Leaving the protective plastic on?

Discuss Christopher Ward watches
KevRC4130
Senior
Senior
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:11 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Leaving the protective plastic on?

Post by KevRC4130 »

Has anybody left the protective plastic sheet on the back of the Malvern on? Mine is still on, and at this point, the red stripe has worn off completely. You really can't tell it's on. I'm considering taking it off, because it makes the watch a little less shiny and more fingerprinted looking. However, I kind of want to keep it on, because for some reason I think that it will maybe make the watch more valuable in the future, and it keeps that "fresh out of the package" feeling. Anyways, I'm rambling. Basically, does anybody else still have theirs on? What do you guys suggest I do? Is there any reason to take it off (ie the glue corrodes the metal)?

Thanks
Kostya
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:20 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Miami, FL

Post by Kostya »

:lol: :lol: :lol:
KevRC4130
Senior
Senior
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:11 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by KevRC4130 »

Kostya wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:
Just trying to liven the place up :D
User avatar
El Tiempo
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:53 am
CW-watches: 0
Location: Parts Unknown

Post by El Tiempo »

Kev, you can remove this. You have my permission.



El Tiempo
KevRC4130
Senior
Senior
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:11 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by KevRC4130 »

El Tiempo wrote:Kev, you can remove this. You have my permission.



El Tiempo
I know I can take it off. What I'm really looking for is permission to leave it on. :lol:
Warhol
Senior
Senior
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:23 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Bodegraven, The Netherlands

Post by Warhol »

KevRC4130 wrote:
El Tiempo wrote:Kev, you can remove this. You have my permission.



El Tiempo
I know I can take it off. What I'm really looking for is permission to leave it on. :lol:
NOOO don't :lol:
It makes the watch less beautiful! There's nor reason to let it on. The cristal is sapphire so it'll keep the brand new look.
User avatar
Hans
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:24 am
CW-watches: 7
LE-one: yes
LE-two: yes
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Hans »

Kev, if you leave the protective plastic on, I will have to ban you from this forum!!!


:lol:


Seriously: take it off!!!
joerattz
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:34 pm
CW-watches: 8
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Post by joerattz »

Warhol wrote:It makes the watch less beautiful! There's nor reason to let it on. The cristal is sapphire so it'll keep the brand new look.
Actually, based on my Malvern Auto (that I just received today!!! #316), the plastic is on the back and I don't believe the back is sapphire.

Kev, I wondered the same thing. I went ahead and took mine off because I was worried that the heat and/or sweat may cause the plastic or glue to ruin the back crystal. And, as you mentioned, the red stripe is fading. Mine, if I ever need to put it back on, will look brand new! Plus, how likely is it to get scratched when it is sitting on your wrist? That is probably the most protected part of the watch.

Now, if I could get a little plastic cover for the front crystal. ;-)
KevRC4130
Senior
Senior
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:11 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by KevRC4130 »

joerattz wrote:
Warhol wrote:It makes the watch less beautiful! There's nor reason to let it on. The cristal is sapphire so it'll keep the brand new look.
Actually, based on my Malvern Auto (that I just received today!!! #316), the plastic is on the back and I don't believe the back is sapphire.

Kev, I wondered the same thing. I went ahead and took mine off because I was worried that the heat and/or sweat may cause the plastic or glue to ruin the back crystal. And, as you mentioned, the red stripe is fading. Mine, if I ever need to put it back on, will look brand new! Plus, how likely is it to get scratched when it is sitting on your wrist? That is probably the most protected part of the watch.

Now, if I could get a little plastic cover for the front crystal. ;-)
Yeah, I just cracked under peer pressure... I took it off. I still have it though, so I can revert back to my pwn ways when nobody is looking. :oops:
Warhol
Senior
Senior
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:23 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Bodegraven, The Netherlands

Post by Warhol »

joerattz wrote:
Warhol wrote:It makes the watch less beautiful! There's nor reason to let it on. The cristal is sapphire so it'll keep the brand new look.
Actually, based on my Malvern Auto (that I just received today!!! #316), the plastic is on the back and I don't believe the back is sapphire.

Kev, I wondered the same thing. I went ahead and took mine off because I was worried that the heat and/or sweat may cause the plastic or glue to ruin the back crystal. And, as you mentioned, the red stripe is fading. Mine, if I ever need to put it back on, will look brand new! Plus, how likely is it to get scratched when it is sitting on your wrist? That is probably the most protected part of the watch.

Now, if I could get a little plastic cover for the front crystal. ;-)
Why do you think the crystal isn't sapphire?
Why would CW lie about that :) It's even engraved in your watch...
joerattz
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:34 pm
CW-watches: 8
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Post by joerattz »

Warhol wrote:Why do you think the crystal isn't sapphire?
Why would CW lie about that :) It's even engraved in your watch...
First, the front crystal is sapphire.

I am trying to remember why I think the back crystal is not sapphire, and I think the reason I believe that is, I think Chris told me that. I exchanged several emails with him before I purchased mine and I believe he said the back crystal is not sapphire. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. But, if it is true that the back is not sapphire, I don't think CW is lying, I think you may have misinterpretted something you saw. Or, it is possible that you saw some CW information that is wrong. There are some inconsistencies in the specs for the watch here and there. For example, the power reserve. The PDF file at CW says the power reserve is 7 days for the MA. But when I asked Chris about that he said the PDF was wrong and the power reserve is 38 hours...I think it was. In my booklet that came with my watch, it says 2 days. Now I wouldn't consider 38 hours to be two days, but maybe in watchmaking terms it is?
Warhol
Senior
Senior
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:23 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Bodegraven, The Netherlands

Post by Warhol »

joerattz wrote:
Warhol wrote:Why do you think the crystal isn't sapphire?
Why would CW lie about that :) It's even engraved in your watch...
First, the front crystal is sapphire.

I am trying to remember why I think the back crystal is not sapphire, and I think the reason I believe that is, I think Chris told me that. I exchanged several emails with him before I purchased mine and I believe he said the back crystal is not sapphire. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. But, if it is true that the back is not sapphire, I don't think CW is lying, I think you may have misinterpretted something you saw. Or, it is possible that you saw some CW information that is wrong. There are some inconsistencies in the specs for the watch here and there. For example, the power reserve. The PDF file at CW says the power reserve is 7 days for the MA. But when I asked Chris about that he said the PDF was wrong and the power reserve is 38 hours...I think it was. In my booklet that came with my watch, it says 2 days. Now I wouldn't consider 38 hours to be two days, but maybe in watchmaking terms it is?
You might be right. When I read that the watch had sapphire crystal I assumed it would have it on both sides. I have taken a look on CW's site again and it says nowhere that the back is or isn't sapphire.
So if you are right, my bad. :)
joerattz
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:34 pm
CW-watches: 8
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Post by joerattz »

Warhol wrote:I have taken a look on CW's site again and it says nowhere that the back is or isn't sapphire.
So if you are right, my bad. :)
Straight from Chris:

"the front is sapphire....the back is hardened mineral with a scratchproof coating....like one of the members said the back is the most protected area of the watch...so there was an opportunity to save a little on the cost..."
KevRC4130
Senior
Senior
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:11 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by KevRC4130 »

joerattz wrote:
Warhol wrote:I have taken a look on CW's site again and it says nowhere that the back is or isn't sapphire.
So if you are right, my bad. :)
Straight from Chris:

"the front is sapphire....the back is hardened mineral with a scratchproof coating....like one of the members said the back is the most protected area of the watch...so there was an opportunity to save a little on the cost..."
I wish Chris would post himself. :?
User avatar
Hans
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:24 am
CW-watches: 7
LE-one: yes
LE-two: yes
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Hans »

Well, I'm not sure Kev, certainly Chris reads some stuff on this forum now and then, but I think that he wants to gives us room, and wants to keep this forum an independent forum....