the other hand, this is the feature of the watch, unusual, if not unique, and for some it'll appeal greatly.
Personally, I like it, but I'm not really in the market for yet another blue watch, so it's a shame that most feedback on the white one is quite negative. I nearly took a punt with their recent 25% off deal, but the Moonphase wasn't included, so I didn't...
M.
Posting Permissions
