Page 3 of 5

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:35 am
by mvlow
Amongst my collection I own four watches that could be used for diving, with the best lume being on my Seiko SKX. I don't dive, but if I were to do any serious diving I would use a modern digital dive computer. I have purchased all of my watches, based on want, not need, because I like the aesthetics. It is nice to have a 600m mechanical diver, should I want to wear it to the beach, but don't need 600m of water resistance.

I am retired now, but when I was in the military I always wore a cheap Casio, which had the benefit of being rugged, cheap, and tactical i.e. no lume to give my position away at night. If I needed to see the time at night, all I had to do was press a button and all was good. While working nights in law enforcement it was the same, a cheap digital watch that could take a hit and did not glow in the dark, unless I pressed a button to make it do so. Same thing when I was in search and rescue working at night in the mountains.

Anyway, I see the argument that watches advertised as divers watches should be able to be used as such, including the lume, but practically very few are used in those conditions nowadays. I don's see the C65 range as being true divers anyway, because they do not have screw down crowns and have 150m WR. I like my C65 GMT and my C65 Diver because IMHO they look great.

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:18 am
by Bugster87
I’m pretty happy with the lume of my GMT. It’s not the greatest but that’s the pay off for the slim hands, narrow markers and aged lume look. It’s very aesthetically pleasing to me (I even the logo at 9 on this).

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:06 am
by H0rati0
Mobile phones are the Devil's spawn. I ain't connected to propaganda and advertising or at beck and call - a phone's for my convenience if and when I choose.

A watch should be fit for purpose and that includes lume if fitted. Otherwise, why bother?

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:37 am
by TigerChris
H0rati0 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:06 am
Mobile phones are the Devil's spawn. I ain't connected to propaganda and advertising or at beck and call - a phone's for my convenience if and when I choose.

A watch should be fit for purpose and that includes lume if fitted. Otherwise, why bother?
Now there speaks a man with sense =D>

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:34 am
by Willf
I wonder what they think on mobile phone forums!?
Anyway Iooks as though we think in general the lume should be better than this, at least have a reasonable amount of usability.
As in my original review it’s otherwise a fantastic watch in build, style, looks and accuracy.
I’m waiting to see what CW say themselves re lume!
I could always get one of those 60/70’s re lumed Tissots/omegas/rados etc that were on eBay!! I wouldn’t have my front door painted whoever does those!

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:06 am
by 0uatiOW
Willf wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:25 am
The irony of the mobile phone as a counter argument on a watch forum and thread about what's reasonble to expect of a $1000 dive watch is hilarious really.
+1.

A phone isn’t a watch. At the risk of generalising, none of us needs a watch, but most of us on this forum have them (usually more than 1!) because we marvel at their beauty and function. A watch needs to be functionally adequate. Let’s not drive the poor chap away because he has a point to make not shared by everyone.

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:53 am
by Willf
0uatiOW wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:06 am
Willf wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:25 am
The irony of the mobile phone as a counter argument on a watch forum and thread about what's reasonble to expect of a $1000 dive watch is hilarious really.
+1.

A phone isn’t a watch. At the risk of generalising, none of us needs a watch, but most of us on this forum have them (usually more than 1!) because we marvel at their beauty and function. A watch needs to be functionally adequate. Let’s not drive the poor chap away because he has a point to make not shared by everyone.
Thank you!!

But I think almost all do agree with me especially those who have to use there mobiles in the dark!

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:03 am
by StrappedUp
As a fellow owner of the GMT, I'd agree with you that the legebility of the lume is pretty poor.

If it could be made better by 'stronger' application, I'd be all for that, but I wouldn't change to a different colour lume to get longer brightness as I love the aesthetics as they are.
And as I'm looking at it 99% of the time in decent lighting, that concerns me more.

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:30 am
by Bugster87
StrappedUp wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:03 am
As a fellow owner of the GMT, I'd agree with you that the legebility of the lume is pretty poor.

If it could be made better by 'stronger' application, I'd be all for that, but I wouldn't change to a different colour lume to get longer brightness as I love the aesthetics as they are.
And as I'm looking at it 99% of the time in decent lighting, that concerns me more.
I agree. If it could be better then fine but not at the cost of changing the look. It’s not that important to me.

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:21 pm
by Bounce
Willf wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:02 am
Essex Paul wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:15 pm
Willf wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:04 pm


Spot on!
Oh very dear.
I too use a phone for calls and a watch for time.
My very point was that if dark and I couldn’t see my watch I’d use my phone.
Or should I just stop someone and ask them the time?
If you really need a lume then a higher end watch like a Rolex would we be better?
I wear a watch for time telling, good looks and enjoy wearing a mechanical marvel on my wrist.
:shock:
Spot on? Not really eh?
Oh dear dear!!
Well it is really. Check out my original posting and you'll see I have a Rolex Sub amoungst others.
Doesn't matter what your personal leasure activities are a dive watch at this price point should be legible. The feature should work.
In fact the lume on this C65 Trident GMT is no better than that of an Invicta 8926ob I use for gardening etc..
And tat in my opinion IS JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
I really do agree, a diving watch should be legible in the dark.
I would be really disappointed if I bought this watch & the lume was as bad as you are suggesting, so it is one model I probably won't consider now.
I also don't take a phone to bed with me.

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:21 pm
by Essex Paul
Willf wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:25 am
The irony of the mobile phone as a counter argument on a watch forum and thread about what's reasonble to expect of a $1000 dive watch is hilarious really.
😴

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:51 pm
by Caller
smegwina wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:53 pm
Caller wrote:Well, I'm on my hols at the mo and I use my watches in the night to check the time, so yes, I use a lume. Same as when I am at home, I don't use a clock.
Fair enough. I don't wear a watch at night so that wouldn't be an issue for me, and everywhere else I do tend to use clocks.

Good to see that it is not wasted then! :)

Sent from my Redmi Note 6 Pro using Tapatalk
Like Gaf, I line 'em up on my bedside table, I never wear a watch in bed. No need to worry about a clock when you have a good lume. And CW don't and never really have had a good lume. I remember before they improved it to what is now on the Trident, that they seemed shocked to learn what members here thought about the original lume and then much discussion took place about what they would use in future, which was going to be the bees knees. I think they must have got conned.

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:16 am
by albionphoto
H0rati0 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:06 am
Mobile phones are the Devil's spawn. I ain't connected to propaganda and advertising or at beck and call - a phone's for my convenience if and when I choose.

A watch should be fit for purpose and that includes lume if fitted. Otherwise, why bother?
Definitely a man of exquisite good sense.

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:40 am
by nauf
Willf wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:34 am
I wonder what they think on mobile phone forums!?
Anyway Iooks as though we think in general the lume should be better than this, at least have a reasonable amount of usability.
As in my original review it’s otherwise a fantastic watch in build, style, looks and accuracy.
I’m waiting to see what CW say themselves re lume!
I could always get one of those 60/70’s re lumed Tissots/omegas/rados etc that were on eBay!! I wouldn’t have my front door painted whoever does those!
How long the lume on your Rolex Sub last? It would be good if you could make it as a benchmark in your conversation with CW support team for continual quality improvement purpose.

Niz

Re: CW lume quality and C65 Trident GMT

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:37 am
by panamavin
I for one am in the camp of needing lume at night. I usually wear my watch to bed or keep it on the night stand. I don’t like fooling with my phone in case I change my alarm or knock it off and can’t hear my alarm. So I use my watch to tell the time if I get up. And I travel quite a bit so I definitely use it on the road as well. Bottom line for me I could care less about 600m depth rating but decent lume is necessary.