I see the C5 silver case auto's have now undergone the same facelift as their quartz siblings and are sporting the galvanic face design of the C50 . Such a shame that the lovely 2 piece dial can now only be had on the gold case or black faced models.

I see CWL can't get their heads round the fact that if you change the design of a watch then you also need to alter the text that goes with it. The descriptions for the SWT & SWK are still detailing the previous 2 piece face design. Are we their only copy checkers?

Tyke - I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the C50 face isn't as good as the 2 layer design from the C5. There's a C5 on ebay at present that says it's the old face design that has been discontinued and I wondered what was going on until I looked on the CW site and saw the same as you did. The ebay seller is certainly on the ball!

f1colin wrote:Tyke - I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the C50 face isn't as good as the 2 layer design from the C5. There's a C5 on ebay at present that says it's the old face design that has been discontinued and I wondered what was going on until I looked on the CW site and saw the same as you did. The ebay seller is certainly on the ball!

I think the seller probably meant that the silver faced one was discontinued a while ago (which that one is) leaving just the cream faced versions which have now given way to some galvanic.

Still prefer that one to the galvanic....

I have to admit I didn't notice this when I ordered my C5SWK, which arrived today and had the 2-piece design. If it turned out that the C5SWK was no longer available in the 2-piece design I think I would have enquired about exchanging it for a C5SKK.

I wondered what this was about until I looked on the CW website. What a very unwelcome change in design. The C5 is the bedrock of the brand so why change it I wonder.

f1colin wrote:Still prefer that one to the galvanic....

Yes the silver faced one on ebay is lovely but the starting price is already above what CWL were selling NN's at, so not for me at the moment, but I think it will attract someone.

f1colin wrote:Tyke - I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the C50 face isn't as good as the 2 layer design from the C5....

Nope, I feel the same way.

Very disappointing. CW watches first caught my eye because of the C5 Malvern. I thought the 2-pc dial with the guilloched inner circle was really beautiful. Without that:

1. design element-wise, it's not the same watch as before (the whole inner circle is missing!!) and should not be described or sold as such;
2. it's much more a generic "classic" look without anything special to catch one's eye. That's a terrible thing to do to one's signature/iconic piece;
3. it makes one wonder if CW is cutting corners and saving costs on the manufacture of their new watches.

This is bad for CW's image and reputation, and will lose it respect among watch lovers.

I had to take a look as well. Probably the reason the gold one is still two faced is because they still have them in stock and want to sell out. I doesn't look bad. My only beef is that it should have a different model number and description so it doesn't confuse those who are familiar with the CW line. The C5 Malvern can only be of its original design. CW could have named it the Malvern C5-1 or C6, just something other than C5. How can you have a different design and give it the same model number? I don't understand that. And yes, the C5 silver/white face, ordered with the reddish tan alligator strap was my first CW watch. I would never have believed that this would be one of the phase-out models.

First of all, and em.........

Second of all, in 10-20 years time when CW becomes one of the hottest talk in town, I could show-off my "vintage" original style C5 auto and gloat on and on about how extremely nice it is.

I can understand the move to this face for the C50 as it differentiated it from the C5 & suited the day date layout better, as it lost the circular date window which was integral to the 2 piece style. I could also reason that it might be a way of differentiating the C5 quartz from the C5 auto's, but I have to agree that losing the iconic dial isn't desirable & that the only C5 on my want list now will be a pre-owned steel case one with the original style dial.

Gutted. I can't believe this. I should have bought it when I first saw it a couple of weeks ago. Off I go to the "wanted" section...

Unbelievable! I emailed Wera to ask that if she ever came across an old face design, to let me know and I'd take it. She replied that it was a possiblity but she gets so many requests that I should check back with her every few weeks.

Less than five minutes later... I get an email from her to say she found one for me!

The upshot is that by tomorrow afternoon, I will be in possesion of a new, old C5.

Absolutely incredible woman. CW should hire her out as an expert speaker on customer services.

Russ-Shettle wrote:I had to take a look as well. Probably the reason the gold one is still two faced is because they still have them in stock and want to sell out. I doesn't look bad. My only beef is that it should have a different model number and description so it doesn't confuse those who are familiar with the CW line. The C5 Malvern can only be of its original design. CW could have named it the Malvern C5-1 or C6, just something other than C5. How can you have a different design and give it the same model number? I don't understand that. And yes, the C5 silver/white face, ordered with the reddish tan alligator strap was my first CW watch. I would never have believed that this would be one of the phase-out models.

I suspect this is a design change rather than a phase out as it's only on steel cased C5's / C50's and as such is presumably deemed a better look (in their opinion) for that colour. It would look truly horrible in the gold case so that might be keeping the 2 piece.

Could our esteemed moderator enquire of CWL as to the reality behind my uninformed musings?

Oh dear. At the risk of incurring the wrath of what seems to be everyone else... I prefer the new look! It's cleaner and sleeker I think.

I agree that perhaps it should get a designation other than "C5 Malvern" as the original design was clearly one that many people loved dearly.

Charlie