CWC Diver Vs Marathon MSAR Review

[Sinnlover]

I have been thinking about doing this review for a while (since I did my first review of the U1 Vs MM300), well I have the day off today, I have nothing urgent on my 'to do list' so thought I would give it a crack.

I am a fan of tool watches and in my opinion the 2 stand out tool watches for sale currently are the CWC Diver and the Marathon GSAR Series. Both are Swiss made, were designed for military use and up until a few years ago the only way you could get each watch was by either being issued one or buying a 'liberated example' from someone who used it whilst in service. However both are now available for purchase to the average joe, as a good quality, no nonsense, rugged watch. Although prices are rocketing...


First Up is a forum favourite the CWC Divers watch. this is a Luminvoa Dialled Auto version. I bought it new from Silverman's in 2012 and it has been a regular wearer for me.



For comparison is the Marathon MSAR. This is a limited edition of 500 with a Maple leaf on the dial. Apparently they were made to celebrate winter Olympics in Vancouver, they were given to Police and Troops who protected the event. I bought this in 2010 from a guy who was in the Canadian Forces at the time. When I bought it they were not available to the general public, unlike now.


The Cases
Both watches are very similar, both have Stainless Steel Cases both have 20mm lugs and a uni directional bezel, both are 300m Divers watches with chunky crown guards. However they are slightly different sizes and wear quite differently.

The CWC has a mixture of brushed and polished surfaces, looks a bit more refined (if that is possible for a tool / diving / military watch). The polished sides are a bit of a scratch magnet and pick up marks quite easily. It is 47mm lug to lug, has a 41mm diameter excluding crown and the crystal s 31mm in diameter. Case depth including case back and bezel is 12mm. The crystal is mineral glass. The strap bars are fixed which limits strap choices, good job i like a NATO strap. It was sold with a CWC NATO, they are a very nice NATO.



The MSAR is fully brushed and is pure tool watch. The dimensions are as follows: Diameter is 41mm with a thickness of 14mm. Crystal is also 32mm in diameter. The crystal is sapphire without AR. The watch has shoulder-less spring-bars with lug holes to ease strap changes. It is sold with a rubber strap that smells of vanilla. To be honest it was taken straight off the rubber on on to a NATO (its now on a rubber NATO). You can buy a bracelet for them which is very good quality if a touch pricey. (I have the versions for the JSAR and CSAR)



The Dials
Both Dials are black with white print and are very easy to read at a glance. Both have Automatic on the dial (I have no idea why watch companies do this)
The CWC dial is very reminiscent of the Omega SM 300 that was issued to the Royal Navy in the 1960s, with great looking sword hands and big clear lume plots, however the lume strength and longevity is awful on these 2012 made autos which is a real shame.


The MSAR is more cluttered with numerals 1-23, the red Maple leaf, the depth rating in red, H3, the radioactive symbol and the date. Luminosity is provided by tritium tubes, orange at 12, the rest of the markers and hands in green. the bezel pip and second hand have MaraGlo which is Marathon's version of luminova, this is much brighter in the dark at first but soon dulls down and the tritium becomes more prominent. The lume has dimmed since I first bought it but at 10 years old it is approaching the half life of the tritium in the tubes so its to be expected, it is still very bright at night when my eyes are dark adjusted.



The Movement and Crown.
Both use an ETA 2824-2, time keeping is similar at 2/3 seconds a day.
The CWC has a smaller crown and it can be a bit of a pain to unscrew due to the prominent lugs, when un screwed the positions for time winding and time setting can be confused as the feeling is a bit non discript and sometimes the crown pops out to the date setting position missing winding. (there is no date wheel on the movement of this example). The crown has 9 yes 9 twists to screw down.

The MSAR is much easier to unscrew as the crown is large and cross hatched for easy grip. Time setting is much easier and crisper than the CWC, there is only 3 twists to fully screw down the crown, however the crown is the weak point of these watches and I think it needs replacement, its due a service and will get it done when I send it back to Marathon, who are very easy to deal with.

The Bezels
The CWC has a 39mm bezel diameter with a 3.5mm thickness, it has a slim aluminium insert with a luminova lume pip. the bezel actions is precise with 60 firm clips, the bezel on this example is 0.5 seconds out of alinement.

The MSAR has a 42mm bezel diameter with bezel thickness of 5mm, thick aluminium insert with luminaova triangle, again these tended to fall out on early watches but this was resolved about 2006 I think. It has 120 clicks, alinement is perfect and the click is very precise.

Case Backs
Both have the NATO stock number, issue number and date on the case back, the CWC is very to the point no other information bar the water resistance rating the finish is brushed steel. The MSAR has an essay on the back with stock number, issue number and date along with ISO rating, all words in both English an French as required by the Canadian Military, along with type of steel used, depth rating and a load of other stock / part reference numbers. the finish is a radial brushed finish.



If you have got this far, don't worry i am nearly finished...

I suppose all reviews should have a winner, however its a close call. The MSAR was a watch I hunted down for ages, I love the look and it gets nice comments from guys in work, as it is something different form the ubiquitous submariners, Tag Heuers, and Breitlings the office is full of. That said I only have one MSAR (GSAR) but I have 3 CWC divers, the CWC is easier to wear with a shirt, jumper or under a jacket, its also less of a door frame magnet as the lesser thickness means I am less likely to clatter it against objects. So... if pushed i would have to say... CWC but there is not a lot in it.



Thanks for reading this, if you are in the market for either i hope this helps.

John
Pictures to be uploaded asap.

[GS Overland]

Great review John i also have a 2012 auto CWC and a brand new sterile dial GSAR with the new dial and tritium second hand via which is on the sterile bracelet. i echo your comments re poor lume on the CWC i may ask Silvermans if they will change the dial and handset for some useable lume. Like yours my 60 click bezel is also slightly out of alignment another trait of these auto 2012 watches!!!!. Do like it a lot and gets plenty of wrist time. Gsar is phenomenally accurate just like the CWC i also agree with the crown comments on the Gsar but again i love the watch!!!!. I cant pick an outright winner as they are both worn regularly and are different enough to warrant having both

[barbosas]

Great review and collection.

Thanks for sharing.

[Tetlee]

Good review, I have the Quartz version of the CWC RN, lume is amazing on mine thankfully, great watches.

[Stanley637]

Nice review, I would agree on the Marathon between the two, I have used my GSAR as a daily watch for ten years now and its never missed a beat, the tritium tubes still glow bright and haven't found a better replacement.

[davie0146]

Have both well a TSAR & SBS cwc and they have been well used in the majority off sh#t holes in the world both have been excellent, only issue I have ever had is the TSAR can get snagged when taking of a Bergen/ruck due to the height.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using TZ-UK mobile app

[KAS118]

Interesting review - I must admit, purely on looks I prefer the CWC

[mk1974]

Thanks for sharing,I think the cwc is my preferred choice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Velorum]

Interesting review

I have a polished MK1 CWC quartz, my third. I love the dial design.

[Sinnlover]

Thanks for the comments
I am glad some people find it interesting.
I may do another in a year or so...
Maybe the Newmark vs PRS5 vs original 1975 CWC chrono vs 1976 Hamilton MOD Chrono. I have not seen one done yet.

[Speedy2254]

Interesting review! The CWC doesn't seem to have the same markings as mine which is also a 2012 model though it is quartz.
https://i.imgur.com/I3ycJvs.jpg

[Tetlee]

Interesting review! The CWC doesn't seem to have the same markings as mine which is also a 2012 model though it is quartz.
https://i.imgur.com/I3ycJvs.jpg

Yours is the typical at least for the quartz models, I think certainly the earlier autos were mostly if not all laid out like the OPs.

I have the same numbers as yourself apart from number/year.

[Sinnlover]

Interesting review! The CWC doesn't seem to have the same markings as mine which is also a 2012 model though it is quartz.
https://i.imgur.com/I3ycJvs.jpg

There is a difference in stock number layout between quartz and auto.
Yours is typical of a quartz from this era
My watch is typical of an auto of the period.
Most modern CWCs have yet another type of font and domed case back.

[Speedy2254]

Yours is the typical at least for the quartz models, I think certainly the earlier autos were mostly if not all laid out like the OPs.

I have the same numbers as yourself apart from number/year.

Thanks for the confirmation. I get the feeling that CWC's markings could be the basis for a LONG thread - issued / MOD surplus but never issued / made for the civilian market, the possibilities are endless...

[Speedy2254]

There is a difference in stock number layout between quartz and auto.
Yours is typical of a quartz from this era
My watch is typical of an auto of the period.
Most modern CWCs have yet another type of font and domed case back.

Thanks for the confirmation of normality. I note your 2018 model carries the "0552" mark that the RN stopped using around 1993. These kinds of anomalies fascinate me more than they probably should...
And what's the significance of the "C1" on the 2008 model?

[Sinnlover]

0555 is the prefix for Royal Marines equipment much like the old 0552 of Royal Navy.
The C1 is thought to signify either a civilian watch or a watch that was over run on production. No one is too sure and CWC will not confirm. Either way the MOD did not buy any CWCs in 2008 so it is a civilian watch. 2006 being the last year of MOD purchase before the recent buys for the SBS in small numbers.

[RAJEN]

Nice review.
I know CWC Diver is a forum favorite but it somehow leaves me cold.
The small crown with disproportionate crown guards, narrow bezel insert and the bland, prominent chapter ring all make for a watch that for me is aesthetically lacking.
Much prefer the SAR and GSAR and the red maple leaf adds a welcome bit of color.

[Speedy2254]

0555 is the prefix for Royal Marines equipment much like the old 0552 of Royal Navy.
The C1 is thought to signify either a civilian watch or a watch that was over run on production. No one is too sure and CWC will not confirm. Either way the MOD did not buy any CWCs in 2008 so it is a civilian watch. 2006 being the last year of MOD purchase before the recent buys for the SBS in small numbers.

I understood that 0552 was RN (my G10 is stamped 0552, from 1989) & 0555 was RM, but I have read that the RN & RM have, since around '93, both used 0555 since RM kit is bought from RN budgets.
Interesting about the C1 stamp - you're right that CWC (& Silvermans) are less than forthcoming about the markings they use. Since Silvermans moved from selling surplus CWCs to owning & operating CWC themselves it's harder to tell which watch was where, actual issued surplus, MOD bought but never issued & then sold as surplus, civilian contracts & so on.
I appreciate your reply, I love CWC but their opacity around the markings is irritating...

[davie0146]

Here are my two

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[Sinnlover]

I understood that 0552 was RN (my G10 is stamped 0552, from 1989) & 0555 was RM, but I have read that the RN & RM have, since around '93, both used 0555 since RM kit is bought from RN budgets.
Interesting about the C1 stamp - you're right that CWC (& Silvermans) are less than forthcoming about the markings they use. Since Silvermans moved from selling surplus CWCs to owning & operating CWC themselves it's harder to tell which watch was where, actual issued surplus, MOD bought but never issued & then sold as surplus, civilian contracts & so on.
I appreciate your reply, I love CWC but their opacity around the markings is irritating...

As the black SBS is traditionally RM equipment I think CWC were still putting 0555 on the case backs.
It could also be a cr@py marketing tool...
I can’t remember seeing a case back from the most recent batch bought by the MOD. So not sure if they follow the more modern format (2012) or the older.

Edit - the 2017 watches have the older format and 0555 prefix. Just checked on the CWC website.

[Sinnlover]

Here are my two

Nice to see well used examples

[dkpw]

A very interesting review, thank you for posting. Of the two, I'd go for the CWC. I've had two but just never really got on with them, mainly due to the fixed spring bars and almost compulsory NATO use. They were therefore a watch that I loved the look of, just not wearing. The current CWC prices are crazy!

[davie0146]

Nice to see well used examples

Well used is definitely a term for them!!

The CWC was army issued not RN or RM.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[Sinnlover]

Well used is definitely a term for them!!

The CWC was army issued not RN or RM.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Interesting to know. Puts the whole 0555 / 0552 / W10 Thing in to confusion. I think that’s why they stopped prefixing things.
If it is eligible for issue, it is eligible for all services.

[John Wall]

I also have a 2012 Auto with appalling dial lume.
The hands aren’t too bad but still not as good as they should be.
Richard at Silvermans quoted me “about £100” for a redial.
He said there had been a “manufacturing problem” with the auto dials.

The recent issued batches of SBS’s have all been 0555 regardless of destination.
They are the current issued diver to Credenhill as well as Poole.

[Speedy2254]

Well used is definitely a term for them!!

The CWC was army issued not RN or RM.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Your CWC is marked 440/01 & 0555. 0555 was a code for the RM, post '93 it was the generic RN & RM code as 0552 was retired. RM kit is funded from RN budgets, so this is not implausible.
G10s exist marked W10 (army), 0552 (RN), 0555 (RM) & 6B or 6BB (RAF) - all services had them. The diver's watches are usually marked 0552 for pre '93s. Post '93 RN divers are usually marked 0555. RM / SBS ones are usually marked 0555 throughout.
I have never seen or heard of a CWC Diver marked to the army or RAF (though the SF might have some).

[davie0146]

Mine came via a Royal Engineer Diver.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using TZ-UK mobile app

[Speedy2254]

Mine came via a Royal Engineer Diver.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using TZ-UK mobile app

Aha, that makes sense - probably ordered by the navy (who have the most divers), so marked as 0555, but some got supplied to the RE divers. That would explain the marking - the RE probably wouldn't need enough to order a whole run of them from CWC.

[bwest76]

Good review and interesting reply’s thank you.