Is it worth spending £215 on a CWL C3SWT


when you can get this Seiko for £100 less.

well that's a question only you can answer, do you like the looks of the C3 a £100's worth more than the Seiko, cos you know the Seiko will be pretty much faultless at its pricepoint!

About the only thing I like better on the Seiko is the hands, so for me, I think the answer is yes.

The 2 layered dial and raised numbers give it a much more expensive look.

, this is all a bit pointless though. Tyke will know his answer as soon as he looks at the watches , you can never persuade someone that one thing looks better than another thing. There is no objective material reason to spend the extra cash, so it's an aesthetic / emotional question.

I like both but for me the seiko is sportier and the C3 is classier so I could make a case for either. I will probably end up with a C3 because it's a 'want' not a need, but if I just needed one it would have been the Seiko

Actually saw that Seiko in Ernest Jones in Chichester yesterday, it's a nice looking watch in the flesh, pity it's a quartz!

For what it's worth, I prefer the layout of the subdials on the C3 and the fact that it looks less busy and crowded than the Seiko - a bit more stylish and elegant if that's what you want.

Beater or Non Beater??

Soon2BSoylent wrote:Beater or Non Beater??

good point!

C3 for me. Used to have one just like the one you have put up and it was very classy, the tan strap looked great.

Maybe one day CWL will make an automatic C30, now that would be nice.

Seiko's make great beaters, was my choice for many years, until I caught the disease.

course not all Seikos are 'beaters'

Love that dial, highway!

highway62 wrote:course not all Seikos are 'beaters'

That is a stunner! A "Cocktail Time"?

This was my old Seiko beater (6139 8020)

EDIT: I forgot to add its was fully working and less than £100, 70's style - priceless.