C5 (Malvern Automatic) long-term review

[peterh]

A little less than two years ago, I stumbled over the Malvern Automatic.

I was instantly smitten - the watch was gorgeous. This was an original design, and in my humble opinion, a VERY good one. I cannot remember ever having seen a basic watch design that I liked better than this one.
The design is possibly the most consistent one I have ever seen. A watch consists of elements in two shapes: circles indicating the time template (the dial and the arrangement of the hour markers) and straight lines indicating the abstract concept of the progression of time (the hands and the hour markers). The Malvern Automatic executes this to the finest detail - the hour markers and the hands are straight lines, true straight lines and nothing but, and all the other elements Including the date window) are perfect circles. The printing on the dial is perfectly symmetrical, and there are no distracting design elements that take away your attention from where the design shines - the perfect arrangement of circles (the time template) and straight lines (time progression). All this was executed in a way that makes the watch look timeless (pun not intended) - it doesn't look 'trendy' or 'modern'... just beautiful. No raised numbers that have shapes that distract from the basic design - just very simple raised straight lines at the hour positions. And no funny shapes on the hands - just straight metal lines. No lume.
Caveat: those who know me, know that I am a sucker for uncompromised, uncluttered design, that works without needing excessive detail. If you are into chronographs with many dials, big blobs of lume, and lots of detail, you may not like the Malvern as much as I do.

I couldn't believe the price. But I just knew I had to have it.

So I got it.
Later, I also acquired another one, which is not in the catalog, but which had a great appeal, because I liked the idea of a black dial in a gold setting.

So... how do they fare in use over time?

Quite well, actually.
After my first sample (the C5 SWT) got run in, it settled into a rhythm of being 32 to 33 seconds fast per day.

To the uninitiated, this may sound like baaaaad news. More than 30 seconds a day fast is quite a bit.
The good news is that it is very consistently fast - and consistency is what you want from a mechanic watch. It means that a very simple tweak from a watchmaker with the right equipment can turn this into a very accurate watch.
You may still think that 30 seconds fast is an awful lot. For the average Omega, that would probably be true. But you should keep in mind that, if you make and sell watches at a 4 figure price point, you can afford to give the watch a decent run-in, and adjust it when that period is over. For someone who sells quality watches at a low three-figure price point, this is economically impossible.

So, why doesn't Chris properly adjust the watch before it gets to me?
Well, he probably does. When my first Malvern arrived, it was VERY accurate at less than one second drift a day.
However, mechanical watches, like cars, tend to be subject to a run-in period of a couple months (my guess is that three months is a fair bet). During this time, the components 'settle' and the watch ( if it is of good quality) acquires a consistent rhythm that it will probably maintain for decades.
My C5 SWT has now settled into a very confortable and very consistent rhythm, and it is time to take it to a good watchmaker to turn that consistency into accuracy.

When I got my first Malvern Automatic (in fact it arrived with three other watches, another Malvern Automatic and a Malvern Chronograph for friends and a W1 for my wife), I was shocked by the execution quality. I had seen that the design was brilliant, but the photos on the web site did not do justice to the execution quality. The dial, the hands, the case... everything was immaculate, even through a loupe. The printing on the dial (I am partial to printed details, because they're much more delicate, and less distracting, than raised details) was top-notch. And the strap was of a finer quality than you'd expect on a 300 quid watch - let alone on a 150 pound watch. It's not a high-gloss strap... it's rather like a very "rich" egg gloss, and padded just right.
As I said, it was very accurate out of the box, which indicates that Chris does set the watches up correctly. The other Malvern developed a problem soon after... which I still suspect may have been the problem of the owner rather than of the watch (I knew he overwound it at some point, and shortly afterwards the crown came off), but it was still taken care of under warranty.
Soon after, it started to run faster. At that time, I decided that I'd allow it at least half a year of running-in time before having someone take care of that -- I wanted to see whether it would settle. Which it did - it's been something like 32 seconds fast a day for a year now, so my guess is that it has settled down nicely.

I've now worn the watch on an on-off basis for a bit under two years. The sapphire chrystal looks immaculate. The case has acquired a few minor scratches, but nothing like you'd expect, considering that it has had a few everyday blows. The strap is still like new - no visible wear whatsoever.
In everyday use, metal hands on a white dial may sound like a bad idea. However, it is very easy to quickly find an angle in which the hands do not reflect light, making them appear as very dark on the white background. As a result, the watch is very easy to read in everyday circumstances.
The crystal only has an anti-reflective coating on the inside - Chris reckons that a coating on the outside would suffer too much from wear and tear. The reflecting outside makes for some very exquisite reflections at the right angle... hoever, when viewed from straight up (a close-to-90-degree angle), it almost disappears against the creamy-white background of the dial, leaving you with the impression that you could actually touch the hands. Nice... very nice.

The other C5 is one of the first. In fact, it was a prototype - it doesn't even have a serial number. As prototypes usually come, this has probably received much more attention, and more running time as well. When it came to me, it was less than 2 seconds a day fast, and it still is.
On second sight, on the prototype watch, the minute and second hand are slightly shorter. From a practical point of view, the slightly longer hands on the production version (the minute hands touches the minute markers on the dial) are a better idea, but from a design point of view, it doesn't make much of a diference. The hour hand of both watches has the ideal length: at 3 o'clock, the hour hand just touches the circular date window.
The black dial makes sure that, if you look at the dial from a close-to-90-degree angle, you still see reflections (your own face) in the sapphire crystal. That's what a black background does for you. Also, with the black dial, you have to find an angle to make the hands catch light, to make them stand out against the black dial, to read the time. Under everyday circumstances, but also in darker surroundings that you'd expect when wearign a dress watch, it's still easy to read the time at a glance - easier than you would think.
There is one thing that must be taken care of on this watch (and in fact, on all black-faced Malverns): the date wheel should be black too. Hans has pointed this out at an earlier stage, and he has in fact taken care of it.

Apart from the serial-number-less caseback and the crown (which doesn't have the Cw logo), execution is the same as on my C5 SWT.

In short, the Malvern Automatic is my favourite CW. In fact, I think that the Malvern is The Quintessential CW, and, at least up to now, Christopher's Opus Magnum. I cannot remember ever having seen a watch that I find more beautiful than this, regardless of the price point. It is gorgeous... it is just right. It is a quiet, solemn, fairly minimalistic, yet firm and very consistent design statement that says "this is enough". It is a work of art. It is also the only watch that instills as much pride of ownership as the Omega Genève that I inherited from my grandfather. I hope that it will do the same to my grandson.

So.
Should you buy this watch?
Yes, you should. It is a good watch, and it is a gorgeously beautiful watch. Period.

[John]

A nice review!!

You are a real fan of CW-watches i see........
For myself i like the C5 a lot too.
But my favourite is the C5 Aviator.

[peterh]

A nice review!!

Thanksh

You are a real fan of CW-watches i see........

Not particularly... but I am a real fan of the Malvern C5. In my humble opinion, the Aviator design is a compromise to make it an Aviator. Again, in my humble opinion, the shapes of the Arabic numerals are too much a distracting element, and the 10 and 11 break the symmetry, throwing the design "off-balance".

And the return of the son of again in my humble opinion, the only CW watch I'd want to own is the C5 - to me, that is the pinnacle of his work.
I like the Peregrine Corax, mainly because of the shape of the second hand. I would've been a sucker for the Kingfisher if the kingfisher-shaped second hand would have survived. And I will probably get the Kingfisher LE when it wins the Forum Limited Edition contest (and it looks like that's going to happen), simply because it's a good watch that would be usable when the going gets tough, and I would like to have CW watches for dress occasions, everyday use, and use under somewhat more adverse conditions. When I would go rock-climbing in Brittanny or Scotland, I'd wear a watch that I wouldn't care about and which would survive ANYTHING I'd trow at it - which is my G-Shock. Strangely enough, I've grown to like the G-Shock because it survived all the stupid things I did to it, and still always shows the correct time (it's a Wave Ceptor).

But I still regret that the kingfisher shape on the second hand didn't make it to the final design of the Kingfisher...

Yet. To me, the C5 Malvern is, to date, Christopher's opus magnum. I have seen many watches that left me with the feeling "that is one gorgeous watch", but only a few which left me with the feeling that I was looking at a truly balanced, finished, perfect idea. All watches in the last category are in the four-figure price range, except for the C5 Malvern.
Whatever he does in the future, the C5 Malvern should remain in the catalog.

peter

[Ivor]

Funny you should say that Peter... the one and only thing that I feel "spoils" the C5 aviator (which I've recently ordered) is indeed the arabic numerals, or at least the choice of font used. I'm no expert in lettering or whatever the craft may be, but I've seen a few watches with similarly simplistic numerals that I personally prefer, in particular the Dornblüth range. I realise this is probably no more than a personal opinion, but there it is...

This is the watch I'm referring to :



I don't know, there's just something so charming about that font. Maybe it's the "roundness" of the Aviator's font that I find distracting?

[joerattz]

Again, in my humble opinion, the shapes of the Arabic numerals are too much a distracting element, and the 10 and 11 break the symmetry, throwing the design "off-balance".

Interesting, the numerals are my favorite part of the watch...excluding the gorgeous movement, but I don't get to see it while wearing the watch. Now, it isn't really the font I like so much as the way the lume is handled. I love that there is a shiny metal part, and the lume filled inside. You can angle the watch in almost any light for the metal part of the numerals to catch the light. In lower light situations, you have the lume. I really love that.

[peterh]

I think that the same numerals raised would make the watch too "busy" and break it. The printer numerals do not "stand out", but integrate into the dial's design. That is one beautiful dial - it has many properties that might make it overly complex, but for some reason it works.

[joerattz]

Again, in my humble opinion, the shapes of the Arabic numerals are too much a distracting element, and the 10 and 11 break the symmetry, throwing the design "off-balance".

Interesting, the numerals are my favorite part of the watch...excluding the gorgeous movement, but I don't get to see it while wearing the watch. Now, it isn't really the font I like so much as the way the lume is handled. I love that there is a shiny metal part, and the lume filled inside. You can angle the watch in almost any light for the metal part of the numerals to catch the light. In lower light situations, you have the lume. I really love that.

Reading peterh's previous post and being confused, just to be clear, I thought I should specify that I was talking about the Aviator in my response above, not the Dornblüth.

[Ivor]

I think that the same numerals raised would make the watch too "busy" and break it. The printer numerals do not "stand out", but integrate into the dial's design.

Indeed... having seen the Dornblüth from an angle, it is indeed printed, and like you say, were they raised, it would be too much of a distraction.

[peterh]

One thing I see that I forgot to mention that, in my opinion, sets the Malvern apart from some watches that preceded it (such as Omega's and IWC's that look very similar) is the circular date window. The square date window on my Omega simply doesn't fit the design of the dial as well as the circular date window on the Malvern does. That round date window finishes it for me.

[audiophilia]

Fantastic review, Peter. Too bad you don't review high end audio. You get the essence of the watch and use prose perfectly to describe it. A gift!

My C5SKS is on its way from Cookham. Ten biz days and counting cuz of Xmas rush. Hopefully, tomorrow morning with the help of Royal Mail and Canada Post. I may switch it for the C5SSS if the black dial doesn't rock my world! I received my C8SKT two weeks ago. Outstanding quality for the price. Very happy with CW.

Thanks again for a great review.

[abently]

I've had the C5SST (Pure white/Silver face, plain brown Strap) for over a year now, and find it hard to believe the watch still looks as stunning as the day I first got it.

For one who is good at amplifying flaws, there is none, with this model. It is really surprising that the smaller case and lug size + case and lug design, being anything but ordinary by today's design standards, can still hold their own against my perfectionist sentiment 14 months down the track.

This truly is a timeless piece of brilliance, and I think Chris will find it hard to bring out a MKII that is different yet the same.

If there is only one watch, you can afford to buy, make it this one. (Or the C15 Black/Black for those with larger wrists)

You can thank me, 5 years down the track, when your still wearing it.