# Cwc/mwc Extension To Debate



## Doctor Varney

Hi, it's me again... Back from the dead...!

Since it was looking increasingly more like I wasn't going to own any other watch, other than my beloved Seiko SKX779, I didn't feel wholly equal to you guys. More a watch _owner_ than collector...

However, last week I found myself a nicely kept Gulf issue, CWC G10 grunt's timepiece for a tidy price, on da'bay from the year '90. I'm looking forward to recieving it...

At first, it looked as though I was in with a chance to win an SBS 300m Diver's model (which I still covet) but the auction was pulled due to some breach of ebay policy, which they won't tell me about. Good job I pulled out early and went for the G10, I think.

Having a wandering eye, I started snooping around the 'net for prices on this smart, functional diver. Came across the MWC version on the bay, at rather keen _Buy-It-Now_ prices, too.

Of course, this sent me head first into '_deep search mode_', for the answers to this elusive CWC vs MWC debate and came up with what I thought might be fresh answers...

*Firstly, is there anyone here who actually owns the MWC version I could talk to???*

During my search, I came across a right hoo-harr of a debate on the Military Timepiece Collector's Forum, where even representatives of both Telford services and MWC had converged, even to the point of threatening to su some of those who had bad mouthed MWC (which I found rather amusing).

Of course, it all sounded all rather fishy, with regards to the use of logos, domain names etc... But what really caught my eye, was a soldier who'd posted in defence of the MWC as a perfectly respectable timepiece. He seemed fairly unbiased, having more interest in the actual strengths and functional value of the watches, than in any of the political furor, so I was tempted to read up...

*So, from a collectors point of view, I'd like to know:*

Is it absolutely disputable that MWC have had military contracts with the British forces? I learn that not all kit is always standard issue. That soldiers sometimes have to buy their own kit, which would include watches. After all, I read that the Ollech & Wajs were never issued, yet servicemen liked them so much, many bought them. To me, that gives it enough of a _'military pedigree_' in my eyes. I've heard of some modern soldiers wearing Timex expedition, too, out of personal preference. They seem to be using Casio G-Shocks a lot, too. Good watches, just not my bag.

*From a purely functional point of view:*

Since its feasable that soldiers may have personally bought MWC, through internal military camp dealerships, in preference to their CWC issue, could it be, that with the insertion of proper of mineral glass, over perspex, that the MWC is actually offering a more robust and serviceable exterior at least?

CWC claim their plastic 'crystal' is MOD spec. I see people arguing that the Pulsars have glass... So I deduce that its to keep prices down on large batches. Why wouldn't the MOD cut costs? Just because its not as good, doesn't mean there's anything other than a cost cutting exercise going on. Doesn't make it any less 'military', does it?

I've heard it said (and seen the photo evidence) that the insides of the MWC contains mainly plastic spacer and a cheap Miyota movement, instead of the more respected Swiss Rhonda.

The counter-argument to this is that its all due to a batch of pieces destined for an African contract, that the watch was down-graded to make a cheaper item. Again, nothing non-military about that, either - just not a very good watch, that's all.

*Final confirmation* (skip to this if you're bored already...!)

So what's really going on here? MWC claim their watches are Swiss-sourced. Some say they are asian sourced, with a only a head office based in Switzerland. Anyone shed any light?

As a rule, do MWC contain good, accurate Swiss movements, or not? All political and logo-theft issues aside, can I trust the heart of the watch to be good?

Are MWC merely transcending the need to be 'authentic' and just offering us a good watch at the end of the day, with sure-holding PVD coatings, proper ETA movements and strong mineral glass (albeit a sloppy bezel)?

And finally - have MWCs ever held a military contract? If not, as a knowledgable watch expert asked by a soldier who knew nothing about watches - which would you recommend to him for personal/combat use - MWC or CWC?

Hope I haven't dragged up a nasty one... I'm just interested to get the heart of the matter.

Thanks,

Doctor V


----------



## Doctor Varney

To be perfectly honest, it looks to me like it's gonna be a lot easier to afford an MWC than a CWC version of the SBS 300m diver. I've got my CWC G10, so I'm happy with that.

So I want this Diver - but I'm not sure. I'm just terrified of getting ripped off. I think probably thats the real reason for the question, if I'm to be perfectly honest about this.

Any advice or juicy gossip on the old debate will be gratefully recieved









Thanks again,

V


----------



## nursegladys

Ha, Doctor V, you have opened a right can of worms.

I'm not going to get into the CWC v MWC dabate, however, the fact that most service personnel will wear their own watch no matter what, yes CWC do issue their watches to the MOD and there have been times when other makes have been made to an MOD order but not actually issued.

The argument surrounding the CWC prices going up when there is a conflict is preposterous, it is a military contract to the MOD not to individual personnel, however, most soldiers are allowed to wear their own timepiece and this could be anything from marathons, G10's to G shocks or whatever takes their fancy. I am sure that a G10 could be obtained from stores under a signature, but would it then have to be returned on de-MOB is any ones guess.

I have 2 CWC and i think the quality is second to none, yes the prices are relative, but you have a choice whether to buy or not. I would not buy an MWC but that is my choice.


----------



## Doctor Varney

Nice post, Gladys... Thank you...

So would that choice be made from a collector's POV or a wearer's one? Or are you just unwilling to take the risk with MWC, since the CWCs have the proven track record?

For the record, I know the SBS diver, in both instances, uses the proper mineral crystal. I want a second hand one, for work, not only because I delight in the authenticity of a watch but because I'll also be wearing it while landscaping the garden this summer and don't like the idea of smashing my beautiful monster up, while breaking rocks.

And I feel naked without a watch on my wrist... Things are just weird, without one... You know the feeling?









V


----------



## nursegladys

I have the CWC RN Diver quartz non dated version and the 70's remake chrono. I wouldn't call myself a collector more an enthusiast, I wear all my watches (all 5 of them - i recently downsized and upgraded), the RN Diver is very comfortable on a good quality nato and the accuracy is very good (1 second a month - if that), yeah it could be seen as an expensive beater but it will take the punishment and still look a half decent watch.

But at the end of the day it's your choice and your money, if you get the MWC post a review after some usage and prove me wrong.


----------



## mjolnir

I keep reading the way you say 'proper' mineral crystal. I don't think it should come down to the crystal like that to be honest.

Acrylic crystals are excellent, especially in a mil watch like the G10 where any scratches are easily buffed out and are exceptionally strong. I believe in many divers a mineral glass crystal is used over sapphire because it is more likely to scratch when banged against a rock at 100meters below whilst a sapphire, being harder yet more brittle, is more likely to shatter in certain circumstances. Personally I prefer a domed acrylic.

I believe that CWC have the military contract for the G10 because their watch is built to the genuine military specification and fulfils their requirements for being a rugged watch that is relatively cheap to manufacture and does it's job in a range of environments.

By all accounts the MWC has a cheaper movement (as you pointed out) but that doesn't mean it won't do the same job. They both tell the time.

Personally I would choose the CWC diver for it's proven track record but not having any experience of either myself it would be nice to know how the MWC held out against the CWC.


----------



## Doctor Varney

mjolnir said:


> I keep reading the way you say 'proper' mineral crystal. I don't think it should come down to the crystal like that to be honest.


Yeah, I think that's a mistake on my part, to be honest. I've been conflating plastic with crapstick, to which I stand corrected, in the face of your more factual information. I hope that's grounds to put my mind at rest... What you've said there certainly _feels_ right, at any rate. I'm in little doubt, my G10 will meet with some rough service.



mjolnir said:


> By all accounts the MWC has a cheaper movement (as you pointed out) but that doesn't mean it won't do the same job. They both tell the time.


This is true. I just like the idea of something a _bit special_ on my wrist, throughout the day, without wearing something inappropriately expensive for dirty tasks.

Also, my secondary occupation puts me mostly in a qausi-surgical environment and also demands I dress up like a dog's dinner at times, so it means not having a huge, flashy diver bulging out my shirt-cuffs at all times - hence the discreet G10!



mjolnir said:


> Personally I would choose the CWC diver for it's proven track record but not having any experience of either myself it would be nice to know how the MWC held out against the CWC.


Believe me, if I had money to burn, I'd love to sit here doing comparrison reviews, as I have done with Hi-Fi kit in the past. Sadly, economics don't really stretch to this luxury at the moment.

One other thing... Anyone tell me what the water protection on the G10 is? I heard 50m somewhere. Is this going to be alright for light submersion or not?

Thanks for the replies!

V


----------



## nursegladys

Yeah its 5 atmospheres, which is about 50m, should be good for shallow swimming, washing in the bath  , nothing too deep


----------



## andytyc

Hi V,

I've had both the CWC and MWC divers before. In terms of case design, they are both similar. The bezel action was better on the CWC and the lume dot centred on 12 o'clock whereas the MWC's was off slightly. The lume on both was mediocre at best. Both had mineral crsytals. On the face of it, other than the logo there was very little to tell them apart. However the main difference in my eyes was the quality of the quartz movements. Seriously, you've got to the the MWC movement to believe it. It was an ETA design quartz but stamped 'China' on it. It was about 1.25cm in size and the rest of it was a huge plastic spacer. The CWC had a lovely looking Swiss made quartz movement with a metal spacer. The action of the second hand was another thing that was really obvious. The MWC's was literally a springboard! You would see it overjump the second mark and then recoil backwards before stopping! The CWC's was precise and dropped exactly on the second marker. Both did however keep time well. I never tested the water resistance of the MWC but I did go snorkelling with the CWC and it was fine.

All in all, I think the CWC was definately the better watch but it was alot more dearer. I reckon a used CWC going for about Â£150 would be a good buy but I certainly wouldn't pay anything more than Â£60 for the MWC.

Just my 2 cents.

andy


----------



## William_Wilson

I usually gripe about MWC, no reason to stop now. Have a look.










Similar case. Bezel is garbage, I popped it off with my finger nail, now it is very loose. Dial and hands look ok, they never glowed worth a damn.










Spring bars, not fixed. British looking numbers, but the 02 country code does not seem to exist.










Big piece of plastic, that. The battery is Swiss though.










"SWISS PARTS CHINA MOVEMENT" Huh? The first picture showed "SWISS MOVT" on the bottom of the dial.

This watch may be worth 40GBP's new, but there are definite issues with MWC's claims. I have another MWC with a Chinese copy of a Miyota in it. Swiss movements may get into their watches sometimes, but not often. I have a CWC Royal Navy diver's watch and it "feels" better. I have not had reason to take the back off yet though.

Later,

William


----------



## jasonm

For me there are too many negative feelings toward MWC for me to ever get one, Ive never seen evidence that they have ever been issued or are made to the MOD specs, so what you are left with is a lookalike player that is trying hard to be credible....I'm all for affordable watches but I don't like false claims and there are a lot of people far more knowledgeable than me who don't rate them much...

My advice is save up for a while longer and get the CWC....

Don't forget a cheap watch can get expensive if its crap and you have to bin it after 6 months....


----------



## MIKE

Yes, save up the extra for a CWC, I love mine, it's one of my favourites over some watches costing a lot more in my collection







A good quality watch you will not regret it.

Mike


----------



## JoT

William that series of pictures says more than any number of words!!

Doc V .... the CWC is a very well made watch with a proven service heritage, I happen to have the SBS, tough as old boots yet still looks good .... landsacping? No problem! Also no spring bars to pop. It also has genuine tritium paint lume ... doesn't glow brightly but it will always glow.


----------



## mrteatime

TBH i would rather get one of ray's rhula's for Â£30 then a MWC.....


----------



## Doctor Varney

Whoa! Thank you for all the replies!

Especially the pictures. They say it all to me. No, my mind's firmly made up now. I couldn't live with myself if I spent more than Â£30 on that thing, pictured. Uck!

Thanks again! You can all count it as a mission accomplished... Saved my wallet from the bad guys.









V


----------



## nursegladys




----------



## PhilM

Don't even bother with the MWC, have read to many posts about these that just scream waste of money.


----------



## chris l

I love the feel of my old CWC G10.

Beat the hell out of it, wipe and polish, back as new.

A colleague has a MWC; it doesn't have the same feel, nor, has has been said, does the second hand move with the same authority and accuracy.

For the G10 at least I'd rather have a used, issued, CWC than a new MWC.


----------



## PhilM

Well put Chris, the CWC it most deafinetly the real deal


----------



## William_Wilson

As a final comparison before this subject goes away again, for awhile.










Later,

William


----------



## Doctor Varney

As old as this subject is, I appreciate the replies in this discussion, for its helped me with the decision.

V


----------



## YellaBelly

I purchased the MWC G10BH 2007 Spec via Telford Services UK in Dec 2006, which was held still boxed as a present for my Son prior to him entering basic training with the RAF, which he did in March 2007. Unfortunately after 3 weeks of use the second hand/indicator fell off (an obviously manufacturing fault). I immediately arranged a Warranty Return via Telford Services at an additional cost to me of Â£15 in April 2007. As I was eager for my son to get his watch back as soon as possible I chased Telford Services for update on replacement/return regularly, but did not receive any response, until I was forced to contact MWC direct to intervene in June 2007. I was told at this point that, despite Telford Services their Premier UK Dealer offering a full Manufacturers Warranty, this was not MWC's business. I finally won a County Court Small Claims Judgment against Telford Services in Nov 2007, which they have chosen to ignore. I wrote to MWC MD/CEO in Feb 2008 with the full details of my warranty return claim, and followed up with email in Apr 2008 - with no reply - one year after last seeing my watch. To date I have no watch or money back.

ONLY BUY A WATCH FROM THESE PEOPLE IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO THROW IT AWAY WHEN IT BREAKS DOWN.

PS. My Son Passed-Out of basic in Aug 2007 with a CWC G10 on his wrist, which continues to perform well through his service in the RAF Regiment.

Ian Larder - Lincolnshire UK


----------



## pg tips

A cautionary tale indeed Ian, thanks for posting, Echo's what a lot of us have been saying for a while now.

Good look to your son, hope he enjoys the RAF as much as I did.


----------



## jasonm

Welcome to the forum Ian, sorry about your tale of woe, I think this re-enforces the gist of the topic... 

Congratulations to your son


----------



## mrteatime

its a shame that telford services haven't been that great with this.....as someone mentioned a few days a go....horology is a small world.....i know i won'y buy from them after hearing this


----------



## adrian

Sorry to hear about this, Ian. Very unprofessional and enough to put me off.

Congratulations for your son.


----------



## JonW

Wow, what a sorry tale. I feel for you mate. All that work to get your cash back and then they ignore even that. Well done your son btw


----------



## William_Wilson

I'm glad to hear of your son but not entirely surprised to hear of the problems with the watch. MWC's product descriptions are at best ambiguous and hard to interpret. As far as Telford is concerned, my only knowledge of them is their website. I don't mind pin-up girls, but that does not build my confidence when watch shopping.  Good luck.

Later,

William


----------



## pg tips

looking at Williams picture above I suspect where the second hand position is relative to the marks is enough to put most people on here off buying the mwc h34r:


----------



## Robert

pg tips said:


> looking at Williams picture above I suspect where the second hand position is relative to the marks is enough to put most people on here off buying the mwc h34r:


And the minute hand too ......


----------



## YellaBelly

JonW said:


> Wow, what a sorry tale. I feel for you mate. All that work to get your cash back and then they ignore even that. Well done your son btw


My frustartion with both Telford Services and MWC, who clearly are not interested in the business practises of their 'Premier Agent', is the total lack of Customer Service, and respect for their Customers.

I sent numerous emails both direct and via their online form, plus fax, and finally letters (signed for) giving them ample opportunity to respond and advise the status of my watch return (copies of which MWC have now got also). Trevor Rowell's (Telford Services) only correspondence (the day after I contacted MWC direct) was an email reply on 25 Jun'07 (to one of mine on 22 Jun'07 - so they were getting them) in which I had the following one line response:

"Hi, a replacement watch was sent out as I remember packing it myself. I will ask our dispatch if they can track it to find out where it has gone. regards, Trevor"

I immediately replied with:

"Many thanks for response Trevor, I would be grateful if you could advise tracking status for the replacement watch, we certainly havenâ€™t received it at our home address, or at my work address. Would it have been sent Special/Recorded Delivery, what was the tracking number?

Many thanks & regards, Ian Larder"

I haven't had any proof of posting/delivery from them or tracking information. In their initial defence of the CCJ they claimed to have received instruction from MWC to send replacement watch on 18 Jun'07, however they neither provided supporting evidence, and MWC knew nothing of my claim on the 24 Jun'07. It appears to me that MWC have no bench mark for service when issuing 'Premier Agent' status only on who sells the most (or maybe their own Customer Service is the bench mark). Also, Telford Services hide behind their foreign ownership (was Canadian, now appears to be Australian) feeling this makes them immune from the law, but deeper than that common decency and respect when dealing with clients. I have spent alot of time, and now money, on this 'cheap' watch but it is the principle of poor service and standing up and admitting your errors that is most important to me.

I have spent 25 years in an industry (shipping) full of rogues and cheats but in that time have never come across such disregard to the Customer. In Mr Rowell's "16 years in the British Army" it appears all he learnt was how to hide.

As you can see, i'm still very bitter and I now have a fear of buying anything on the web (I was going to get a better watch - maybe a military diver but who can you trust).

Ian

Thanks all with the warm welcome, and comments on my Son.


----------



## blackandgolduk

YellaBelly said:


> In Mr Rowell's "16 years in the British Army" it appears all he learnt was how to hide.


Brilliant! :lol:

Sorry to hear of your troubles, but thanks for the 'heads-up' - I certainly will never buy from them now... If you're looking for a reliable (and very fast!) source of watches on the web then look no further than RLT watches. Roy, the owner, is host of this forum - have a look at his own creations, they're lovely... Click the tab at the top of the page.


----------



## JoT

YellaBelly said:


> As you can see, i'm still very bitter and I now have a fear of buying anything on the web (I was going to get a better watch - maybe a military diver but who can you trust).


Ian, you can trust Roy Taylor the owner of this forum and the RLT Watch Co. If you want to buy a new CWC you can also trust Silvermans who are very professional.

Well done to your son :yes:


----------



## donnelly

cwc is much better-as Roy would say "trust me"


----------

