Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
- nathanclarinet
- Senior Forumgod
- Posts: 3861
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:45 pm
- CW-watches: 2
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
Great photos. It is great to see the watch 'in the flesh' so to speak and as always looks much better than the shots on the website. I agree with Kip, great depth. Mmmm..... tempted.....
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
Thanks. Don't be put off by my comments regarding returning the watch. That is certainly not a reflection on the watch. It is great!nathanclarinet wrote:Great photos. It is great to see the watch 'in the flesh' so to speak and as always looks much better than the shots on the website. I agree with Kip, great depth. Mmmm..... tempted.....
Go for it!
Richard
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
Really good photos! The watch looks great to me. I am waiting on the C9GMT with white face...
- Beastmaster
- Forumgod
- Posts: 867
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:50 pm
- CW-watches: 9
- Location: Malvern
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
I notice you say no discernible anti reflective coating. I cam see no mention of anti reflective coating on the website for the c90GMT or the Becketts but it is mentioned as being on the C90 auto, so do some have it and some don't,t or do all the C90 variants have an anti reflective coating?
C6 yellow Kingfisher, C5 black Malvern Aviator Ltd Edition, C70 DBR1, C70 IT, C60 Trident 2012 FLE Scooter, C70 MC, C70 Cunningham
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
Interesting. Can't see why they would use a different crystal on the C9 than on C9 GMT.. The watch has been returned now, so I can't take another look. However, when I was taking the pictures, I remember thinking that it seemed to reflect the light quite significantly.Beastmaster wrote:I notice you say no discernible anti reflective coating. I cam see no mention of anti reflective coating on the website for the c90GMT or the Becketts but it is mentioned as being on the C90 auto, so do some have it and some don't,t or do all the C90 variants have an anti reflective coating?
Richard
- Kip
- The Administrator
- Posts: 35173
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:45 pm
- CW-watches: 150
- LE-one: yes
- LE-two: yes
- LE-three: yes
- LE-foura: yes
- LE-fourb: yes
- LE-five: yes
- LE-six: yes
- LESeven: yes
- Location: New Hampshire, USA
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
Interesting question.....I shall strive for confirmation.Beastmaster wrote:I notice you say no discernible anti reflective coating. I cam see no mention of anti reflective coating on the website for the c90GMT or the Becketts but it is mentioned as being on the C90 auto, so do some have it and some don't,t or do all the C90 variants have an anti reflective coating?
Kip
"Asylum Administrator"
Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
"Asylum Administrator"
Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
- Kip
- The Administrator
- Posts: 35173
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:45 pm
- CW-watches: 150
- LE-one: yes
- LE-two: yes
- LE-three: yes
- LE-foura: yes
- LE-fourb: yes
- LE-five: yes
- LE-six: yes
- LESeven: yes
- Location: New Hampshire, USA
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
The Boss has confirmed that every CWL watch has the AR coating on the underside of the crystal to prevent scratching.Kip wrote:Interesting question.....I shall strive for confirmation.Beastmaster wrote:I notice you say no discernible anti reflective coating. I cam see no mention of anti reflective coating on the website for the c90GMT or the Becketts but it is mentioned as being on the C90 auto, so do some have it and some don't,t or do all the C90 variants have an anti reflective coating?
The fact that it may not be mentioned on a given model on the website is just an oversight that will be addressed.
Kip
"Asylum Administrator"
Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
"Asylum Administrator"
Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
I've harped on about this issue of the apparently non-existent A-R coating on CW watches before.
A-R is there to serve a practical purpose, but the biggest difference it makes to me is giving a watch an added layer of sophistication - it's one of the first things I notice if I look at a watch someone else is wearing because it tells me faster than anything else whether it's an upmarket auto or a Joe Average quartz.
Big watches in particular can look painfully plain and undistinguished without A-R - or without obvious A-R, which is the big problem CW has got! My C5 Aviator has very obvious A-R on it and looks like something special. My C8 doesn't and looks like it's not on the same level as other mid-market big pilot's watches.
CW says it goes on the underside of the crystal to prevent it being scratched. I've got an Eterna and an Omega, both of which are well over five years old, neither of which have been treated with kid gloves, and while there are plenty of fine wear marks on the case/bracelet, there's nothing on the crystal. So unless this is a decision to coat the crystal on one side to save money, I don't understand it.
The C9 is NOT a cheap watch. But it's at risk of looking like one unless this issue of A-R is sorted. I simply wouldn't contemplate that level of money for this level of look. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but there is better elsewhere.
A-R is there to serve a practical purpose, but the biggest difference it makes to me is giving a watch an added layer of sophistication - it's one of the first things I notice if I look at a watch someone else is wearing because it tells me faster than anything else whether it's an upmarket auto or a Joe Average quartz.
Big watches in particular can look painfully plain and undistinguished without A-R - or without obvious A-R, which is the big problem CW has got! My C5 Aviator has very obvious A-R on it and looks like something special. My C8 doesn't and looks like it's not on the same level as other mid-market big pilot's watches.
CW says it goes on the underside of the crystal to prevent it being scratched. I've got an Eterna and an Omega, both of which are well over five years old, neither of which have been treated with kid gloves, and while there are plenty of fine wear marks on the case/bracelet, there's nothing on the crystal. So unless this is a decision to coat the crystal on one side to save money, I don't understand it.
The C9 is NOT a cheap watch. But it's at risk of looking like one unless this issue of A-R is sorted. I simply wouldn't contemplate that level of money for this level of look. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but there is better elsewhere.
C5 Malvern Aviator LE
C8 Pilot Mk1 004
C3 Malvern Chrono
C4 Peregrine 'Phoenix'
Eterna Airforce
Steinhart Nav B Chrono II
Steinhart Ocean One GMT
Bulova Moonwatch
Marloe Coniston Bluebird
Steinhart Nav B-Uhr
Longines Master Chrono Moonphase
C8 Pilot Mk1 004
C3 Malvern Chrono
C4 Peregrine 'Phoenix'
Eterna Airforce
Steinhart Nav B Chrono II
Steinhart Ocean One GMT
Bulova Moonwatch
Marloe Coniston Bluebird
Steinhart Nav B-Uhr
Longines Master Chrono Moonphase
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
i have to agree with morrisox, my Omega 300m chrono diver has a very good 'look' about it when its on the wrist and as he says it looks like a high end watch. my C9 does not have this same look but then it was 25% of the value of my Omega so should i really be moaning about it ?
Current collection = Omega Seamaster 2225.80.00, Omega Speedmaster 'Moonphase' 3576.50.00, Breitling Aerospace Evo, Vintage Azur, Vintage Seiko Sprtsman, Grand Seiko SBGX059, Omega SMP NTTD 210.92.42.20.01.001, Casioak Milkyway, Casioak Tiffany Sky.
- Beastmaster
- Forumgod
- Posts: 867
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:50 pm
- CW-watches: 9
- Location: Malvern
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
Correct me if I am wrong but I think most companies only put the AR coating on the underneath, Breitling being an exception as the coat underneath and top?
C6 yellow Kingfisher, C5 black Malvern Aviator Ltd Edition, C70 DBR1, C70 IT, C60 Trident 2012 FLE Scooter, C70 MC, C70 Cunningham
- Kip
- The Administrator
- Posts: 35173
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:45 pm
- CW-watches: 150
- LE-one: yes
- LE-two: yes
- LE-three: yes
- LE-foura: yes
- LE-fourb: yes
- LE-five: yes
- LE-six: yes
- LESeven: yes
- Location: New Hampshire, USA
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
This does cause some problems with Breitling consumers I might add. Many don't understand why this coating on such an expensive watch would scratch. It is the nature of the beast.Beastmaster wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but I think most companies only put the AR coating on the underneath, Breitling being an exception as the coat underneath and top?
Kip
"Asylum Administrator"
Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
"Asylum Administrator"
Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
If many companies also put it only on the underside of the crystal, how it come it's visible and obvious on theirs, but not on a CW?
I hate to harp on, but this is about a simple yet fundamental aspect of the way a quality watch looks. The C9's price point puts it in that territory and it needs to meet those expectations. Ths photos on this thread suggest it doesn't.
I hate to harp on, but this is about a simple yet fundamental aspect of the way a quality watch looks. The C9's price point puts it in that territory and it needs to meet those expectations. Ths photos on this thread suggest it doesn't.
C5 Malvern Aviator LE
C8 Pilot Mk1 004
C3 Malvern Chrono
C4 Peregrine 'Phoenix'
Eterna Airforce
Steinhart Nav B Chrono II
Steinhart Ocean One GMT
Bulova Moonwatch
Marloe Coniston Bluebird
Steinhart Nav B-Uhr
Longines Master Chrono Moonphase
C8 Pilot Mk1 004
C3 Malvern Chrono
C4 Peregrine 'Phoenix'
Eterna Airforce
Steinhart Nav B Chrono II
Steinhart Ocean One GMT
Bulova Moonwatch
Marloe Coniston Bluebird
Steinhart Nav B-Uhr
Longines Master Chrono Moonphase
-
- Senior Forumgod
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:55 pm
- CW-watches: 2
- Location: Leics/Lincs
Putting the AR coating on the inside seems to me a bit odd, sort of like wearing your underpants on the outside if your trousers, or something...
I haven't seen a C9 in the flesh, but it's a watch that interests me and I'd been waiting for the owner pics before making a decision.
Downer takes a good photo, so the fact that the crystal looks a bit like the bottom of a milk bottle is disappointing. Ok, a bit harsh maybe, but on a watch at this price point I'd expect a decent AR coating. I have several watches, as do most on here I expect, and the ones I know to have an AR coating look like they have no crystal at all from some angles.
It's almost like the C9 doesn't have an AR coating at all?
Is Chris sure that they do, or is it something he's relying on the supplier/manufacturer telling him? Maybe it was specified, but how can you tell it's there? (And yes, he should know, but then there isn't much evidence of it from the pics I've seen..)
I haven't seen a C9 in the flesh, but it's a watch that interests me and I'd been waiting for the owner pics before making a decision.
Downer takes a good photo, so the fact that the crystal looks a bit like the bottom of a milk bottle is disappointing. Ok, a bit harsh maybe, but on a watch at this price point I'd expect a decent AR coating. I have several watches, as do most on here I expect, and the ones I know to have an AR coating look like they have no crystal at all from some angles.
It's almost like the C9 doesn't have an AR coating at all?
Is Chris sure that they do, or is it something he's relying on the supplier/manufacturer telling him? Maybe it was specified, but how can you tell it's there? (And yes, he should know, but then there isn't much evidence of it from the pics I've seen..)
Re: Harrison C9-GMT-SKK
Ouch, that is a bit harsh, Iain.
In my original comment about the A/R I simply meant that the watch was difficult to photograph, due to the reflections on the crystal, rather than that there is a problem with the A/R.
In my first picture, I think you can see depth in the watch and you can barely see the crystal...
Blow that one up to full size, using the magnifying glass in the top left of the pic, and you will see what I mean.
I do think the watch has 'depth and detail', which are normally (to me at least), signs of quality.
In my original comment about the A/R I simply meant that the watch was difficult to photograph, due to the reflections on the crystal, rather than that there is a problem with the A/R.
In my first picture, I think you can see depth in the watch and you can barely see the crystal...
Blow that one up to full size, using the magnifying glass in the top left of the pic, and you will see what I mean.
I do think the watch has 'depth and detail', which are normally (to me at least), signs of quality.
Richard