# Anyone Have An Orca



## BarryW (Feb 20, 2004)

Just wondering what they are like.

Thanks


----------



## mart broad (May 24, 2005)

BarryW said:


> Just wondering what they are like.
> 
> Thanks


Large black and white,not recomended for keeping at home.

Martin


----------



## limey (Aug 24, 2006)

Only one word to describe them - 'killer'


----------



## Seamaster73 (Jun 25, 2006)

Have hovered over the "buy" button for one any number of times. Not read a bad word about them from owners on the jap watch forums. Prior to the new 6R15 Seiko divers coming out, the "Orca" was pretty much the darling of the SCWF who gave it that name (the best ever nickname for a watch, IMO).


----------



## grayman (May 25, 2006)

Yes, I have an "Orca." Just got it a couple of weeks ago from a seller in Singapore. Some observations: It's BIG (47-48mm across without the crown), it's thick (about 15-16mm), it's LIGHT, even with a metal band (of course, the watch is made from titanium). I got the one with the dark blue dial. The hands and markers are large and have very good lume--the glow lasts a good 5-6 hours or more. The watch is comfortable on the wrist. The Orca is also very good value for money. Mine was USD 250, including shipping. All in all, I don't think you can go wrong if you're looking for a good 200M diver with a bit of uniqueness.


----------



## spearfish (May 24, 2007)

I got one, check out my post on it from a couple months back.

I got the blue dial with titanium strap.

Watch is big, BUT, I have a huge 9.5" wrist and it's fine. The only thing is that it's thick in height and is a struggle if you are wearing a long sleeve buttoned shirt.

Lume isn't as good as people say. I don't get 5-6 hours.. If I expose it to sunlight for a couple of hours, the most i'll get back inside is 30 mins.

The watch is brilliant, looks great. The only "cheap" thing about it is the bezel and has only 60 clicks to a full turn with a bit of freeplay in it.

I've used it diving/swimming a few times now with no hassles.


----------



## mycroft (Oct 20, 2006)

Can one of you please post a photo so the rest of us know what you're talking about







?

*Simon*


----------



## BarryW (Feb 20, 2004)

Now I have one - and what a watch. Black on rubber. Good value too. Name suits it perfectly.

Now I need the blue one


----------



## mycroft (Oct 20, 2006)

Photos, photos FGS







!!

*Simon*


----------



## Seamaster73 (Jun 25, 2006)

A pic by Norbertus who, IIRC, gave it its nickname on the SCWF:


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Sorry but IMVHO, that`s fugly


----------



## BarryW (Feb 20, 2004)

its an odd one granted - more so in the flesh than in pics due to extreme concavity (is that a word ) of the bezel and the highly castellated (surely thats one) nature of the protrusions on the bezel.

But I love em.

In fact now that I have the black one a blue one - with Ti bracelet is Uk bound



mach 0.0013137 said:


> Sorry but IMVHO, that`s fugly


----------



## Seamaster73 (Jun 25, 2006)

I think they are an excellent alternative to an analogue G-SHOCK. Good value at about a ton, too.


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

There's no accounting for taste, is there? At first I thought it looked like a kids watch, in the blue but on closer inspection and in black, it's evidently a finely made, robust looking watch. Whether you like it or not, it does have a character all of it's own. Personally, I wouldn't enjoy the 'big bubbles' of the hour markers, but it would be something you could get used to, in time. Other than that, the design of the face has obviously been thought through, to express an 'aquatic' theme. It looks like a serious diver but it's anything but boring.

Enjoy your watch!

Regards,

Doctor V


----------



## mycroft (Oct 20, 2006)

It's errr, brave... but I don't like it.

*Simon*


----------



## Seamaster73 (Jun 25, 2006)

I was non-plussed the first time I saw it, but it has grown on me. These are some of the best non-commercial pics I could find, courtesy of kamerawerx on the SCWF:


----------



## mycroft (Oct 20, 2006)

That's a very funky lume shot







.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Still don't like it, though







.

*Simon*


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

Not one for my taste either - looks like a sort of comedy watch to me with those hour markers


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

Well, it's a modern watch, isn't it? I prefer more traditional-looking things, so wouldn't wear this... but looking at those highly detailed pics, there's no denying the finishing on that watch is first class. It's very thoughtfully put together and looks professional.

I wonder if the faces can be swapped, as with many of Yao's pieces?

Doctor V


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Quality appears up to Citizen`s usual excellent standard and the lume is great but it`s still a fugly watch, on a par with the Seiko Monster


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

No, it is NOT on a par with the Monster. The Monsters are in a class of their own. Phuh! How dare you, sir!


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Doctor Varney said:


> No, it is NOT on a par with the Monster.The Monsters are in a class of their own.


True, they are exceptionally fugly











> Phuh! How dare you, sir!


Easily


----------



## colinryan (Jul 8, 2007)

What an interesting and unique watch, I certainly wouldn't mind having one.


----------



## BarryW (Feb 20, 2004)

Have 3 monsters and still not sure about em. Excellent quality and vfm without a doubt.

But I think they look a little odd. Not sure what it is - I think its the size of the 'scallops' out of the bezel. They are too big .

I have a number (don't ask) of what many people say is the quartz monster (I don't agree personally as I think they lok far nicer than the monsters. The scallops are far smaller.

So consequently, I think the Orca looks far better than the Monsters. But thats the thing - eah to their own.

Where would we all be if we liked the same things.

Barry



mach 0.0013137 said:


> Doctor Varney said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is NOT on a par with the Monster.The Monsters are in a class of their own.
> ...


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> Doctor Varney said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is NOT on a par with the Monster.The Monsters are in a class of their own.
> ...


Thankyou. That's more like it!

Doctor V


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

> But I think they look a little odd. Not sure what it is


Because, unlike so many other divers, they don't look like a Rolex Sub?


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

As a working dive watch,I would assume its very easy to read and use,a lot of practical equipment is fugly,IMO.

As a lot of people don't like it,I will say I do like it


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

AlexR said:


> As a working dive watch,I would assume its very easy to read and use,a lot of practical equipment is fugly,IMO.
> 
> As a lot of people don't like it,I will say I do like it


In that case we might just have to start calling you Andy, you contrary bugger


----------



## spearfish (May 24, 2007)

If you go diving with it in real water, it's a great watch. Very easy to read underwater.

The watch looks much better in real life.

I'll dig up the photo of it on my wrist with Ti strap,.


----------



## spearfish (May 24, 2007)

The link to the picture of it on my wrist...

http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p6101957tx2.jpg


----------



## BarryW (Feb 20, 2004)

Looks good


----------



## Mutley (Apr 17, 2007)

Not sure what to make of it, certainly different









Looks better on the bracelet than the rubber

Andrew


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

Personally, I like the dark-orange minute hand. Good for timing air minutes.

Doc.


----------

