hsukirk wrote:Much better size for small wrist but I was pleasantly surprised the difference it makes. Father thick case but just manageable for shirts without cufflinks.
Another comparison with another one hander.
No, I didn't buy it because it's out of stock. (I found it's interesting since I wanted to look it & mentioned I have voucher too use.) - Ordered online & used voucher.
Wrist shots please
I still can't make up my mind about the use of Arabic. More legible, but less smart looking I think and takes something away from the design somehow.
Tetlee wrote:I still can't make up my mind about the use of Arabic. More legible, but less smart looking I think and takes something away from the design somehow.
I'm with you on this. Much easier to read but less formal might be what I am seeking for. Would really like this 40mm one with roman numerals but I've learnt sometimes I cannot have it all.
Still await for its arrival but have not heard anything since.
welshlad wrote:Does anyone know the lug-to-lug size of the 40mm C9 case?...
It wears smaller than my Schauer which is 50mm so I would say around 46/47mm. Can clearly tell it's much shorter (the one shown in the middle).
welshlad wrote:Does anyone know the lug-to-lug size of the 40mm C9 case? The lugs look quite short (which would be good) but it may be an optical illusion.
My measurements show 47.94mm for lug to lug.
Kip
"Asylum Administrator"
Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
welshlad wrote:Does anyone know the lug-to-lug size of the 40mm C9 case? The lugs look quite short (which would be good) but it may be an optical illusion.
My measurements show 47.94mm for lug to lug.
That's encouraging! Thanks for doing the measuring Kip!
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. - Niels Bohr
I'm not sure if it's actually the dial design that's as responsible as the case for making it appear ever so slightly smaller, the case in those pics looks near identical in size to me(obviously they aren't) and certainly not 3mm different.
To be a pain, seeing as you've owned a Mk.1 in the past also, any chance of a similar wrist shot of the Mk.1(if you have one) to compare against the 40mm Mk.3?
hsukirk wrote:It in fact feels much smaller and look at the lug to lug. It's over-hang a bit for MKI/II. Plenty of space for 40mm.
MKI certainly feels smaller with busier design but the lug to lug is still too long to me.
Thanks hskierk, yes I can see what you mean about the lugs, but isn't it funny how the Mk.1 still appears the smallest. I'd kill for the Mk.1 in the new 40mm case, but I guess that's another story
MiniMpi wrote:Drooling at that JH MK1 photo........maybe for my 50th.
Certainly a special watch but not the easiest one to find.
On the pix, they might look the smallest but completely opposite in the flesh. I think the design of MKI is not as dressy. Newer 40mm case makes it a lot formal & might not work too well IMO. Smaller dial space may also make minute numerals stand out too much contracting the roman numeral disc. (I prefer batons on MK3 than MK1/2 having 2 different numerals.)
Am I right to assume CW will launch a limited edition JH MKIII in 40mm with roman numerals ? (I guess roman numerals are only reserved for limited run & best with blue minute hand.)
Hi Folks....not been here for a while as very busy.....this new MK3 has now "jumped" to the top of my "want one" list.....it has now come down to a size oi likes....and will fill my desire for both a single hand watch, and jump hour....so it makes it actually cheaper than buying two watches......
Now all I need is a cunning plan to get one.....past the "she who shall not be named!"
meds Kip...and fast....
Remember...your left hand has the thumb on the right hand side