# Whats Wrong With Mwc?



## Timez Own

It seems MWC are held in low regard by some forum members, after reading the spec of 2 of their models i was wondering why? The 2 models I am referring to that interested me with what i thought to be good specs are the "G10SL MKV 100m Water Resistant with GTLS Tritium Light Sources" & " MWC G10 100m Stealth with Screw Crown & Caseback". Both use Ronda movements, both use batteries that should last approximately 10 years, screw down crown...........etc

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to justify owning one (though on paper I wouldn't rule it out). I am just curious as to why they seem to be considered inferior


----------



## jmm1

IMO they are the cheaper version of mil watches and of course you pay for what you get. I personally would not touch one as they are just copied from CWC.


----------



## Lionel Richtea

Hi Timez Own,

You raise a very interesting point.

Why the prejudice? As you rightly point out the spec of MWC watches is as good as, and in some case better, than CWC watches.

I think it is based on a variety of interlocking factors. Firstly, 'MWC' clearly seems to be a form of passing off. The similarity of MWC to CWC is difficult to ignore. A little like The Crickets and The Beatles. This has always seemed a tad unfair given that there is more than a fair to good chance that CWC came about because it bore a resemblance to IWC. IWC being a former provider of high quality watches to the MOD.

Secondly, CWC are the ones who had the contract with the MOD. So CWC is the genuine article. Then again, MWC have had many contracts with many other armed forces to provide watches.

Thirdly, there was a time when MWC watches were shoddy pieces of kit ('throw away watches.'). Then again, there are examples from the '60's of CWC in the same category.

I love my CWC watches and am proud to own one. At the same time I have not met anyone who has had a bad experience with a modern MWC production. As we have both said, some of their specifications for the latter are excellent. Let's not also forget, MWC watches (like CWCs) are also Swiss made.


----------



## William_Wilson

Lionel Richtea said:


> This has always seemed a tad unfair given that there is more than a fair to good chance that CWC came about because it bore a resemblance to IWC.


CWC watches took the form they did because they were built to MOD specifications provided to CWC. Watches were built and tendered and the MOD chose CWC.



Lionel Richtea said:


> MWC have had many contracts with many other armed forces to provide watches.


MWC have claimed this since their inception, but I, or anyone I know of, have ever seen any examples of these military issued watches. Other watch companies don't make a secret of which countries they have produced products for, why is MWC so vague?



Lionel Richtea said:


> Thirdly, there was a time when MWC watches were shoddy pieces of kit ('throw away watches.'). Then again, there are examples from the '60's of CWC in the same category.


Their are no examples of shoddy CWC watches from the 60's.



Lionel Richtea said:


> Let's not also forget, MWC watches (like CWCs) are also Swiss made.


The majority of MWC watches use Asian movements. Many use 21 jewel Chinese copies of old style Miyota movements. Some use 21 jewel Seiko movements. I believe the Ronda quartz movements are the unjeweled ones from Asia (like the Asian ETA's they used to use), though I have not had the back off of one to verify it yet.

Later,

William


----------



## Timez Own

Do CWC make a 10ATM G10 with a screw down crown?


----------



## Silver Hawk

I was put off them over 10 years ago when I opened up my MWC "G10" and saw this:










Just too much plastic for my liking. Granted, that little movement maybe fine but I prefer my cases to be filled with movement rather than plastic movement holders.....


----------



## artistmike

Silver Hawk said:


> I was put off them over 10 years ago when I opened up my MWC "G10" and saw this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just too much plastic for my liking. Granted, that little movement maybe fine but I prefer my cases to be filled with movement rather than plastic movement holders.....


Exactly ! ... And I'd love to see a "list" of the armed forces that use them officially, rather than in the mind of some advertising guru.....


----------



## William_Wilson

Timez Own said:


> Do CWC make a 10ATM G10 with a screw down crown?


As far as I know they do not. The MOD spec paper does not call for a screw down crown on the G10 model.

Later,

William


----------



## Timez Own

William_Wilson said:


> Timez Own said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do CWC make a 10ATM G10 with a screw down crown?
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know they do not. The MOD spec paper does not call for a screw down crown on the G10 model.
> 
> Later,
> 
> William
Click to expand...

So does that make the mwc better in that respect? Along with being a 10atm also?


----------



## Timez Own

William_Wilson said:


> Timez Own said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do CWC make a 10ATM G10 with a screw down crown?
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know they do not. The MOD spec paper does not call for a screw down crown on the G10 model.
> 
> Later,
> 
> William
Click to expand...

So does that make the mwc better in that respect? Along with being a 10atm also?


----------



## William_Wilson

Timez Own said:


> So does that make the mwc better in that respect? Along with being a 10atm also?


It makes it different from the MOD spec.

The CWC's use a jeweled ETA movement and these movements are quite long lived. Members of this forum have seen and owned countless G10's that were 20 or more years old, still ticking away. Old MWC's are not that common.

My problem with MWC is based on their dubious claims and their price points. As an example, MWC sell a stainless diver fitted with a Chinese 21 jewel auto at a similar price to what you would pay for a Seiko SKX007.

Later,

William


----------



## mickey the brindle

I have been happy with my MWC diver , the time keeping is great and its suffered some pretty heavy knocks and bangs . I haven't looked at the latest MWC offerings lately but did quite like the chronographs from around 3 to 4 years ago , in my opinion good value for money , ok for work fishing etc .


----------



## William_Wilson

The MWC "RN" Diver I have ran faultlessly for around 4 years. When it stopped I changed the battery. After this, it wouldn't even run for a year on a new battery. The unjeweled Chinese made ETA quartz movement was nearing the end of its life. Research indicated this was not uncommon for these low end movements.

If a buyer is not mislead into thinking they are getting a genuine military watch and the price is right for what they are getting, I don't have an issue with MWC's.

Later,

William


----------



## Timez Own

William_Wilson said:


> The MWC "RN" Diver I have ran faultlessly for around 4 years. When it stopped I changed the battery. After this, it wouldn't even run for a year on a new battery. The unjeweled Chinese made ETA quartz movement was nearing the end of its life. Research indicated this was not uncommon for these low end movements.
> 
> If a buyer is not mislead into thinking they are getting a genuine military watch and the price is right for what they are getting, I don't have an issue with MWC's.
> 
> Later,
> 
> William


In now using a Ronda 715li 5 jewel in both the watches that I have been looking at (prompting me to begin this thread) are mwc upping their game?


----------



## William_Wilson

I don't have any particular experience with that Ronda movement, but the fact it is jeweled suggests that it will be more durable. Hopefully the use of these Ronda movements and some of those Seiko autos they are listing on their site will improve the value of their product line.

Later,

William


----------



## Lionel Richtea

Wow, has this discussion developed.

I suppose I would begin by addressing myself the very interesting points made by William.

Firstly, of course he is undisputibly correct in the fact that the MOD chose the CWC contract. They chose CWC with good reason. They make excellent watches with first rate movements.

Re: Contracts with other armed forces. Yes, I take your point William. I note that there was a watch on this very forum (in the last few months) that was supplied to the South African Army. If I recall correctly it was concluded in the correspondence that it was an MWC. It was, incidently, a pretty shoddy piece of kit with a p*ss poor movement.

Your point about the vagueness of their foreign contracts is entirely valid.

Re: Poor movements. I think that the photograph speaks for itself!

Re: Shoddy CWC. You are right Thomas, I had my MWC's mixed up with CWC's. No throw away CWC's. My apologies.


----------



## Timez Own

Silver Hawk said:


> I was put off them over 10 years ago when I opened up my MWC "G10" and saw this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just too much plastic for my liking. Granted, that little movement maybe fine but I prefer my cases to be filled with movement rather than plastic movement holders.....


I have never owned one myself (old or new models). I know in many areas of life size doesn't always dictate function. I had only come across the newer watches on the mwc site and wondered why the bad rep.......however, looking at this example, albeit with an untrained eye, I can see why displeasure would be experienced on taking the back off ths example, looking like a childs toy does not inspire confidence in any product.


----------



## glyndwr

Right. This is what I has (mis)remembered:

p.84 of 'A Concise Guide to Military Timepieces, 1880-1990, by Z.M. Wesolowski:

'This latest model, supplied by MWC, was basically a 'throw away' watch with a 1 jewel pin pallet movement.'


----------



## Timez Own

glyndwr said:


> Right. This is what I has (mis)remembered:
> 
> p.84 of 'A Concise Guide to Military Timepieces, 1880-1990, by Z.M. Wesolowski:
> 
> 'This latest model, supplied by MWC, was basically a 'throw away' watch with a 1 jewel pin pallet movement.'


I find that truly shocking! Why would any watch making company do such a thing if they want to be taken seriously.........ever? You might as well hand out happy meals to the troops when they come with a free Ronald McDonald watch!

(how do i post an shocked looking smiley, I wish to put several here)


----------



## glyndwr

I agree (and what the hell is happening to my English! I blame the speed typing.)

The truth this that the MOD (or their johnny foreigner equivalent), will have had a procurement contract. As with many such contracts, it was "the cheepest bid wins the day." After all, it's only soldiers that we're talking about. They were probably deemed as disposable as the watches by the civil servants involved.

I am reminded of the army name for the SA80 (as originally issued). It was called 'the civil servant.' Why? Because it didn't work and you couldn't fire it.


----------



## chris.ph

plus when you dropped it on the stock it would fall apart, we were all screaming for them to bring the L1A1 (slr 7.62) back


----------



## Mick B

I was issued a G10 watch from stores because the CSM didn't like the one I was wearing, (a Casio calculator thingy I think) but they were never general issue and the QM was reluctant to part with this one, quite rightly he didn't trust me. I would be interested to know how many were actually issued and how many went from supplier to stores to sold out of service without ever being on a wrist.


----------



## glyndwr

Hi Mick B.

What you say of your experience certainly fits with the evidence of others.

See: http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/G10_Watches

"Most squaddies will never be issued a watch. Just try it. Go in to stores and see what happens. Go on... I dare you. The only other alternative is to buy your own."


----------



## frstag

MWC are fine as long as you want a disposable watch. As far as I know they have only ever supplied the South African military but I may be wrong.

I've got a CWC g10 and a w10 they seem to be very robust - I reckon its always best going for mil spec if you are after a military watch!

Just my 2ps worth

cheers

matt


----------

