C65 Super Compressor

Discuss Christopher Ward watches
Post Reply
brash47
Senior
Senior
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:08 am

C65 Super Compressor

Post by brash47 »

So its posted now.

https://www.christopherward.com/retro-d ... K0-B0.html

I thinks it's a good looking watch. The confusion for me is the depth rating. As a super compressor, with its compressor spring, I would have expected a tank and a very deep depth rating.

150m? Again, good looking watch, but an interesting choice of depth.....thats just my opinion.

I guess since its a C65, more retro, it fits? And with the C60 Lympstone released at the same time, I can see why its not such a tank. But still....

Thoughts?

Brash

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk



User avatar
rkovars
Senior
Senior
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 7:56 pm
CW-watches: 2
Location: New England, US

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by rkovars »

I guess they wanted to keep things in line with the rest of the C65 line. I would have thought 300m wouldn't have been out of line. It wouldn't surprise me if the actual rating is much higher than the spec'd rating.
Current CW = C65 Trident Vintage GMT, C65 Dartmouth

In Review: C60 Trident Ombre COSC LE

2 More CW's on the short list!

Commisar
Senior
Senior
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 3:24 am

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by Commisar »

brash47 wrote:So its posted now.

https://www.christopherward.com/retro-d ... K0-B0.html

I thinks it's a good looking watch. The confusion for me is the depth rating. As a super compressor, with its compressor spring, I would have expected a tank and a very deep depth rating.

150m? Again, good looking watch, but an interesting choice of depth.....thats just my opinion.

I guess since its a C65, more retro, it fits? And with the C60 Lympstone released at the same time, I can see why its not such a tank. But still....

Thoughts?

Brash

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
Man it looks OUTSTANDING, especially with the blue dial

The 150m WR rating is a bit odd, thought I'm guessing this is more of a complement to the C65 than the C60.

That being said, 150m is enough for swimming and snorkeling, thought maybe not diving, so you can still comfortably swim with it.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk


User avatar
nbg
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 8926
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 6:43 pm
CW-watches: 11
Location: UK

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by nbg »

My thoughts are 150m is more than enough for recreational diving! :)

Why are people obsessed by pointlessly excessive WR on a watch? :problem:

Neil
Other watch forums of interest:
TZ-UK

User avatar
H0rati0
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1504
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:49 am
CW-watches: 3
Location: Bayern

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by H0rati0 »

nbg wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:35 pm
My thoughts are 150m is more than enough for recreational diving! :)

Why are people obsessed by pointlessly excessive WR on a watch? :problem:

Neil
Agree totally.

The problem with CW (and many other manufacturers) issuing silly pessimistic guidelines leads to the impression that their WR ratings are not genuine, just marketing puff since they know that most people won't even wear their watch near water more then 3" deep.
"There is no beginning to enlightenment and no end to training" - Dogen Zenji (1200-1253)

willttqs
Senior Expert
Senior Expert
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:47 am

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by willttqs »

I like this! Where cw is and the blue looks great to me

Commisar
Senior
Senior
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 3:24 am

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by Commisar »

H0rati0 wrote:
nbg wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:35 pm
My thoughts are 150m is more than enough for recreational diving! :)

Why are people obsessed by pointlessly excessive WR on a watch? :problem:

Neil
Agree totally.

The problem with CW (and many other manufacturers) issuing silly pessimistic guidelines leads to the impression that their WR ratings are not genuine, just marketing puff since they know that most people won't even wear their watch near water more then 3" deep.
Yep

150m is over 300 FEET that's quite deep when you see it in person.

90% of divers never go lower than 90m or so

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk


Lavaine
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3296
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:45 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Alberta, Canada (The Great White North, eh!)

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by Lavaine »

Commisar wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:22 pm


Man it looks OUTSTANDING, especially with the blue dial

The 150m WR rating is a bit odd, thought I'm guessing this is more of a complement to the C65 than the C60.

That being said, 150m is enough for swimming and snorkeling, thought maybe not diving, so you can still comfortably swim with it.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk
The original Submariner and Fifty Fathoms were both 100m dive watches. You'll be fine diving with this.
2017 CW Forum "Darwin Award" winner.

Commisar
Senior
Senior
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 3:24 am

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by Commisar »

Lavaine wrote:
Commisar wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:22 pm


Man it looks OUTSTANDING, especially with the blue dial

The 150m WR rating is a bit odd, thought I'm guessing this is more of a complement to the C65 than the C60.

That being said, 150m is enough for swimming and snorkeling, thought maybe not diving, so you can still comfortably swim with it.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk
The original Submariner and Fifty Fathoms were both 100m dive watches. You'll be fine diving with this.
Exactly Image

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk


User avatar
rkovars
Senior
Senior
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 7:56 pm
CW-watches: 2
Location: New England, US

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by rkovars »

Commisar wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:35 pm
H0rati0 wrote:
nbg wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:35 pm
My thoughts are 150m is more than enough for recreational diving! :)

Why are people obsessed by pointlessly excessive WR on a watch? :problem:

Neil
Agree totally.

The problem with CW (and many other manufacturers) issuing silly pessimistic guidelines leads to the impression that their WR ratings are not genuine, just marketing puff since they know that most people won't even wear their watch near water more then 3" deep.
Yep

150m is over 300 FEET that's quite deep when you see it in person.

90% of divers never go lower than 90m or so

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk
I think you meant 90 feet there. 90 meters (~290 feet) is quite deep. On average, I would say most stay above 60 feet. After that you are getting into more serious territory. Beyond 130 you really need to know what you are doing.

In my experience, over engineering is better. Most modern dive watches are over engineered to what the rating on the dial says. So in general you should be okay. :thumbup:

Over the years I have had water ingress in watches that you wouldn't think it would ever happen to (think Rolex, Seiko etc - all were due to failures in the seals - not unscrewed crowns etc). I am sure this makes me overcompensate in the WR area. :problem:

Has CW ever stated that they pressure test each watch? Anything with the Diver mark is ISO and each individual watch is pressure tested. Many of the well known brands test every watch even though they aren't ISO. I'm just curious where CW falls on the topic.
Current CW = C65 Trident Vintage GMT, C65 Dartmouth

In Review: C60 Trident Ombre COSC LE

2 More CW's on the short list!

brash47
Senior
Senior
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:08 am

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by brash47 »

We went off track!!! well at least from my original question. So, 150m on a super compressor. II made my statement based on most of the "compressor style" watches I have seen in the recent past. Most have at least a 300m rating and are tanks. So after some comments made here, I decided to do some research!!!!!!!

This is interesting. 600ft. was a typical "Super Compressor"...or around 180m. So, we are close. The name denotes the style of case, which has the spring which presses the case back harder the deeper you go. So, alot of these "super compressor" watches we see made by other manufacturors are not true to the original design. They are just the case and alot of tech built into the case, but not the spring.

Over design on alot of mainstream brands is what adds to the mystique of these watches. I would say, and correcting myself in my original post. This watch meets the design specs of a "super compressor."

I will say this. I was confused with the depth rating at first just because of the case design and name. I have NEVER had an issue with 150m rating on any of my C65 watches. 150m is more than enough for anything besides going beyond, way beyond. I wear them in the shower sometimes, wash dishes, swim, etc. A 150m rated watch is just fine for just about anything.

Brash

Lavaine
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3296
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:45 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Alberta, Canada (The Great White North, eh!)

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by Lavaine »

brash47 wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:08 pm
We went off track!!! well at least from my original question. So, 150m on a super compressor. II made my statement based on most of the "compressor style" watches I have seen in the recent past. Most have at least a 300m rating and are tanks. So after some comments made here, I decided to do some research!!!!!!!

This is interesting. 600ft. was a typical "Super Compressor"...or around 180m. So, we are close. The name denotes the style of case, which has the spring which presses the case back harder the deeper you go. So, alot of these "super compressor" watches we see made by other manufacturors are not true to the original design. They are just the case and alot of tech built into the case, but not the spring.

Over design on alot of mainstream brands is what adds to the mystique of these watches. I would say, and correcting myself in my original post. This watch meets the design specs of a "super compressor."

I will say this. I was confused with the depth rating at first just because of the case design and name. I have NEVER had an issue with 150m rating on any of my C65 watches. 150m is more than enough for anything besides going beyond, way beyond. I wear them in the shower sometimes, wash dishes, swim, etc. A 150m rated watch is just fine for just about anything.

Brash
Brash,

I suspect the 150m rating may be a combination of meeting a specific thickness, and using an exhibition back. If CW had chosen a solid back this same watch could likely have exceeded 200m WR (maybe even 300m) with the same thickness. Glass needs to be thicker than steel to achieve the same depth rating. Personally, I think using the exhibition back to showcase the compressor spring was a VERY smart design choice, and one that will (hopefully) sell a lot of watches to fans of the original super compressor watches.
2017 CW Forum "Darwin Award" winner.

User avatar
Thermexman
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 5509
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:40 am
CW-watches: 1
Location: South West UK

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by Thermexman »

Placed an order at 4 pm and the watch was stated as being in stock. Just checked my order status and it’s showing as on pre-order!!!!
Funnily enough, 3 hrs later it’s still showing as in stock on the website?

What’s that all about?

5164501E-478B-446D-80EE-930BC6B8B565.jpeg
Attachments
95C75C4D-3273-4999-94B8-E82B56A0DD6C.png
Steve.

brash47
Senior
Senior
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:08 am

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by brash47 »

For some fun history, since I saw someone stating the Rolex and Blancpain specs...the first true dive watches with moveable bezel were the Blancpain and......Zodiac Sea Wolf...the subbie came a year later. The Zodiac had a rating of 10 atm. The Blancpain was 300 feet. Fun Facts!!!

brash

brash47
Senior
Senior
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:08 am

Re: C65 Super Compressor

Post by brash47 »

I agree, great move with the exhibition back. I love to see the tech on the inside. Especially since this one is showing true to the real design!

brash

Post Reply