Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Documentation and CW-related information
Post Reply
Jcalder68
Expert
Expert
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:00 pm
CW-watches: 6

Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Post by Jcalder68 » Mon May 06, 2019 10:35 pm

This post is in response to @StrappedUp who was asking how my new Trident compared to existing C65 Trident watches. To be fair I thought it best to compare between these two and my 38mm C60 Pro Vintage.

The following thoughts and comments are my own, personal opinion and observations; others may feel differently and I respect that.

Firstly, size. My M3, in its 40mm size, sits nicely between the C65 at 41mm and the C60 at 38mm. However, simple dimensions are not the film story; total thickness and lug-to-lug- measurements also have a big influence. Here are all three side by side:
DD38DAAD-C700-42AC-9DD4-F61D51FE64E6.jpeg
Below we can see how the case profiles have evolved. I find the C60, despite its smaller diameter, actually feels more top-heavy when worn especially when I wear it on a NATO. This is my habit during the warmer months. I think this partly due to its overall thickness, but also how the spring bar instillation holes are machined relatively low in the lugs. The lugs themselves are less curved than the C65 or the M3 and this also helps to make the watch wear bigger. In fact, the C60 is the only one of these three that does not always slide under my tighter fitted shirt cuffs, especially when on a NATO. Both the other two will do so comfortably
63B29084-869F-4FA4-B3E8-452BF8FBDF24.jpeg
C60 Pro 38mm side profile
198BB737-B332-463D-8388-F8F76F5C62CA.jpeg
M3 Trident 40mm side profile - sculpted look and more curved lugs give the illusion of a slimmer case and better wrap around the wrist.
1036523F-2967-4A8A-AEC4-D2B13679ED00.jpeg
At 1.5mm thinner, and a decent curve to the lugs, the C65 Diver has the slimmest profile of the three, and ability to wrap around the wrist in a less obtrusive manner than one might expect. The GMT version is 1mm thicker, but still sits smaller than I thought it might.

On the wrist the M3 is deceptive in that it wears and looks smaller than the basic diameter would suggest. I think this is partly due to the way that the case has been sculpted, has different finished applied and how the lugs curve down more then the C60. The bulge of the M3 caseback also (comfortably) buries itself deeper into my wrist when I wear it so it sits even lower than the C60. Of course, the C65 Diver sits lowest but that is because it is just thinner...
CF25CE68-42BA-4442-BE6B-900F5C0A43A8.jpeg
C60 Pro 38mm on the wrist
34A2A910-C40B-400A-BD41-5F966CDD82CA.jpeg
M3 Trident 40mm on the wrist
8FC01CB5-4370-45E4-B107-B122B230F807.jpeg
C65Diver on the wrist

Next is the dial layout. The C65 has a very slim bezel and relatively slender hour markers and numerals. On the other hand, both the C60 and M3 have more significant bezels and hour markers. This combination, along with the absence of a date window on the C65, makes the C65 dial appear bigger when viewed face on.

Overall, I find the 40mm Trident M3 to be far more evolved than its older version. It looks more refined, has the illusion of a slimmer profile and wears smaller on the wrist than it’s size suggests. Despite how the physical dimensions of the C65 indicate that it is a bigger watch I find that it wears smaller than suggested.

Hope this helps to all,

C
CW Watches (To Date): Trident M3 40mm, C60 Pro 300, C60 Pro 600 Vintage, C65 GMT, C65 Diver Auto, C65 Diver Manual
Others (To Date): Sinn 104, Seiko SNA411, G-Shock

User avatar
StrappedUp
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1512
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 2:14 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: South Wales

Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Post by StrappedUp » Mon May 06, 2019 10:48 pm

Above and beyond! Thank you very much kind Sir for your informative post :thumbup:
From the comparison picture of the 3, it gives me a good feeling that the 40mm would will be spot on :wink:

Now I just have to sit and wait for CW to serve up a GMT.
Ryan

User avatar
Bident
Expert
Expert
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:15 pm
CW-watches: 1
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Post by Bident » Tue May 07, 2019 1:18 am

C,

Very helpful! Many thanks for writing this up.

Quick question: do you know the thickness of your 38mm C60 Pro Vintage? Reading the specs on the 40mm Mk3 C60, it says thickness is 12.95mm. Your 38mm appears to be thicker, is that correct?
Best regards,
John

User avatar
H0rati0
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:49 am
CW-watches: 3
Location: Bayern

Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Post by H0rati0 » Tue May 07, 2019 1:31 am

Very informative. I will be keeping my Mk2 Trident, but it would seem to be definitely more tooly/chunky than either the Mk3 or C65. I fancy a GMT, but it won't be easy to decide between C65 and Mk3....
"There is no beginning to enlightenment and no end to training" - Dogen Zenji (1200-1253)

User avatar
jkbarnes
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:39 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Post by jkbarnes » Tue May 07, 2019 1:33 am

Great write up. Thanks for sharing. I’m a bit amazed at how different in the size the three different models look when side by side, especially the mk 3 and the C65. The 1mm difference is really noticeable.
Andrew

C65 Trident Vintage

Jcalder68
Expert
Expert
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:00 pm
CW-watches: 6

Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Post by Jcalder68 » Tue May 07, 2019 9:21 pm

Thanks for the positive feedback everyone.

To answer some specific questions...

@Bident my M2 C60 Pro 38mm measures 0.12mm thinner than the M3. I dare not give specific measurements since my calliper jaws have Sellotape coverings to protect the watch when I measure them, but the difference between M2 and M3 is 0.12mm thinner to the M2. Saying that though, the M2 actually feels thicker when on the wrist; possibly due to its smaller footprint making it feel top-heavy, or the profile of its case back making it sit taller on the wrist, or the angle of the lugs.... Or a combination of all three. The only real way to compare it to try them I guess and see what fits you.

@jkbarnes yes, the size difference definitely looks significant, but I think this has a lot to do with the ratio of case size, dial diameter and bezel thickness. The bezel insert on my C65 measures just 2.3mm wide. However there is also a nearly invisible inner rim in stainless steel and then the curved edge profile of the crystal that both add invisible “width” to the watch face without actually adding material. In comparison, the bezel of the M3 measures almost exactly 4mm, there is no visible inner rim and the crystal has no noticeable edge thickness where it meets the bezel. The overall effect is to make the dial:case size ratio on the C65 appear much greater than the M3, and the watch itself look bigger. Clever optical illusions :-)

Hope this helps,

C
CW Watches (To Date): Trident M3 40mm, C60 Pro 300, C60 Pro 600 Vintage, C65 GMT, C65 Diver Auto, C65 Diver Manual
Others (To Date): Sinn 104, Seiko SNA411, G-Shock

User avatar
Bident
Expert
Expert
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:15 pm
CW-watches: 1
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Post by Bident » Tue May 07, 2019 10:17 pm

Jcalder68 wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 9:21 pm
Thanks for the positive feedback everyone.

To answer some specific questions...

@Bident my M2 C60 Pro 38mm measures 0.12mm thinner than the M3. I dare not give specific measurements since my calliper jaws have Sellotape coverings to protect the watch when I measure them, but the difference between M2 and M3 is 0.12mm thinner to the M2. Saying that though, the M2 actually feels thicker when on the wrist; possibly due to its smaller footprint making it feel top-heavy, or the profile of its case back making it sit taller on the wrist, or the angle of the lugs.... Or a combination of all three. The only real way to compare it to try them I guess and see what fits you.

@jkbarnes yes, the size difference definitely looks significant, but I think this has a lot to do with the ratio of case size, dial diameter and bezel thickness. The bezel insert on my C65 measures just 2.3mm wide. However there is also a nearly invisible inner rim in stainless steel and then the curved edge profile of the crystal that both add invisible “width” to the watch face without actually adding material. In comparison, the bezel of the M3 measures almost exactly 4mm, there is no visible inner rim and the crystal has no noticeable edge thickness where it meets the bezel. The overall effect is to make the dial:case size ratio on the C65 appear much greater than the M3, and the watch itself look bigger. Clever optical illusions :-)

Hope this helps,

C
:thumbup: I really appreciate all of your helpful information.
Best regards,
John

User avatar
watchaholic
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:28 am
CW-watches: 2
Location: NE North Dakota, USA

Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Post by watchaholic » Wed May 08, 2019 3:52 am

Some of you guys really do put forth a lot of time and effort in putting together these detailed reviews. Bravo, very informative. :clap:
Time is fleeting....happy hour, doubly so.

User avatar
jkbarnes
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:39 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?

Post by jkbarnes » Wed May 08, 2019 4:17 am

Jcalder68 wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 9:21 pm
Thanks for the positive feedback everyone.

To answer some specific questions...

@jkbarnes yes, the size difference definitely looks significant, but I think this has a lot to do with the ratio of case size, dial diameter and bezel thickness. The bezel insert on my C65 measures just 2.3mm wide. However there is also a nearly invisible inner rim in stainless steel and then the curved edge profile of the crystal that both add invisible “width” to the watch face without actually adding material. In comparison, the bezel of the M3 measures almost exactly 4mm, there is no visible inner rim and the crystal has no noticeable edge thickness where it meets the bezel. The overall effect is to make the dial:case size ratio on the C65 appear much greater than the M3, and the watch itself look bigger. Clever optical illusions :-)

Hope this helps,

C
It does indeed! Thanks for the insight.
Andrew

C65 Trident Vintage

Post Reply