Having seen Grahams picture, I think I prefer the one piece dial. Looks lovely

If that's the direction design is going in, I'm glad I bought a C3 before they get round to improving that one

Somebody must have had a quiet word as they've sorted out the dial text , but I guess they don't have a picture of the new face with box & papers to substitute in yet.

This could be yet another case of CW website photos not doing the real thing justice, but....

Unless it's a cost-based decision I really am struggling to see the logic. A face which had some facet and character now looks as flat as a pancake.

And on a £600 COSC auto? Tell me I've got it wrong, someone.

Wow, reading Uncle Bill's assay a few clicks above, regarding changes made to the C5 is compelling. Bill is correct but it seems now that both sides to the debate are equally compelling. The C5 took on an original beauty all to itself compared to the others. It's hard to let go of something that had an above average appeal and not honor it by expiring the model number as well I think.

It's kind of like Hurricane names! Some Hurricanes were so devastating that their names will never be reused again to identify any future Hurricane. Hurricanes like Camille in 1969 and Katrina in 2005.

I guess the question to ask is: In your opinion, are there some watches of the CW line so impressive that their model number should never be used again? Where's the evolution of C1? Why this one and not that one scenario. Why was the C1 phased out? I thought it was CW's signature model.

Russ-Shettle wrote:Wow, reading Uncle Bill's assay a few clicks above, regarding changes made to the C5 is compelling. Bill is correct but it seems now that both sides to the debate are equally compelling. The C5 took on an original beauty all to itself compared to the others. It's hard to let go of something that had an above average appeal and not honor it by expiring the model number as well I think.

It's kind of like Hurricane names! Some Hurricanes were so devastating that their names will never be reused again to identify any future Hurricane. Hurricanes like Camille in 1969 and Katrina in 2005.

I guess the question to ask is: In your opinion, are there some watches of the CW line so impressive that their model number should never be used again? Where's the evolution of C1? Why this one and not that one scenario. Why was the C1 phased out? I thought it was CW's signature model.

The C1 was an Homage model to Thomas Russell. I would consider the C5 to be the signature model.

Kip wrote:

Russ-Shettle wrote: I guess the question to ask is: In your opinion, are there some watches of the CW line so impressive that their model number should never be used again? Where's the evolution of C1? Why this one and not that one scenario. Why was the C1 phased out? I thought it was CW's signature model.

The C1 was an Homage model to Thomas Russell. I would consider the C5 to be the signature model.

I'm beginning to recall a lot tonight. Why was it discontinued? Do you know? dumb question... of course you know, Kip! I like the C50, especially with the day/date addition. Was the 50 meant to be the C5's big brother? Not sure how I want to put it. The 50 is just 1mm larger but that difference is so slight they really do just look the same with the exception of the day/date difference which I like better in the beginning. The C50 being the only automatic chronometer while resembling the C5's inherent beauty, it would appear me that it will become the ultimate signature watch.

Am I the only one to consider the new C5 a little bit too iwc portofino?

Russ-Shettle wrote:

Kip wrote:

Russ-Shettle wrote: I guess the question to ask is: In your opinion, are there some watches of the CW line so impressive that their model number should never be used again? Where's the evolution of C1? Why this one and not that one scenario. Why was the C1 phased out? I thought it was CW's signature model.

The C1 was an Homage model to Thomas Russell. I would consider the C5 to be the signature model.

I'm beginning to recall a lot tonight. Why was it discontinued? Do you know? dumb question... of course you know, Kip! I like the C50, especially with the day/date addition. Was the 50 meant to be the C5's big brother? Not sure how I want to put it. The 50 is just 1mm larger but that difference is so slight they really do just look the same with the exception of the day/date difference which I like better in the beginning. The C50 being the only automatic chronometer while resembling the C5's inherent beauty, it would appear me that it will become the ultimate signature watch.

As with most models, it is the sales that determine survival in the lineup. Although the C1 recieved many accolades for design and did in fact sell fairly well for awhile, other models just took to much away from it. I believe, the fact that it was quartz and that CWL proceeded to introduce more mechanicals was just to much for the C1 to overcome.

For me, I still believe if CWL were to introduce a mechanical based on the C1 it would do well as shown by several other makers out there.

Aifo wrote:Am I the only one to consider the new C5 a little bit too iwc portofino?

Good spot. CW must stop IWC copying its designs

Coming a bit late to this debate but I thought I'd stick my oar in FWIW. As the saying goes "nobody likes change", but I think I agree with those that feel each design has its own relative merits. Seeing the two designs side by side I can't say one looks "better" than the other, they are both fantastic looking just different.

On the comments about making "unwelcome" changes to an iconic signature design that might put some people off, I have to assume that CWL, like any company, do carry out some kind of market research and don't just make these changes on a whim?

I just think it's a shame that with so many watches these days being a copy of / homage to other brands & designs, that one of the few designs that can only be a CWL is slowly being turned into an IWC homage. The C5 deserves better than that

As for market research then yes they do some, so presumably this is part of the fresh dynamic new direction the company, its watches & brand logo's are going in. Perhaps the C5 was just too old fashioned (classic) for modern tastes hence the new dial, but that then contradicts the 'heritage' spiel they still use.

Aifo wrote:Am I the only one to consider the new C5 a little bit too iwc portofino?

No, you are right Aifo, but to be honest going back a long way (2007/08) this was always more or less known. Chris is a fan of IWC as far as I know and the Malvern was always obviously influenced by the Portofino in fact I think it was raised at the time on the forum. I think it's a strength really. IWC are fantastic watches, but a little less well known and more understated than many other premium brands; so watches that pick up IWC influence are not anything like the problem for me, that say a watch that is heavily influenced by one of the really well known Rolex models would be. I like the Steinhart GMT Ocean 1, it is fantastic value and I have been tempted, but that's because I really like the Rolex GMT 2 and I think that would be too obvious. Possibly also lead me to sell it on and save up for a Rolex . I don't know, but it wouldn't work for me. The Trident suffers from the same sort of issue for me, because although it has more differences it is still too much like the very well known watches it is influenced by.
I fall into the thumbs up camp for the new dial . It think it looks cleaner. I really like the look of the C50 COSC.

Cheers,
Jack.

Jack, to me, most divers watches all look fundamentally the same. I'm still looking for a divers watch that most closely resembles a 1969 Zodiac Seawolf I owned back in the early 70s. I've yet to fine one. I could have bought this one on EBay but passed it up. I what I like most is the silver, rather than black, bezel. Please let me know if you've seen anything similar to this:

Russ-Shettle wrote:Jack, to me, most divers watches all look fundamentally the same. I'm still looking for a divers watch that most closely resembles a 1969 Zodiac Seawolf I owned back in the early 70s. I've yet to fine one. I could have bought this one on EBay but passed it up. I what I like most is the silver, rather than black, bezel. Please let me know if you've seen anything similar to this:

I have been looking for a silver bezel Seawolf myself Russ. They are difficult to find at a proper price and condition.

Been hunting awhile now. The hunt continues.

Kip,

You must have a collection that goes well beyond CW.