MWC Divers

[RTH]

No one will let me drop this one so currently the answer is yes but that was not my intention.

You're a bit of a one-issue poster, aren't you? :|

There are many threads to which you could contribute. As it is, you seem a bit like a shill - not, of course, that you are.

[JOHNTY]

As a lawyer I tend to pursue a point to its conclusion but in closing I will say that MWC and CWC are their own worst enemies. An example is that the domain mwcwatch.co.uk is owned by Silvermans this just fans the fire! Below is the whois info. I do not propose to post futher.

REGISTRY WHOIS FOR MWCWATCH.CO.UK
Name.com Rapid Blog Mask
Domain Search:

Updated: 1 second ago
Refresh

Domain name:
mwcwatch.co.uk

Registrant:
silvermans ltd

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Registrar:
Webfusion Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG]
URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 16-Dec-2002
Renewal date: 16-Dec-2010
Last updated: 07-Jan-2009

Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.

Name servers:
ns.hosteurope.com
ns2.hosteurope.com

WHOIS lookup made at 23:20:12 06-May-2010

--
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2010.

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.org.uk/whois, which
includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

Information Updated: Thu, 6 May 2010 22:20:12 UTC

No one will let me drop this one so currently the answer is yes but that was not my intention.

You're a bit of a one-issue poster, aren't you? :|

There are many threads to which you could contribute. As it is, you seem a bit like a shill - not, of course, that you are.

[burnsey66]

I do not propose to post further.

Thank feck for that

[soapy]

I do not propose to post further.

could you post some photos of your watches please?

[Dibetu]

As a lawyer I tend to pursue a point to its conclusion but in closing.

So you represent MWC then? I think its time for your closing argument:Come out and tell the truth. If not, it seems to me that you possess a rather common trait of some people in your profession: Not liking or not wanting to hear the truth and twisting facts and opinions of people who have personally owned and witnessed a MWC timepiece. Why on earth do you think that people who owned them here like me dismiss them? If they were such good timepieces at such fantastic value we would all be wearing them and probably own whole collections of them. But this is not the case at all. At the end of the day its value for money that counts and makes people buy and buy more. But from the posts here the big majority don't want to be associated with MWC. I made the mistake of buying once and never again :wink:

[JOHNTY]

Final Remarks. Hopefully!

1. I don't represent MWC
2. Whatever anyone says it does not explain the nearly 7000 positive feedback of exexsec on eBay who seems to have access to vast numbers of MWC's but is also Swiss based (around 100km from MWC) so I presume must bug any surplus production.
3. I have reluctantly suggested to MWC they run the water resistance test's mentioned earlier comparing CWC and MWC G10s directly. I also suggested they run general tests but received no confirmation either way but I am sure it is inevitable.
4. You cannot dispute the report posted earlier which was written by a member of the British Horological Institute. Trevor Rowell obtained that to counter the argument we have now!

I believe comparison tests are the way to go with a comparison of like for like. For example you can't compare a G10A from MWC to a GS2000 from CWC it has to be a G10BH as opposed to the G10A which is a budget model. I had hoped the whole isue here would just die because I don't think testing CWC against MWC is a good idea for two reasons, firstly they will push positive results everywhere and use them to increase market share over CWC, secondly any models that don't do well would (in my opinion) be likely to be replaced with new model made specifically to beat the CWC opposite number.

When I went to the MWC offices in Zurich I saw numerous models that are not available fort purchase that I much prefer to some of the current models. I am aware from what they said (and the fact I was permitted to buy a sample) that a radically higher spec G10 is due within weeks and I don't want to publish the details here because I agreed I would not do so but it is much higher spec than anything else. As far as the other models it is anyones guess what they might do but from what I saw I am guessing the current chronographs days are numbered but again I am in no position to comment officially.

There are a number of MWC vs CWC tests at http://military-watches.net/ but I see no reference to these on MWC's site although they are positive to both CWC and MWC.

Hopefully this thread can die because bit by bit it is dragging up all the old references that I have heard before but I am not happy at being accused of posting for MWC when I am simply a collector who has raised arguments that I see as valid such as pointing out the reasons why the MWC G10 Self Luminous is in no way even vaguely similar to a CWC on asccount of its PVD finish and Tritium light sources.

As a lawyer I tend to pursue a point to its conclusion but in closing.

So you represent MWC then? I think its time for your closing argument:Come out and tell the truth. If not, it seems to me that you possess a rather common trait of some people in your profession: Not liking or not wanting to hear the truth and twisting facts and opinions of people who have personally owned and witnessed a MWC timepiece. Why on earth do you think that people who owned them here like me dismiss them? If they were such good timepieces at such fantastic value we would all be wearing them and probably own whole collections of them. But this is not the case at all. At the end of the day its value for money that counts and makes people buy and buy more. But from the posts here the big majority don't want to be associated with MWC. I made the mistake of buying once and never again :wink:

[soapy]

im loosing the will to live :roll:


show us your watches please....

[burnsey66]

im loosing the will to live :roll:


show us your watches please....

He's only got knackered copy military ones which don't work very well, so not a chance :lol:

[JOHNTY]

I hope you are not referring to my CWC's I mentioned earlier!

im loosing the will to live :roll:


show us your watches please....

He's only got knackered copy military ones which don't work very well, so not a chance :lol:

[soapy]

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 4:57 pm
Last visited: Fri May 07, 2010 9:59 am
Total posts: 19
[0.00% of all posts / 6.33 posts per day]
Search user’s posts
Most active forum: Watch Talk
[ 19 Posts / 100.00% of user’s posts ]
Most active topic: MWC Divers
[ 19 Posts / 100.00% of user’s posts ]

[JOHNTY]

Thanks for pointing that out. I obviously was not expecting this to go on and on but if everyone keeps posting replies what can I do? My preference is to let it die and I can start posting about something else. As a point of interest where can I see those stats on other members postings?

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 4:57 pm
Last visited: Fri May 07, 2010 9:59 am
Total posts: 19
[0.00% of all posts / 6.33 posts per day]
Search user’s posts
Most active forum: Watch Talk
[ 19 Posts / 100.00% of user’s posts ]
Most active topic: MWC Divers
[ 19 Posts / 100.00% of user’s posts ]

[burnsey66]

Johnty,

You are the OP, so must let it die or continue.

All points have been raised and answered and raised again.

Or are you really aiming for 50 posts on this thread and then putting your MWC's on Sales Corner :hello1: :hello1: :hello1:

I for one have visited this post for the very last time

[Ivor the Engine]

As a lawyer I tend to pursue a point to its conclusion but in closing.

But from the posts here the big majority don't want to be associated with MWC. I made the mistake of buying once and never again :wink:

Looks like I'm in good company, then.

For info: I was the OP. :)

Sorry. :wink:

[Dapper]

My father who is in the jewellry trade says that in his opinion perspex limits water resistance and as MWC use glass going up against CWC who use perspex regarding water resistance ratings would play right into their hands and short of CWC going for a redesign they would have a major issue on their hands.

Good design actually demands the use of a acrylic crystal for water resistance. Under external pressure, the acrylic crystal deforms microscopically and forces itself tighter into the case; using mineral or sapphire glass would not afford that :wink: