Reply With QuoteThe 18's asymmetrical design, bead-blasted case and 300m rating would swing it for me - certainly worth the extra money. I'm not bothered about the lack of a date display, either 8)
Cheers
Stern
sorry I have to do this.... I am going to unload my TSAR for either a PRS17 or PRS18...
Not sure which one --- here are the "other" factors that I already have in the watchbox >
PRS5
MKII Stingray
MKII Seafighter
...and a few Seikos and Citizens
Thanks in advance....
john
The 18's asymmetrical design, bead-blasted case and 300m rating would swing it for me - certainly worth the extra money. I'm not bothered about the lack of a date display, either 8)
Cheers
Stern
PRS 18
-better size (imho)
-more waterresistant
-less polished
Sleep well tonight :D :D
i like the 17 but itīs a bit too small for my not so
big wrist. :wink:
the 18 would be my choice too.
I have an 18A because it think its the better of the two, may get a 17 as well though.. :shock:
The 5 and 18 make a nice pair with their asymmetric cases.
No comments on the 17 yet so I'll chime in. For me the size is perfect (I have small wrists). It sits very comfortably and never snags on anything. Works well with a variety of straps/bracelets. I've had mine on a Bond NATO and silicone rubber strap. Both work well but I prefer the silicone. Seen it on a lumpy and think it's a nice combo. It is definitely the most worn watch in my small collection due to it's comfort and versatility (and the grab & go convenience of quartz).
I don't have an 18 but it also looks quite nice, just different. You cannot make a bad choice here.
Rick
Either would be nice, but for me, the PRS-17A is a nice compliment to my larger watches (three vintage Seiko divers, a couple of 42+mm chronos, and recently, a MKII Stingray). It's also a much less commonly known mil design that the Type I. I have no qualms about wearing the 17, and my wrist size is in the normal range (7 3/4").
But at Eddie's price, why not just buy both? :wink:
I've had 3 PRS-18s and ended up selling them all because the bezel won't stay put. Might just be a problem for me but if it is a problem you've had with other watches it is something to think about. In all other respects its a great watch with particularly good lume.
I find that the 17s are smaller but feel tougher and in the automatic version offer something approaching perfection. A Sinn 815 on steroids :wink:
The 17's brushed case means that refinishing can be done at home with a fibreglass pen. In contrast I found the 18's case is quite scratch prone and when it is scratched you are stuck with it.
Two entirely different watches. I have both (well, the 17C), both on a Lumpy. I haven't had a problem with the bezel on the 18 that I haven't had on most other watches with bezels.
No problems with my PRS-18Q.
A great pick up and go tool watch.
I have a 17Q and an 18A. I had two 17As before that too.
The 18, especially in auto form, is staggeringly good value in my opinion. If you are coming from a TSAR, you will find the height OK too - which is about the only thing wrong with it IMHO. The ratio of height to diameter, plus the lug positioning, makes it sit pretty high on the wrist. Nowhere near as high as the TSAR through, which I have also had. The bezel on mine is nice and tight and stays put and the lume is excellent.
The 17 is smaller and a good deal thinner, which makes it great as a no-snagging rough work watch. The Q version is the grab-and-go choice in my collection and probably gets more wrist time than any of my others. I have a 7 3/4" wrist and do not find it too small. Put it on a NATO and think field watch (i.e. G10 replacement) rather than diver and it works perfectly.
We must have pictures, of course :D :
This back view and side view give you an idea of the thickness of the 17Q. It sits very comfortably on the wrist.
Rick
The 18 would be my choice, and I would add that my bezel is nice and stiff. great lume, vintage styling, blasted case etc.
I think it has more versatility
I have both and my 18A's bezel is very loose indeed. I think the 17 is much better as a field watch.
I went for the 17 :thumbright:
It looks good on a bracelet......
......or a NATO.......
......and fits an 8" wrist ok:
Cheers :)
I think you are all correct.... both are ideal and should be added.
But I will more than likely add 17Q first..
My thought is to go with a Yobokies Anvil though -- he just emailed me and has found sterile (non Seiko) clasps.
I'm having the same conflict, erring on the side of the 18. The blasted asymmetric case and lack of date swinging it for me at the moment. Having said that the date window on the 17's very subtle.......
Posting Permissions
