Better to say it's a typical GMT, and not at Rolex prices.Proco2020 wrote:So it's a true GMT, but not a Rolex GMT?
I'm happy with it.
I'm happy with it too.
Better to say it's a typical GMT, and not at Rolex prices.Proco2020 wrote:So it's a true GMT, but not a Rolex GMT?
I'm happy with it.
Well, in the common watch lingo, it's a GMT, but not a true GMT.Proco2020 wrote:So it's a true GMT, but not a Rolex GMT?
I'm happy with it.
Good stuff lolhughesyn wrote:I agree here. I have a problem spending 600 quid on a 2824 based watch because I know it will likely not be accurate enough for me (based on my C8, what I've read and CW's stated +- 20 sec /day).Devarika Woulf wrote:The main thing you should focus on is the movement. The ETA 2893-2 used on the GMT 600 is the brother of the famous ETA 2892-A2, and is better than the ETA 2824-2 or Sellita SW200-1 used on the PRO 300/600. It is slightly more accurate and feels much higher quality when winding. The GMT 600 offers the best value of the new line, IMO.
However, my Omega with a 2892 derived movement (also a 'proper' GMT) manages about 2 or 3 sec / day, so I have a lot more faith in the 2893-2 Trident GMT.
Loving the burgundy, although the bezel markings take a bit of getting used to.
So, you have this wonderfully accurate Swiss watch.. You jump on the plane from London to Copenhagen. During the flight you want to set your watch to local time, but you have to stop the movement to move the hour hand... Next day you whizz to Moscow and repeat the process...Magnus wrote:Does it really make much difference though?
I mean, how long does it take you to change the time on your watch? Does it matter if the other hands stop too?
That is what I thought the true GMT offered. I don't think Richards technical explanation conflicts with your view. In practical terms, and regularly travelling to ZA and Oz as I do I can't think of a single advantage of the 2893 GMT. After all, GMT remains constant wherever you are and it is helpful if it remains so on your GMT watch.Gradie wrote:I thought the 'true' GMT meant that you could change the regular hands and the gmt hand would still show gmt, whereas with CW and many others the gmt hand is a fixed offset so when you advance the regular hands by say an hour, the GMT hand also advances by an hour and therefore needs resetting back to GMT every time you change timezone?
Or did I make that up?!
Yes.theaub wrote:Think I'm getting this... When I go to another time zone I change my Rolex Explorer to local time on the first notch while the rest of the watch keeps running normally and the GMT hand stays the same. The ETA movement does it differently - and not as efficiently?
Welcome to the forum. You are correct, the C60 GMT (along with the vast majority of GMT watches) cannot handle half hour time zone differences.marklloyd wrote:I bought my first CW watches about a year ago (a C11 Titanium Elite and a C8 Pilot Mk II) and I'd been thinking about adding a C60, so having seen the new ones I'm glad I waited.
The GMT is tempting but I have a feeling it won't work with the use case I have in mind: tracking India time zone. For those who don't know, India are right now 5 1/2 hours ahead.
Does anyone know whether or not the C60 can manage that? I suspect not, since I'd guess the GMT complication is only designed to move the second hour hand in whole hour increments.
Mark.