mwc )cwc)prs 10 (again)

[bond]

Are MWC so bad that noone would purchase one? I was about to drop on a us pattern mkvi field watch. --Its a cheap plastic affair,mineral glass, 3atm w)r. It reminds me of a sandy 590 without the tubes. Would I be making a fatal mistake with this brand and this watch? I don't know I just don't know. A niggle tells me to not and play a safe bet with a prs 10 or a g10. Then I have the whole g10 vs prs 10 issue. -I know the prs10 hammers the g10 but I like the fixed bars, the lume, the even no date dial, the g10 apparently has spot on hits with the seconds hand to markers. Where as I have heard a few tales that the odd prs10's secponds hand do not quite hit the markers dead on. -Can anyone please help and give me. A definitive GET A PRS 10?

[analyst]

Personally, I am amazed at the comments one generally finds re MWC – usually, when CWC are referred to in the same or next sentence! I don’t care.

With an independent mind it is easy to conclude that MWC supply high quality / performing watches at a good price.

My experience is that MWC supply great watches and with the customer service level they have I now supply all the family with them;)

Now then, I can’t comment on the ‘us pattern mkvi field watch’ specifically, but generally, I wouldn’t hesitate if it is “doing it” for you.

All the best

[Laurent B]

Buy a CWC and not an MWC which is amho a fake military watch...

Buy a real Stocker & Yale and not an MWC which is absolutely not a military watch,

my two cents,

Laurent

[seikopath]

colin dont dont dont dont dont dont dont dont dont get a mwc. is that clear enough??

re the prs10 v cwc

the cwc's have a certain charm, a certain rugged honesty , a true tool watch etc etc bla bla bla yadda yadda , geniune pedigree etc

the 10 has the benefits of uprated spec, esp the screwed crown. slightly different , more refined look, nice silvered hands etc

its just a case of preference. ive had both . ...i prefer the cwc by a lambs neck because it has the better heritage,

have you seen this

http://www.watcharama.com/prs10.htm

[analyst]

Mmmm. See what I mean?!

Perhaps see http://www.mailboxcentres.com/MWC.html as well.

Then, forget getting excited about 'military' - especially, because ecodrive and others are being 'issued' to us in the UK at least.

And after that, don't forget it is what is inside that counts - you and your watch. I know what's inside all of my watches and I'm not disappointed.

Choose what you like the look of and that which you think will perform for you.

[Laurent B]

What can I see is that a CWC G10 have a reliable and large ETA 7 jewels movement and an MWC "G10" only a Ronda movement with barely no jewel...

Here a CWC movement, Swiss Made :



And here the poor MWC movement (sorry for the small picture) :

[Geralt]

...the 10 has the benefits of uprated spec, esp the screwed crown. slightly different , more refined look, nice silvered hands etc

its just a case of preference. ive had both . ...i prefer the cwc by a lambs neck because it has the better heritage...

This is a great summary and reflects my preference, too. The CWC also wins for me with its really excellent movement (< 1 sec/week), battery hatch and nice lume...

[2kilo]

With an independent mind it is easy to conclude that MWC supply high quality / performing watches at a good price.

My experience is that MWC supply great watches and with the customer service level they have I now supply all the family with them;)

Really, most reviews, comparisions showed low grade components compared to the cwc's, plus a willingness to mislead customers... I also know the site "http://www.military-watches.net/" and i swear it has been updated from mwc hater to lover...? A whole section on mwc's dubious past gone...? Seems like mwc have tried to reinvent themselves a bit, successfully... Maybe not...

[RABbit]

Personally, I am amazed at the comments one generally finds re MWC – usually, when CWC are referred to in the same or next sentence! I don’t care.

With an independent mind it is easy to conclude that MWC supply high quality / performing watches at a good price.

My experience is that MWC supply great watches and with the customer service level they have I now supply all the family with them;)

Now then, I can’t comment on the ‘us pattern mkvi field watch’ specifically, but generally, I wouldn’t hesitate if it is “doing it” for you.

All the best

Don't suppose you work for MWC, do you?

[seikopath]

^^theres only two reasons to reccommend the mwc over the cwc or prs10 to anyone, and one of those is ignorance

[aliasrichmond]

http://www.military-watches.net and http://www.mailboxcentres.com/MWC.html are both shill sites for MWC

[bubblehead]

Hi, I have the CWC auto RN diver, it's a great watch, the minute hand,dial markers and bezel markers line up perfectly. I am very pleased with the swiss 2284 movement and its a great daily tool watch for me. I am biased a little as I used these(quartz version)as a ships diver in the 80's. PRS are also extremely good quality. Forget wannabe's MWC. Pricy if bought new tho, try and get a 2nd hand one from here.Regards. Kev

[bond]

Well that pretty much sums it up for me. What a piddly inside the mwc g10 shows from the movement pic. Looks like the inside of Limit watch with the plastic inerds.

I must of read ewans report of the prs 10 (and all the rest excellent btw) a million times and he completely outlines what you say about the better spec. I'd also come across the mailbooxcentre reviews and what's amazing is the guy puts the mwc at the top, the prs 10 a second and the cwc last?!! I think he is been getting freebies from mwc ! That's why the reports glow.

I too have the heritage and affection to the cwc and can not believe I dallied over a deal with a tz member over one he had for sale. - I kept thinking ok ill get it and regret not paying the extra for the prs10. For all that extra SPEC.

Definitely wide berthing mwc though.

[bond]

Path,

What's the other reason beside ignorance lol?

[seikopath]

ive been giving it some thought why i prefer the cwc over the 10 . the cwc has slightly better proportions to my eye, i think this is becuase of the 20mil lugs on the 10. no doubt the 10 is a better watch on paper but the cwc just has so much charm....its hard to resist. its a bit like when you snogged that crosseyed bird at the school disco. some preferences are best left unexplained.

[seikopath]

Path,

What's the other reason beside ignorance lol?

bias

[2kilo]

Personally, I am amazed at the comments one generally finds re MWC – usually, when CWC are referred to in the same or next sentence! I don’t care.

With an independent mind it is easy to conclude that MWC supply high quality / performing watches at a good price.

My experience is that MWC supply great watches and with the customer service level they have I now supply all the family with them;)

Now then, I can’t comment on the ‘us pattern mkvi field watch’ specifically, but generally, I wouldn’t hesitate if it is “doing it” for you.

All the best

Don't suppose you work for MWC, do you?

my thoughts exactly...
"www.military-watches.net" seems dubious, the content is quite biased pointing people towards MWC while appearing independent... Original 2008 webpage here http://web.archive.org/web/200801150...About_CWC.html The whole website registration debate is silly, I guess silvermans bought the http://www.mwcwatch.co.uk domain to try and stop them...

I've been in Silvermans, bought from Richard [i think it was] and yes the price is high but the case finish and quality of my g10 is worth it... the second hand snaps exactly to the markers, good lume, etc...

[bond]

I agree it is a charmer and I'd have to be cross eyed to get a mwc g10.

[2kilo]

ive been giving it some thought why i prefer the cwc over the 10 . the cwc has slightly better proportions to my eye, i think this is becuase of the 20mil lugs on the 10. no doubt the 10 is a better watch on paper but the cwc just has so much charm....its hard to resist. its a bit like when you snogged that crosseyed bird at the school disco. some preferences are best left unexplained

have both, my only quibbles with the 10 are: the tension ring and hands are not bead blasted [harder to read] and the lume area on the hands is a little mean...
I do slightly prefer the satin finish on the CWC but the prs10's case is suited to purpose IMHO and ultra matte...

anyone swapped hand and ring to match the case yet....?

[seikopath]

by the way, welcome to the forum mr. analyst :lol: :wink:

[HappyJack]

My 1981 issued CWC Navigator is the only watch I'd never sell - it has personal memories for me - but even if it didn't there's something special about the CWC heritage and the fact that it's the real thing - most accessible issued equipment, with the same sort of heritage as a Rolex Milsub but at a gazillionth of the price. PRS-10 has a better spec; but a modern Seamaster Pro has a better spec than a Milsub, too, and I know which I'd prefer...

[seikopath]

same sort of heritage as a Rolex Milsub but at a gazillionth of the price

good point fats

[JOHNTY]

I tend to favour GTLS when it comes to divers watches and this limits me to the Marathon or the MWC both of which are fitted with Tritium vials. I had a Traser P6506 which was a great watch but just didn't look that great and the Marathon lost the triangle on the bezel which I heard was a problem at the time but is now solved. I don't think any watch is perefect but I have to say my CWC diver from 1996 was well built and lasted well until I sold it a few years back.

Hi, I have the CWC auto RN diver, it's a great watch, the minute hand,dial markers and bezel markers line up perfectly. I am very pleased with the swiss 2284 movement and its a great daily tool watch for me. I am biased a little as I used these(quartz version)as a ships diver in the 80's. PRS are also extremely good quality. Forget wannabe's MWC. Pricy if bought new tho, try and get a 2nd hand one from here.Regards. Kev

[xpatUSA]

And here the poor MWC movement (sorry for the small picture) :

Jeez, Laurent, that looks like a PC-22 - arguably the cheapest and most common quartz movement on our planet!!

I had an MWC for about a week until I found the word CH1NA on the movement in what was supposed to some sort of issued Australian forces watch

[Laurent B]

Hi Ted,

glad so see you here,

;)

I am persuaded that the story of MWC watches issued to Australia or South Africa forces are nothing more than "nuts"...

cheers,

Laurent

[JOHNTY]

I have seen this image on the web before and it is from a basic G10A which is under £30 on eBay so a basically cheap watch I am sure a similar movement must be used in the quartz Vietnam which is often available and around £22. I had my G10 100m checked and it was a Ronda 715li which has a 10 year battery life. The MWC Site actually states the movement on the 100m G10 is a Ronda 715li and the 50m models are Ronda 705/715. It is interesting that when I spoke to MWC they confirmed they have an issue with fakes see http://www.thewatchforum.co.uk/index.ph ... opic=67208 this watch might have an MWC caseback but they confirmed they had not made it and to play safe by only buying watches that appear on their site. I think it is a case of comparing like with like and you clesrly can't compare a basic G10A with a high spec G10 it would be like comparing a basic Toyota Corolla to a Lexus! I have added a pic of a PC22 it does not look the same to me.

And here the poor MWC movement (sorry for the small picture) :

Jeez, Laurent, that looks like a PC-22 - arguably the cheapest and most common quartz movement on our planet!!

I had an MWC for about a week until I found the word CH1NA on the movement in what was supposed to some sort of issued Australian forces watch

[Laurent B]

I do not think you can speak about MWC G10 watches,

the only G10 watches are the one issued by the DOD to the british army, eg, the CWC or the Pulsar,

MWC clearly are not G10...

that is very confusing...

[JOHNTY]

They do not claim to be MOD issue as far as I know but I was checking around the web generally and this review is interesting http://www.kitreviews.com/gps-watch/...wn-watch<br /> I found out a few days ago it can from AARSE at http://www.arrse.co.uk/content/790-a...own-watch.html

I do not think you can speak about MWC G10 watches,

the only G10 watches are the one issued by the DOD to the british army, eg, the CWC or the Pulsar,

MWC clearly are not G10...

that is very confusing...

[Laurent B]

Sorry but this is not a review, just teasing in order, one more time, to sell MWC rubbish...

[JOHNTY]

Really? As ex military myself I have always found http://www.arrse.co.uk/ very unbiased and have tended to give good advice see http://www.arrse.co.uk/content/section/ ... views.html you must be referring to the dealer using the AARSE review.

Sorry but this is not a review, just teasing in order, one more time, to sell MWC rubbish...

[2kilo]

I think mwc having done a good job of covering, obscuring, and confusing their past... Fake a mwc's, rubbish, they are just trying to hide/distance their first poor quality attempts at copying cwc..? The owners now wish to compete, maybe smell a MOD contract, and are combing over any online references/reviews pre 2008, using sock puppets, and shil sites, to clean up a reputation...

They could make the best military timepiece in the world, i still would not buy from such people...

[JOHNTY]

I am not sure how it can be said that MWC copy CWC because CWC do not make GTLS / Tritium watches nor screw case and screw crown G10 models or auto G10 models nor recreations of old designs such as the GG-W-113 which has no appeal to me but clearly does to some people. Personally I think the upgraded watches like the 100m G10 were a direct result of when they sold out to an Australian firm in 2009 clearly from that point a lot of money was invested in new models and the caseback marking were very different from that point if I compare a watch I bought in 2002 with one I bought last year. The G10 100m model I have from MWC is much bigger than my CWC by around 4mm and are nothing like my CWC model. Frankly as a collector of military watches I have to say that most of the MWC models share no resemblance to CWC take this one http://www.mwcwatches.com/product_in...bnpeq5788tkq06 or this one http://www.mwcwatches.com/product_in...bnpeq5788tkq06 saying that they are all copies of CWC is like saying the PRS-10 is a copy of a CWC which clearly it is not because in my opinion both the PRS-10 and MWC 100m are both superior to the CWC by far. I agree the G10A is not the best watch but it is a cheap model and whilst I agree it does not compare to a CWC then again it must be weighed against the fact it is a fraction of the price and you get what you pay for. Interestingly I was looking at an eBay seller who sells a lot of their watches and added up sales to see what he sold on any average week and based on going through the feedback and 3 or 4 different weeks in different months I figured he sells on average £8000 a month worth of watches each month so I am curious as to what their total sales are if one single dealer is moving £100.000 a year on his own.

[xpatUSA]

I don't find differences in the appearance nor the quality of watches as a big factor in "this company versus that company" debates. It's the immorality of the clear intent to deceive the public into thinking that the models are what they are not. Unlike our host, who makes "hommage" watches without trying to fool us into thinking they are issued, etc. As you can see above, I was fooled more than once when I first started. That's why, in a fit of pique, I sold my sterile-dialed Traser 6506 Titan Commander - arguably one the best P650 derivatives ever - just because it had "MIL-W-46374F" plastered all over the box.

MWC fooled me with their SBS model, Luminox fooled me with their Naval Seals crap and, when I bought the Zeno-USA "Explorer", I didn't even know about the Rolex original. These companies, like all, are after your money first and foremost. But they are just plain dishonest compared to the likes of Eddie.

So when I read about the finish of this "G10" versus that "G10", I go "so what?". My Stocker & Yale P650's are not the best of quality, with their loose bezels, dubious water resistance, and lack of a date window (even though the movement has a date function), but their market value keeps going up and up and up :D and, if one is on my wrist, it's the real thing not a pretender.

[JOHNTY]

I was looking at the caseback of the G10 at this URL http://www.mwcwatches.com/product_in...ucts_id=28</a> There are no dodgy markings etc on them so I can't see the point. As far as the P6506 I can't see the problem with the US MIL number because the watch is compliant just as Eddie has a legit NATO NSN number.

I don't find differences in the appearance nor the quality of watches as a big factor in "this company versus that company" debates. It's the immorality of the clear intent to deceive the public into thinking that the models are what they are not. Unlike our host, who makes "hommage" watches without trying to fool us into thinking they are issued, etc. As you can see above, I was fooled more than once when I first started. That's why, in a fit of pique, I sold my sterile-dialed Traser 6506 Titan Commander - arguably one the best P650 derivatives ever - just because it had "MIL-W-46374F" plastered all over the box.

MWC fooled me with their SBS model, Luminox fooled me with their Naval Seals crap and, when I bought the Zeno-USA "Explorer", I didn't even know about the Rolex original. These companies, like all, are after your money first and foremost. But they are just plain dishonest compared to the likes of Eddie.

So when I read about the finish of this "G10" versus that "G10", I go "so what?". My Stocker & Yale P650's are not the best of quality, with their loose bezels, dubious water resistance, and lack of a date window (even though the movement has a date function), but their market value keeps going up and up and up :D and, if one is on my wrist, it's the real thing not a pretender.

[Laurent B]

Another point is that CWC is making military watches since 1980, year of issue of their first thick case G10,

MWR has started to copy CWC since CWC started to gain some interest among watches collectors...

BTW, here the one I received yesterday,

nice RAF issue one !

enjoy

Laurent

[Laurent B]

;)

[2kilo]

I am not sure how it can be said that MWC copy CWC...

Frankly as a collector of military watches I have to say that most of the MWC models share no resemblance to CWC...

Last I looked at least half their stock copied CWC...while the rest ripped others or are homages....
I don't believe that adding a screw down crown, or a different movement, or changing the hands, or adding a PVD coat, stops a product being a copy / clone when it still resembles 90-99% of the original's design [especially to non WIS's]...?



it seems they may well have the produced for goverment contracts now, and some of their stock has improved in specification but they have gained a [past] reputation for misleading military claims, cheap components, shilling, sock muppets, etc, etc...

[bond]

Is this 'shilling' were supposed reviews of said watch just happens to openly and honestly favour the watch admirably?

What is a sock muppet? I just see sooty and sweep or a sock drawer with watches in!

[2kilo]

Is this 'shilling' were supposed reviews of said watch just happens to openly and honestly favour the watch admirably?

What is a sock muppet? I just see sooty and sweep or a sock drawer with watches in!

"A shill, plant or stooge is a person who helps a person or organization without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with that person or organization"
"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception"

OLD MWC [info gathered from web so i cannot vouch for it but it seems to be the general theme...]
-founded 2 years later than CWC
-used the same oval logo as CWC until sued
-sold cheaper copies of the G10 which had quality issues
-sold cheaper copies of the RN diver which had quality issues
-implied they had a British MOD contract when they did not
-claimed to have been faked but more likely distancing themselves from poor manufacture
-stated swiss made but all imported chinese components
-fit and finish does not compare with a CWC, Precista, etc
-Produced cheap Marathon, and Stocker clones

NEW MWC [info gathered from web so i cannot vouch for it but it seems to be the general theme...]
-new G10 type models do appear better built, and better value for money
-Some new models, including tritium tubes
-now do seem to have had some government contracts [possibly obtained on false provenance?]
-Still have a range of the older, nastier models and homages
-only a couple of "unique designs" [i think?]
-questionable components, a "MWC K-75 Automatic movement" chinese or swiss?
-fit and finish does not compare with a CWC, Precista, etc
-MILITARY WATCHES GENERAL INFORMATION AND REVIEWS website, the reviews are too good to be true, compared to most forums?

FROM MWR by BOB 2008 http://web.archive.org/web/200810301...?t=9478&page=2
1) Dubious claims of actual Government purchase and issuance.
2) Deceitful markings and nomenclature on some of their watches.
3) The use of copyrighted images and text to sell their product. Often these images are of a totally different product.
- case in point - the use of actual SAR images stolen from our SAR gallery in order to sell their version of a dive watch.
- Also the use of MY pictures of GI issue straps in order to sell their strap product which is NOT my strap product at all.
4) The unwitting use of third parties, to wit, CWC and Marathon in MWC literature in order to add some sort of legitimacy to their claims of issuance and military origin.
5) The occasional use of shills on this site and others to spread further, their false claims of issuance.

I've only had one MWC, a Marathon clone and it was binned...
IMHO MWC come across as opportunist, producing [cheaper] knocks offs, cashing in on others hard work... I can live with maybe 1 of these out of 3, but not all...
To me it's not about the quality of product but the behavior of a company...

[Laurent B]

Just opened two of my CWC G10 today and here the pics of the movements, in order to see what's inside !

You will notice one 955.114 and one 955.112 (golden finish); the 955.114 has been replaced by the 955.112,

I have also posted a picture of a Pulsar G10 for comparison,

enjoy,

Laurent


CWC G10 movements :


Pulsar G10 movement :