szabolc wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 5:45 pm
And I am a bit afraid to ask, but has there been any progress with the hardness coatings? Sometime ago I read/heard an interview where it was said that it affects finishing very unfavorably. I very much like the idea that not only the crystal is scratch resistant...

Great idea! I love my anti-scratch coating on my Traska, Direnzo and VPC

The caller vs. traveler debate for the GMT...

We can agree to differ on this. If they ever made a traveller it would be to progress and refine the range/brand, rather than to shut up a few individuals on a forum. It’s a “big brand” take on one of the best complications, and therefore something to which I hope CW will aspire at some time in the future. The Sealander would be the perfect vehicle for it IMHO.

I'm good with that While I don't find it particularly useful myself, that doesn't mean at all that it wouldn't represent great progress and refinement. I'm in full agreement there. I also completely agree that the Sealander is the perfect vehicle. It is just a superb watch and as Christopher Ward seems to be going from strength to strength right now, if they could introduce this in this line it would be fantastic.

I'm late to providing feedback, and have the advantage of consolidating all of the above comments into my thoughts, but apologies if this is a bit repetitive as a result.

1. My general agreement is that evolution rather than revolution is the way to go. This is an extremely well packaged core product which doesn't need the bells and whistles of the higher-end models. I took a long hard look at the website pictures and my watches in hand, and can come up with very little by way of changes. But with that in mind, I would steer clear of additional complications such as power reserve, world timer etc., except where a special edition or Elite version with a fancier movement might warrant it.

2. Personally I would bump the 39mm version up to 40mm. On the GMT model I think this can be achieved mostly by widening the bezel, which I do find ever-so-slightly on the thin side. The increase in case diameter could be compensated by a thinner case (utilizing the SW300 movement in the non-GMT version) and female end links to make the bracelet more wearable. So I think the watch would feel about the same overall. I'm less of a fan of introducing extra case sizes in all conceivable dimensions - keep it to a maximum of two options e.g., 36mm and 40mm.

3. Keep the date at 6 o'clock. A no-date version could be offered but on the non-GMT model only. I like the idea of a date ring similar to the Moonglow but I would add that on the Elite only, which would seem to already have a design that could easily accommodate that feature.

4. I think CW needs a mechanical chronograph somewhere in the range as, for me, it's a big gap at the moment. The Sealander range could be the perfect place for it.

5. The question of flyer/traveler vs. office/caller GMT isn't one I'm too invested in, but I suspect this is simply a conclusion of there not being an available flyer/traveler Sellita movement? I would imagine it's not worth developing an in-house movement for just this function (unless this is CW-002...)

6. I really like the idea of a core base of standard dial colors and then limited edition or seasonal special edition colors which can be bolder (but don't make a fuss of the whole "limited edition' thing...). For the core base, I do think orange as the accent color for the GMT/seconds hand is a bit 'love it or hate it' so something like red might have more mass appeal. I also like the idea of having the color of the twin flags logo match the accent color.

7. Strap options are fairly limited and could be improved by adding rubber and additional colors.

8. I can see a case for small refinements to the crown shape to make it slightly rounder, but this would only need to be minor.

9. Things I wouldn't change are:
- Lume: I'm surprised to see the comments about needing more lume as I find it very bright on the ones I own. 'Lume is overrated' anyway and the case for this to be a 'lume monster' like the Lumiere isn't there in my view.
- Water resistance: also overrated and the current level is perfectly acceptable for a non-dive watch.
- Trident counterbalance: I don't really mind or care whether it 'fits' or not with the Sealander range, I just think it looks good.

A couple of people have mentioned a broader bezel on the GMT. I’m against that. It looks great as it is and is in harmony with the rest of the watch. Make it broader and it will look like a diver, Heaven forfend!

Amor Vincit Omnia wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 4:47 pm A couple of people have mentioned a broader bezel on the GMT. I’m against that. It looks great as it is and is in harmony with the rest of the watch. Make it broader and it will look like a diver, Heaven forfend!

Agreed!

I have come to accept the Sealander GMT bezel, even though it is too thin for the style of GMT. It is what it is.

Therefore leave as is. After all if I want to wear the classically proportioned 40mm tool watch with GMT markings on the bezel I just wear another GMT.

Neil

nbg wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 5:22 pm After all if I want to wear the classically proportioned 40mm tool watch with GMT markings on the bezel I just wear another GMT.

Well if the brief is "Help design a watch that has customers reaching for others in their box", I think leave it as it is!

(Just in case it's not clear over the typed word - comment is meant entirely in jest!)

For what it's worth, I also agree that it's great in the current form (I wouldn't own two otherwise), but in my perfect world I think it could just get a little wider without getting to Rolex and/or diver proportions nor compromising the overall balance of the watch.

I only have the three-hander, I don’t own a C63 GMT. With respect to the GMT elements of the Sealander, whether office or flyer type, it makes no material difference to me. I have both, I use both, and switching between them doesn’t impact me negatively. It’s a teacup tempest on the level of a ghost date to me.

As for the bezel, I ought not weigh in - but I will. I don’t own a C63 GMT because I don’t like the look of the steel bezel. Proportions are fine to my eye. I’ve just never liked steel with stamped numbers. I won’t be buying one regardless of its size. And I already find a perfectly good GMT in my C60, or other choices - CW and beyond.

I presently own four Sealanders and wouldn't want to see any major changes to the design as I think it's already a great watch.

Like most things, the prices have crept up quite a bit over the last few years so maybe adding an entry level HAQ model with the ETA F06.412 movement would be an option. It's accurate to ±10 seconds per year, comes with a battery life of up to 8 years and would help bring the price down closer to the £500 mark.

I would love to see a 3,6,9 or 3,6,9,12 no date dial. I don't agree with it being too close of a copy to a certain luxury brand. Pretty much any style of watch can be compared to something that has come before as there are only so many variations of dial design that can be done.

If Sinn, Tudor, Farer, and any number of other brands can pull it off then so can CW. I have always wanted a 3, 6, 9 dial but have never found the perfect one. The ones I like are either too expensive for my budget (Rolex, Tudor) or a little too tool watch (Sinn.) CW are in a perfect segment of the market to pull off a perfect version at the right price. There's no reason they can't offer two dial versions of the Sealander to meet a wide range of tastes. Think Sinn 556 with its plain index and 3,6,9,12 versions.

My next suggestion is to make a Chronograph version alongside a three hander. A mechanical panda or reverse panda similar to the Valour would be great. As far as I can see, CW does not have a mechanical chronograh in its lineup at the moment, so what better time to add one again.

I’m new on the forum here, but I do have some thoughts. I have a Sealander 39 and I absolutely love it to pieces. But if I were to make any changes to it…
I would make a no date option for starters. Additionally I would make the 3,6,9 markers not arabics, but make them slightly wider for faster differentiation and orientation. Also I would make a J-Style (jubilee) bracelet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d like to see a proper bronze version, (not coated), and I’m a sucker for a Cali dial…

I'm also late to this thread. I own (and love) the '23 FLE and have owned a couple of GMTs (one sold which I now regret, one returned which I don't regret).

I'm also of the mind to please do minimal evolution rather than revolution. I think it's fantastic as it is. I just wish my FLE had better anti-magnetic qualities (yes this has been a problem for me at times though it was a bigger problem in a previous job, with my Kingfisher). I would like to own a titanium C63 at some point, so a (hardened) titanium GMT with orange GMT hand would probably be my perfect Sealander - and different enough to distinguish from my FLE and the other watches in my watch box. One stand-out feature of the FLE is obviously the dial and while the Sealander has had some great LE dial options I do like the thought of seasonal options too to expand the colour pallette or just a little more texture going on with some colours.

OllyW wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 11:54 amLike most things, the prices have crept up quite a bit over the last few years so maybe adding an entry level HAQ model with the ETA F06.412 movement would be an option. It's accurate to ±10 seconds per year, comes with a battery life of up to 8 years and would help bring the price down closer to the £500 mark.

And yes - in lieu of a proper GMT a HAQ would be superb in a Sealander to truely make it a grab-anytime GADA watch. (Also that would solve the anti-magenetism request! )

Lastly, as little changes to the main parts as possible (case/crystal) to help ensure the ability to support spare parts for as long as possible. I've moaned about this before with my Kingfisher but not even having replacement crystals for older models is not great for long term support and would be nice to see the company plan for their now better built models to be around for longer. (Maybe time for 60:60:60 - with the last 60 being the expected lifetime? )

Edit to fix typos and also to add the taper of 20-18 is spot on IMO; a 4mm taper on these watches’ bracelets is too extreme.

I wonder if there isn't room for a more conventional C63 Sealander Elite. Make it titanium for sure, give it an SW300-1 and lose the push button crown. How about debuting CW's first meteorite dial. Perhaps to could be the proper sized watch in the range at 42mm and if you want to go crazy how about using CW-003 too. The push button crown was always a better idea than a thing to use in practice. If you want to go crazy and keep the cycling theme then make it CW's first LHD watch. Lot's of possibilities.

Given what was accomplished with the Goodison at its price point, an engraved rehaut, perhaps that naked area could be used to host design features which would not fit other series with busier dials (c12, c65), or domed crystals or marked, rotating bezels?
Perhaps the digits on the chapter ring could be shifted outwards to be engraved on the rehaut for the three-hand version?

On the topic of hands, a revival of the C60 trident pro 600 Mk2 bulb & sword hand - a more sculpted version (faceted or curved, rather than flat - might rather suit a variant of the Sealander? It would probably need to be in a larger case (40/41 mm) to maintain balanced proportions.