New "GMT" Diver from Ball - has it got everything?

Just saw this pre-order from Ball:

https://shop.ballwatch.ch/en/rmv

https://d23pdvlemoiqdt.cloudfront.ne...1-1920x905.jpg

40mm, COSC in-house movement (not sure exactly how "in-house" it is, but even so...), 200m WR, titanium case, Tritium tubes, Dual 12hr time with quick set, Day-Date, Day/Night indicator, Pepsi bezel option, blue dial option.

...and £1830 including VAT.

It's looking extremely tempting for me as a travel watch.

The only thing that gives me pause is that the quickset hour changes the skeleton hour hand, not the solid one, which means that the "local" time is the skeleton hand.
This seems wrong to me - when I'm travelling, the hour hand I refer to most is the local one, and that's the one I want to see most quickly. So I'd prefer that the quickset change the silver hour hand.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

It’s got everything apart from looks.

Fair enough, I've never really liked the look of Balls before either ;)

This one does seem to just about overcome the fugliness that they normally have though, and the practicality would make it a great travel watch for me. At 40mm it's less in your face than most of their designs.

I rather like most of this and the feature set and price in excellent. My only reservation is the size and font of the numerals on the dial. They’re too big and there’s even less need for 6 and 12 to be even bigger. It matters because you’ve got upto 4 hands obscuring a part of a numeral at any one time and it makes it looks a bit messy. Otherwise there’s a lot to like.

That is one ugly dial! Specs are good though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisparker

It’s got everything apart from looks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fordy964

I rather like most of this and the feature set and price in excellent. My only reservation is the size and font of the numerals on the dial. They’re too big and there’s even less need for 6 and 12 to be even bigger. It matters because you’ve got upto 4 hands obscuring a part of a numeral at any one time and it makes it looks a bit messy. Otherwise there’s a lot to like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domwells

That is one ugly dial! Specs are good though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

---

What they said,

I quite like it. I posted before about the railmaster marine GMT which is also quite similar, with titanium and 40mm too. They definitely have been coming up with interesting watches but just not enough for me to pull the trigger just yet. I'll have to wait to see one in person but not likely since they are online only nowadays.

The font I'm afraid is marmite. It is the Ball style now and I do wish they were a bit less obtrusive.

its definitely got things, but to me it looks like an unappealing hodgepodge of stuff littered everywhere.
Sorry.

Definitely well spec’d up but absolutely fugly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfCheese

It's looking extremely tempting for me as a travel watch.

...This seems wrong to me - when I'm travelling, the hour hand I refer to most is the local one, and that's the one I want to see most quickly. So I'd prefer that the quickset change the silver hour hand.

---

These two statements appear incompatible. Isn't the GMT feature the main element of a travel watch? If so, if it doesn't work how you want it, why bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingKitega

I quite like it. I posted before about the railmaster marine GMT which is also quite similar, with titanium and 40mm too. They definitely have been coming up with interesting watches but just not enough for me to pull the trigger just yet. I'll have to wait to see one in person but not likely since they are online only nowadays.

The font I'm afraid is marmite. It is the Ball style now and I do wish they were a bit less obtrusive.

---

I just had a quick google and the railmaster marine GMT you mention especially with the blue face is a really nice looking watch. The less cluttered dial helps a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sean

These two statements appear incompatible. Isn't the GMT feature the main element of a travel watch? If so, if it doesn't work how you want it, why bother?

---

You’re right, that’s why I haven’t placed an order yet.

I've always struggled with Ball as a brand. Yes, the lume system is very clever but I've never felt that the brand offers particularly good value. This model is far from pretty and yes it's well specc'd, but I can think of plenty of other GMTs I'd prefer to see on my wrist for that money. Alpina, for example, make a couple of nice diver-GMTs that are less than half the price and considerably easier on the eye.

SGR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisparker

It’s got everything apart from looks.

---

I knew someone would get there before me. That's got to be one of the ugliest watches I've seen this year.

titanium + tritium tubes don't age that well though.

after about 8 years the tritium lose a lot of their brightness and titanium marks up easy.

yes the marketing says tritium lasts forever blah blah but I have seen users pay hundreds to get them all replaced at about 8 years

It's also twice the price of a Voyager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xellos99

titanium + tritium tubes don't age that well though.

after about 8 years the tritium lose a lot of their brightness and titanium marks up easy.

yes the marketing says tritium lasts forever blah blah but I have seen users pay hundreds to get them all replaced at about 8 years

---

After about 12 years they are half the brightness they were originally. (Half life). This is still very bright compared to most luminova dialled watches once the initial brightness has died down and your eyes are dark adjusted. (
I have a few tritium tube watches that are 20+ years old and they are still readable at night.

I have never had a Ball watch but I have just had a Marathon CSAR return from service where the dial and hands were replaced for brand new, the lume is now quite literally nuclear :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number2

What they said,

---

+1, I was hoping it would look nice..

Personally I think this is a mess of a design.
It is titanium, but they use steel for the bezel. Why?
It has a trit tube dial, but luminova on the bezel numerals. If trit tubes are so good (and Ball are wedded to them, despite how ugly it makes the dial font), why Luminova? If luminova can be tolerated (it clearly can), why not use the trit tubes for linear indices, and luminova for the numerals, so saving yourself from all the ugliness?
I think large pushers like that would seem odd for a GMT, which is, by definition an infrequent task. Why not use something like date pushers, which will not get pushed so easily.
I quite like the idea of a 12 hr GMT with day/night indicator, but why not make it a proper GMT?
And Day/date? That really throws the dial out.

Dave

ps - trit may not last, but Titanium does. I have a few Ti watches (EZM1, Tutima ZUZ, Pelagos). I have had them all for several years. None of them mark up, at all, and certainly no more easily than Steel ones.

another release using the pepsi colours, feels like alot are coming out recently or is it just me??

Whilst it might actually be silent, it looks like the one of the LOUDEST watches I've ever seen! And people slag Invicta off for lacking subtlety!

Great specs , poor looks .

That dial looks horrific!
What is it with all the text under the Ball logo...although 40mm size I fear the dial itself is also too small and congested.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

The dial is terribly cluttered underneath the 12 marker.

Sorry but IMO about £1500.00 overpriced sometimes less is more.

My goodness this is so vulgar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On a second look (with sunglasses), I guess it'd look OK without the numbers - they are far too big, making the dial look too crowded, and in an ugly font. If it just had markers instead, it'd be OK (as I like somewhat vulgar styles!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrGrumpy

On a second look (with sunglasses), I guess it'd look OK without the numbers - they are far too big, making the dial look too crowded, and in an ugly font. If it just had markers instead, it'd be OK (as I like somewhat vulgar styles!)

---

Agreed - they are just wrong

As, has been said, the dial looks too busy. I much preferred their previous gmt:

https://www.watchshop.com/mens-ball-...p99970373.html

A much cleaner dial with good specs.

:eagerness:

Well specced but blimey that's s crowded dial

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk

Agreed, it’s definitely not a handsome watch :)

I feel I should explain my rationale, given the torrent of disdain that it’s attracted :D

I travel long haul a lot, and I have a Rolex GMT that’s perfect for the job.

However, on planes and in hotel rooms in the middle if the night it’s too dark to read a normal dial and sometimes I literally have no idea what the time is.

So I have a marathon navigator that i switch to in the middle of flights and at night in hotels. The tritium is invaluable.

All of that’s a bit of a faff, so I thought a gmt with tritium would be a good option.

The Ball ticks all those boxes.

These days I have far too many watches, so before I buy anything I ask myself if I’d realistically pick it out of the box in favour of one of my favourites (the GMT is my no.1 favourite). Sadly that Ball doesn’t tick that box.

So it’s a no.

But it was a fun discussion :)

(Also, resale value on TZ would clearly be an issue, so you’d want to be *really* confident that it’s a keeper :D )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfCheese

Agreed, it’s definitely not a handsome watch :)

I feel I should explain my rationale, given the torrent of disdain that it’s attracted :D

I travel long haul a lot, and I have a Rolex GMT that’s perfect for the job.

However, on planes and in hotel rooms in the middle if the night it’s too dark to read a normal dial and sometimes I literally have no idea what the time is.

So I have a marathon navigator that i switch to in the middle of flights and at night in hotels. The tritium is invaluable.

All of that’s a bit of a faff, so I thought a gmt with tritium would be a good option.

The Ball ticks all those boxes.

These days I have far too many watches, so before I buy anything I ask myself if I’d realistically pick it out of the box in favour of one of my favourites (the GMT is my no.1 favourite). Sadly that Ball doesn’t tick that box.

So it’s a no.

But it was a fun discussion :)

(Also, resale value on TZ would clearly be an issue, so you’d want to be *really* confident that it’s a keeper :D )

---

Well reasoned and like you I do like a GMT watch with good lume. Have you checked out the Timex Allied 3 GMT watch? It's got indiglo and so cheap you won't worry about value retention. 42mm and blnr lookalike bezel though.. and of course it's a quartz.

Oversized numerals on both dial and bezel just add to the eye clutter unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisparker

It’s got everything apart from looks.

---

Get off the fence :eagerness::eagerness::eagerness:



B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingKitega

Well reasoned and like you I do like a GMT watch with good lume. Have you checked out the Timex Allied 3 GMT watch? It's got indiglo and so cheap you won't worry about value retention. 42mm and blnr lookalike bezel though.. and of course it's a quartz.

---

Strangely I don't get on with Indiglo. I wear glasses and without them on (as usual in the middle of the night ;) ) I find them very hard to read. For some reason I find tritium tubes by far the most legible.

Isn't ball now just another micro brand? Feels like it...

I'm a bit annoyed now because when I pre-ordered in July, the confirmation email said delivery would be November/December. I just noticed on the Ball wesite, that delivery will now be March/April 2020. You'd have thought that they would let me know abd I bet it will end up being even later??

Not to my taste although they have had some fine ones


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfCheese

J
...and £1830 including VAT....
It's looking extremely tempting for me as a travel watch.

The only thing that gives me pause is that the quickset hour changes the skeleton hour hand, not the solid one, which means that the "local" time is the skeleton hand.
This seems wrong to me - when I'm travelling, the hour hand I refer to most is the local one, and that's the one I want to see most quickly. So I'd prefer that the quickset change the silver hour hand.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

---

For £1830 you could get one of a number of used but VGC Omega or Seiko GMT models, which would have the proper "travel" GMT functionality. That is, the GMT hand stays set on the 2nd time zone time and the "local" time is displayed by the normal hour hand. In fact, if you don't need the GMT hand, you could get a nice Omega Seamaster Quartz (I'd choose the 2264 model I have), with fantastic SL lume which will light your way to the bathroom at night, last all night, and has the quickset hour hand, for around £1200. Personally, I'd go for one of those or a Seamaster 2234 for $2k- $2.5k in the US, so around your budget once shipped and duty paid.

https://www.omegawatches.com/media/c...22345000-l.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfCheese

Agreed, it’s definitely not a handsome watch :)

I feel I should explain my rationale, given the torrent of disdain that it’s attracted :D

I travel long haul a lot, and I have a Rolex GMT that’s perfect for the job.

However, on planes and in hotel rooms in the middle if the night it’s too dark to read a normal dial and sometimes I literally have no idea what the time is.

So I have a marathon navigator that i switch to in the middle of flights and at night in hotels. The tritium is invaluable.

All of that’s a bit of a faff, so I thought a gmt with tritium would be a good option.


The Ball ticks all those boxes.

These days I have far too many watches, so before I buy anything I ask myself if I’d realistically pick it out of the box in favour of one of my favourites (the GMT is my no.1 favourite). Sadly that Ball doesn’t tick that box.

So it’s a no.

But it was a fun discussion :)

(Also, resale value on TZ would clearly be an issue, so you’d want to be *really* confident that it’s a keeper :D )

---

try an omega X-33 MK2 which has a back lit dial and alarm designed for the cockpit of the space-shuttle and dual time. Ti too.

it is exactly those tubes that put me away from this brand and I don't need those oversize numbers crowd on the dial. The rest looks good to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by odyseus10

I'm a bit annoyed now because when I pre-ordered in July, the confirmation email said delivery would be November/December. I just noticed on the Ball wesite, that delivery will now be March/April 2020. You'd have thought that they would let me know abd I bet it will end up being even later??

---

Is this the Roadmaster Marine GMT? Was hoping to hear what you thought of it before year end as I wanted to snag one..

Well still no sign of my watch :(

I got an email a few weeks ago saying there was going to be a delay so I emailed back asking for my pre-order to be cancelled
But Ball refused!!
I was told by Florine (25th Nov) that I was now on their "priority" list and I would receive it in November/December.

I noticed on Watchuseek, that a lot of US customers have received their watches since the 18th December. I don't know how they got theirs so quickly, when I was told the watches are manufactured and shipped from Switzerland?

There seems little chance that I will receive my watch thus year so I'm basically pretty pi**ed off with Ball's customer service. I won't make a pre-order mistake again