TigerChris wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:13 pm

exHowfener wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:01 pm Another good-looking model, but I'd feel a bit of a Walt wearing the badge of a unit I've not served in/with. Even if it is out of sight.

My exact reason, after seeing the caseback, for dismissing the idea of having one. I won’t buy any of the Bremont armed forces range for the same reason. I think only people who have served in that unit should wear that badge.

Same... I have my C65 Cranwell... but I graduated from the place many years ago in the RAF, so I believe I have the right to wear it, as does anybody else who served in the RAF.

Of course, anybody can wear what they want... after all very view of us are deep sea divers, but still wear diving watches. This feels a bit different though, it's the paras... not sure I could wear that comfortably

The MoD licence the use of the coats of arms for the forces. There are four licencees (bremont, Breitling, Casio and Christopher Ward) these are not special editions commissioned by serving or formerly serving members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. If HMG is happy to licence these why should they be restricted?

The C63 Colchester is too small. It could have done with being a 42mm watch. And yes, the small wrist crowd do protest too much.

How does carbon fibre wear? Does it scratch?

albionphoto wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:32 pm The MoD licence the use of the coats of arms for the forces. There are four licencees (bremont, Breitling, Casio and Christopher Ward) these are not special editions commissioned by serving or formerly serving members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. If HMG is happy to licence these why should they be restricted?

The C63 Colchester is too small. It could have done with being a 42mm watch. And yes, the small wrist crowd do protest too much.

No problem with anyone buying or wearing one

I just couldn't for myself... it would just seem odd

JasperCat wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:48 pm

albionphoto wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:32 pm The MoD licence the use of the coats of arms for the forces. There are four licencees (bremont, Breitling, Casio and Christopher Ward) these are not special editions commissioned by serving or formerly serving members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. If HMG is happy to licence these why should they be restricted?

The C63 Colchester is too small. It could have done with being a 42mm watch. And yes, the small wrist crowd do protest too much.

No problem with anyone buying or wearing one

I just couldn't for myself... it would just seem odd

I have no problem with anybody buying or wearing one either. I, personally, wouldn’t be comfortable with it myself, that’s all.

Plus, Ant Middleton screaming ‘Walter F*****g Mitty’ about an inch from my face doesn’t really appeal

Nice looking watch, especially tempting with the COSC movement.
I am really interested about the carbon case. Obviously it will be light, but any ideas on how it might stand up against knocks and bumps? I have (and love) a Lympstone that has similar, rugged looks but it is a black coating over steel. I am thinking that the Lympstone will “show” marks more than the Colchester? Scratches on the Lympstone will show the bright steel under it but similar scratches on the Colchester will only reveal similar materials underneath and therefore effectively not show?
Any thoughts appreciated.
Keep well

C

Great offering. I like it a lot more than the original version of this case.

I obviously haven't seen/handled this watch, but from having used what I think is a very similar carbon material make up vs titanium & steel at work, I think this should be very robust and fairly scratch resistant. (Ultimately if you've scratched solid injected-carbon, chances are you'd have also scratched 316L steel) I'd also hope that following CW's experience with ceramic cases, they would have done some good drop tests on this case!

I like this lots - possibly my favourite of the C63 bunch so far! The 22mm lugs would be great for me as most my straps are that size. But as others have said, the emblem on the back really makes it hard for me to push the button on one having never served. Yes, it's something to be proud of but would also feel weird. To the point that I'd be looking to see if the emblem could be removed from the caseback (I'd prefer the smaller thickness). I'd try that on a £300 watch, but not a £1k one.

TigerChris wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:08 pm
I have no problem with anybody buying or wearing one either. I, personally, wouldn’t be comfortable with it myself, that’s all.

Plus, Ant Middleton screaming ‘Walter F*****g Mitty’ about an inch from my face doesn’t really appeal

I agree with Chris, because these are for sale to the general public, anyone can and should feel comfortable buying and wearing one. That being said, as a former Bootneck the only CW military watch I would consider buying and wearing is the Lympstone. Even though I like a couple of their other military watches, I wouldn't buy one because of the specific regimental insignia on the back. If I had some sort of connection to the specific military insignia I would have no problem buying one. I owned a CW Harrier special edition for a while and even though I had never flown a Harrier I felt a connection to them because they were constantly over my head protecting my butt during the Falklands War. I feel a deep respect for those Harrier pilots.

I do not own the Lympstone, because even though it is the CW Royal Marines themed watch it is not special enough to me as it can be purchased by anyone. I would rather spend my money on a Royal Marines watch that is limited for sale to current and former bootnecks, giving it some meaning to me. I would imagine there are many former and current military members who feel the same way.

I think CW might be better served selling a line of military themed watches that clearly show the purchaser supports the military to avoid non military members feeling they shouldn't buy one for fear of being thought of as a Walt. I have no idea how they would do that, but "In support of......, or something similar.

If you like the new Colchester and you want to spend your hard earned money on it, do so in good health and enjoy the watch.

I’ve just ordered a Dartmouth and I have absolutely no connection to the Navy (other than heralding from a naval city). I would like the watch just as much without the insignia on the back, but I’m happy for it to be there as I’d like to think that by buying the watch and contributing to the royalty/licence that CW will be paying to the MoD for its that it’s doing some good.

However, I can see why those who have been in the military would not feel comfortable with another insignia on their watch.

FloridaPhil wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:55 pm CW fans can never again criticize Bremont tie-ins

Screenshot 2021-11-03 1.54.24 PM.png

I'm not Highly Strung!

The first three service watches probably got away with it because their branding was rather discreet and limited to individual branches of the services. This, together with the Lympstone, has gone a step further with overt branding of specific units. Never having served I was always somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of these watches and with these later additions I’d basically run a mile from them.

I’m nevertheless rather interested in the carbon case. A carbon cased C60 with 3D printed lume plots, like the triangle on the Concept, would be a very interesting watch.

I find this watch:

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

brash47 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:50 pm I find this watch:

I'm not sure if you like it or hate it from that!

I love that CW had brought our a carbon case and hope they bring out others without the military branding. Who wants to feel like a Walter Mitty?

I’d certainly buy this watch if it didn’t have the Parachute Regiment branding. I was never a Para and would feel like a Walt for wearing it. I see from others’ posts that many of us feel similar.

Does CW HQ still read this forum? I hope so, and we get more (non-military) carbon models.