WATCH TALK FORUMS banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Rolex GMT-MASTER 11 Model M series:116710LN – 0001
vs.
Christopher Ward c60 trident pro 600 GMT
This is a General Comparison overview, not a detailed breakdown of all properties..
Both purchased new c 2016 to 2017.
Rolex Australian list price (if you list) $12000 6 yr warranty, CW list $2000, 5yr warranty.

Both have: Flat Sapphire anti reflective coated, crystals. No cyclops on CW, Rolex is easier to read.
Both have: Black bezels. CW has a Zirconia dioxide ceramic unidirectional 128 click compromise bezel suitable for diving, with SuperLuminova at the 24h triangle bezel marker. Even hours engraved numbers, no one-hour marks.
Rolex Cerachrom ceramic has even hours and dots at odd hours engraved on a 24 click bi-directional bezel.
Both have: Date displays, but the Rolex is much easier to read with the cyclops.
Finish: Both beautifully finished polished and brushed areas. Steel quality 316L or 604L no practical or noticeable real world difference I can see.
Water resistance: CW is a solid, heavier build with an engraved 'Trident' bottom, and rated for 600 meter depth vs Rolex 100 meters thinner case.
Crowns both signed and screw down. Rolex is trip-lock and capable of more pressure than the rest of the watch can handle.
Dials: Both black.
CW with Guilloche wave pattern dial. Baton SuperLuminova markers thin and thus less bright.
Rolex smooth gloss with round, baton, and triangle SuperLuminova markers gold framed.
Hands:
CW with beautiful SuperLuminova hands, onion hour and dagger minute, beautiful trident balance on seconds-hand. Very easy to read orange GMT hand. SuperLuminova indices less bright due being thin batons.
Rolex SuperLuminova gold Mercedes hour and sword minute, with round balance on seconds-hand. Green GMT hand doesn't show up as well against black. Round indices are brighter than CW batons.
Movements:
Rolex caliber 3186 (2007 to 2018) high quality in house, accurate within 2 seconds a day. (Mine is +2 second a day times over 22 days). 48 hour power reserve. Has a new hairspring virtually impervious to the influence of magnetic fields and changes in temperature.

CW High quality GMT ETA 2893-2. My recent experience timing it over 22 days on the wrist, was a sum total gain of 10 seconds. (Average gain was half a second a day). The biggest single day deviation was +2 seconds. It has a 42 Hour power reserve.
Settings:
The Rolex main time setting is first set with the GMT hand, and local settings adjusted with the hour hand, jumping one hour a time. Local hour hand setting doesn't stop the balance wheel. Date changing requires rotating the hour hand through 24 hours for the required number of days. No fast set possible.

CW time is set with the hour hand reference, and the GMT hand can then jump an hour at a time without stopping the balance wheel. However, if you change the hour hand to local date, you will stop the watch balance wheel. One could just use the GMT hand for local time as an option. Date change is fast set on the first click, and turning it the opposite way jumps the GMT hand an hour at a time.

Bracelet: Both have solid stainless steel links with polished center links. Rolex has screw connections as against pins on CW, otherwise quality seems similar.
CW has an engraved clasp with a button push lock, with a one link slide extension inside. Rolex has a flip-lock in the clasp, with raised coronet and a 5mm fold-over extension.

Conclusion: The CW is a solid beautiful 43mm chunk of Swiss engineering, quite a bit heavier than the 40mm Rolex, yet it wears small. (I would recommend the 38mm version for small wrists. The Rolex is lighter and smaller but doesn't wrap around the wrist quite as well, being rather flat.
I also own a 1959 Rolex 1675 GMT and a Model 16013/3 The improvements are striking since that time. If the current CW is compared to some of these earlier Rolex renditions, the quality of the CW is quite apparent. Even so. the CW stands up well against the latest M series 116710LN. Whatever the material and finishing quality of the Rolex contributes to the price difference, it is only a fraction of the premium paid for the name. I happen to prefer the Rolex design in a purely emotional way, but the objective differences are much less than the prices would suggest.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top