This post is in response to @StrappedUp who was asking how my new Trident compared to existing C65 Trident watches. To be fair I thought it best to compare between these two and my 38mm C60 Pro Vintage.
The following thoughts and comments are my own, personal opinion and observations; others may feel differently and I respect that.
Firstly, size. My M3, in its 40mm size, sits nicely between the C65 at 41mm and the C60 at 38mm. However, simple dimensions are not the film story; total thickness and lug-to-lug- measurements also have a big influence. Here are all three side by side:
Below we can see how the case profiles have evolved. I find the C60, despite its smaller diameter, actually feels more top-heavy when worn especially when I wear it on a NATO. This is my habit during the warmer months. I think this partly due to its overall thickness, but also how the spring bar instillation holes are machined relatively low in the lugs. The lugs themselves are less curved than the C65 or the M3 and this also helps to make the watch wear bigger. In fact, the C60 is the only one of these three that does not always slide under my tighter fitted shirt cuffs, especially when on a NATO. Both the other two will do so comfortably
C60 Pro 38mm side profile
M3 Trident 40mm side profile - sculpted look and more curved lugs give the illusion of a slimmer case and better wrap around the wrist.
At 1.5mm thinner, and a decent curve to the lugs, the C65 Diver has the slimmest profile of the three, and ability to wrap around the wrist in a less obtrusive manner than one might expect. The GMT version is 1mm thicker, but still sits smaller than I thought it might.
On the wrist the M3 is deceptive in that it wears and looks smaller than the basic diameter would suggest. I think this is partly due to the way that the case has been sculpted, has different finished applied and how the lugs curve down more then the C60. The bulge of the M3 caseback also (comfortably) buries itself deeper into my wrist when I wear it so it sits even lower than the C60. Of course, the C65 Diver sits lowest but that is because it is just thinner...
C60 Pro 38mm on the wrist
M3 Trident 40mm on the wrist
C65Diver on the wrist
Next is the dial layout. The C65 has a very slim bezel and relatively slender hour markers and numerals. On the other hand, both the C60 and M3 have more significant bezels and hour markers. This combination, along with the absence of a date window on the C65, makes the C65 dial appear bigger when viewed face on.
Overall, I find the 40mm Trident M3 to be far more evolved than its older version. It looks more refined, has the illusion of a slimmer profile and wears smaller on the wrist than it’s size suggests. Despite how the physical dimensions of the C65 indicate that it is a bigger watch I find that it wears smaller than suggested.
Hope this helps to all,
C
Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
CW Watches - Malvern, Dartmouth, Lympstone, Sandhurst, Elite 1000, c60 300 Quartz.
Recently started hand making most of the leather straps you’ll see on my watches, happy to consider bespoke order for forum members.
Recently started hand making most of the leather straps you’ll see on my watches, happy to consider bespoke order for forum members.
-
- Trusted Seller
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 2:14 pm
- CW-watches: 0
- Location: South Wales
Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
Above and beyond! Thank you very much kind Sir for your informative post
From the comparison picture of the 3, it gives me a good feeling that the 40mm would will be spot on
Now I just have to sit and wait for CW to serve up a GMT.
From the comparison picture of the 3, it gives me a good feeling that the 40mm would will be spot on
Now I just have to sit and wait for CW to serve up a GMT.
Ryan
- Bident
- Senior Forumgod
- Posts: 2426
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:15 pm
- CW-watches: 3
- Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
C,
Very helpful! Many thanks for writing this up.
Quick question: do you know the thickness of your 38mm C60 Pro Vintage? Reading the specs on the 40mm Mk3 C60, it says thickness is 12.95mm. Your 38mm appears to be thicker, is that correct?
Very helpful! Many thanks for writing this up.
Quick question: do you know the thickness of your 38mm C60 Pro Vintage? Reading the specs on the 40mm Mk3 C60, it says thickness is 12.95mm. Your 38mm appears to be thicker, is that correct?
Best regards,
John
John
- H0rati0
- Senior Forumgod
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:49 am
- CW-watches: 4
- Location: Alpenvorland
Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
Very informative. I will be keeping my Mk2 Trident, but it would seem to be definitely more tooly/chunky than either the Mk3 or C65. I fancy a GMT, but it won't be easy to decide between C65 and Mk3....
"There is no beginning to enlightenment and no end to training" - Dogen Zenji (1200-1253)
- jkbarnes
- Senior Forumgod
- Posts: 7852
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:39 pm
- CW-watches: 3
- Location: Virginia, USA
Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
Great write up. Thanks for sharing. I’m a bit amazed at how different in the size the three different models look when side by side, especially the mk 3 and the C65. The 1mm difference is really noticeable.
Drew
Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
Thanks for the positive feedback everyone.
To answer some specific questions...
@Bident my M2 C60 Pro 38mm measures 0.12mm thinner than the M3. I dare not give specific measurements since my calliper jaws have Sellotape coverings to protect the watch when I measure them, but the difference between M2 and M3 is 0.12mm thinner to the M2. Saying that though, the M2 actually feels thicker when on the wrist; possibly due to its smaller footprint making it feel top-heavy, or the profile of its case back making it sit taller on the wrist, or the angle of the lugs.... Or a combination of all three. The only real way to compare it to try them I guess and see what fits you.
@jkbarnes yes, the size difference definitely looks significant, but I think this has a lot to do with the ratio of case size, dial diameter and bezel thickness. The bezel insert on my C65 measures just 2.3mm wide. However there is also a nearly invisible inner rim in stainless steel and then the curved edge profile of the crystal that both add invisible “width” to the watch face without actually adding material. In comparison, the bezel of the M3 measures almost exactly 4mm, there is no visible inner rim and the crystal has no noticeable edge thickness where it meets the bezel. The overall effect is to make the dial:case size ratio on the C65 appear much greater than the M3, and the watch itself look bigger. Clever optical illusions
Hope this helps,
C
To answer some specific questions...
@Bident my M2 C60 Pro 38mm measures 0.12mm thinner than the M3. I dare not give specific measurements since my calliper jaws have Sellotape coverings to protect the watch when I measure them, but the difference between M2 and M3 is 0.12mm thinner to the M2. Saying that though, the M2 actually feels thicker when on the wrist; possibly due to its smaller footprint making it feel top-heavy, or the profile of its case back making it sit taller on the wrist, or the angle of the lugs.... Or a combination of all three. The only real way to compare it to try them I guess and see what fits you.
@jkbarnes yes, the size difference definitely looks significant, but I think this has a lot to do with the ratio of case size, dial diameter and bezel thickness. The bezel insert on my C65 measures just 2.3mm wide. However there is also a nearly invisible inner rim in stainless steel and then the curved edge profile of the crystal that both add invisible “width” to the watch face without actually adding material. In comparison, the bezel of the M3 measures almost exactly 4mm, there is no visible inner rim and the crystal has no noticeable edge thickness where it meets the bezel. The overall effect is to make the dial:case size ratio on the C65 appear much greater than the M3, and the watch itself look bigger. Clever optical illusions
Hope this helps,
C
CW Watches - Malvern, Dartmouth, Lympstone, Sandhurst, Elite 1000, c60 300 Quartz.
Recently started hand making most of the leather straps you’ll see on my watches, happy to consider bespoke order for forum members.
Recently started hand making most of the leather straps you’ll see on my watches, happy to consider bespoke order for forum members.
- Bident
- Senior Forumgod
- Posts: 2426
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:15 pm
- CW-watches: 3
- Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
I really appreciate all of your helpful information.Jcalder68 wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 9:21 pm Thanks for the positive feedback everyone.
To answer some specific questions...
@Bident my M2 C60 Pro 38mm measures 0.12mm thinner than the M3. I dare not give specific measurements since my calliper jaws have Sellotape coverings to protect the watch when I measure them, but the difference between M2 and M3 is 0.12mm thinner to the M2. Saying that though, the M2 actually feels thicker when on the wrist; possibly due to its smaller footprint making it feel top-heavy, or the profile of its case back making it sit taller on the wrist, or the angle of the lugs.... Or a combination of all three. The only real way to compare it to try them I guess and see what fits you.
@jkbarnes yes, the size difference definitely looks significant, but I think this has a lot to do with the ratio of case size, dial diameter and bezel thickness. The bezel insert on my C65 measures just 2.3mm wide. However there is also a nearly invisible inner rim in stainless steel and then the curved edge profile of the crystal that both add invisible “width” to the watch face without actually adding material. In comparison, the bezel of the M3 measures almost exactly 4mm, there is no visible inner rim and the crystal has no noticeable edge thickness where it meets the bezel. The overall effect is to make the dial:case size ratio on the C65 appear much greater than the M3, and the watch itself look bigger. Clever optical illusions
Hope this helps,
C
Best regards,
John
John
- watchaholic
- Senior Forumgod
- Posts: 1909
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:28 am
- CW-watches: 4
- Location: NE North Dakota, USA
Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
Some of you guys really do put forth a lot of time and effort in putting together these detailed reviews. Bravo, very informative.
Time and money? I’ve spent most of mine on booze and women. The rest I just wasted…
Dwight
Dwight
- jkbarnes
- Senior Forumgod
- Posts: 7852
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:39 pm
- CW-watches: 3
- Location: Virginia, USA
Re: Trident Comparison - M3 vs C65 vs C60?
It does indeed! Thanks for the insight.Jcalder68 wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 9:21 pm Thanks for the positive feedback everyone.
To answer some specific questions...
@jkbarnes yes, the size difference definitely looks significant, but I think this has a lot to do with the ratio of case size, dial diameter and bezel thickness. The bezel insert on my C65 measures just 2.3mm wide. However there is also a nearly invisible inner rim in stainless steel and then the curved edge profile of the crystal that both add invisible “width” to the watch face without actually adding material. In comparison, the bezel of the M3 measures almost exactly 4mm, there is no visible inner rim and the crystal has no noticeable edge thickness where it meets the bezel. The overall effect is to make the dial:case size ratio on the C65 appear much greater than the M3, and the watch itself look bigger. Clever optical illusions
Hope this helps,
C
Drew
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 8 Replies
- 297 Views
-
Last post by Amor Vincit Omnia
-
- 2 Replies
- 368 Views
-
Last post by CodyAWWC
-
- 1 Replies
- 435 Views
-
Last post by tikkathree
-
- 3 Replies
- 544 Views
-
Last post by Leon O
-
- 6 Replies
- 578 Views
-
Last post by Viognier