# Thoughts on the Tank Solo (large quartz model)?



## omega1300

Hey All - I’d love to get everyone’s thoughts on the Cartier Tank Solo. I know it’s considered the “basic” or “entry level” to the brand - but I still find it to be a classic. It’s got 99% of what I love:

Classic tank look
No date
No seconds hand 
Blued hands 
Classy black leather strap

So what doesn’t it have?

Ideally of course, it would be manual wind, and have some beautiful guilloche on the dial. 

But options for that (that I know of) include the Drive Extra Flat (not a Tank, no guilloche), and the gold Louis (which is more than I’d like to invest in what will likely be a “occasional wear” watch). 

So, finally, I could attempt to find a Basculante, but they don’t come up often, and are frequently missing box / papers / in need of repairs. 

Back to the Solo:

Yup, it’s a quartz. Without a second hand, you wouldn’t even notice though. It would likely be less expensive to maintain, and definitely less to purchase initially. Seems like a pair of wins to me. 

So - what am I missing? Any arguments for or against the Solo (large quartz) model? Any owners want to chime in? Any other options I’ve failed to consider? How long do the batteries generally last? 

I’d love to get your thoughts! Thanks!


----------



## City74

I will be buying a Cartier Tank this year and it will be the Solo large. For me, the fact it’s a quartz is a plus. Being that it will be my “dress” watch and won’t be worn as often as my other watches, the set and forget quartz movement is fine. It’s also the right size I think for a Tank watch, especially for small or midsize wrist. The RRP of about $2500 for the leather variety is also about $1000 less then the X-large with an auto movement. I strongly prefer the watch on leather, it’s just more classy and classic IMO.


----------



## omega1300

City74 said:


> I will be buying a Cartier Tank this year and it will be the Solo large. For me, the fact it's a quartz is a plus. Being that it will be my "dress" watch and won't be worn as often as my other watches, the set and forget quartz movement is fine. It's also the right size I think for a Tank watch, especially for small or midsize wrist. The RRP of about $2500 for the leather variety is also about $1000 less then the X-large with an auto movement. I strongly prefer the watch on leather, it's just more classy and classic IMO.


These are pretty much the exact line of thoughts I've had as well, including preferring leather. The XL would be out for me due to the date and second hand - it doesn't look like the classic Tank to me.

I guess my only "real" concern is having to deal with replacing batteries periodically - which honestly probably isn't that big a deal, I just haven't had to in a long time.

Thanks for weighing in, I hope you post up when you gets yours and share some photos!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## diablogt

It's a fabulous watch that will never go out of style. I'd personally choose the yellow gold version. The steel version is a "classic" then the yellow gold version is a *"CLASSIC"*.

I also agree on avoiding a second hand on a quartz watch. It cheapens the watch considerably.

The battery is really not a concern, it is just once every few years and its a very easy procedure to do.


----------



## Ben93

After the service costs on my vintage IWC dress watch I just bought a quartz Cartier tank solo. Replacing the battery is far less expensive than servicing a mechanical watch.


----------



## 53jd

I buy quartz on most of stuff because of winding issues.


----------



## 53jd

Still!!!

Entry level is a good place to start with a brand.


----------



## 53jd

I have GPS watches to calibrate the accuracy of mechanical watches.


----------



## 53jd

And, for that matter, to calibrate the quartz too!


----------



## Hardaway

I wouldn’t hesitate with the quartz for a second. It’s not as if the mechanical version of this watch has a haute horological movement with a see through caseback for you to admire it.


----------



## IllCommunication

Personally I wouldnt spend that kind of money on quartz. Not a knock on doing so (looking at a tank solo for my wife in quartz) but I think its slightly overpriced for what it is. I supposed it depends on the deal you can get at an AD. 

I do understand the usefulness of quartz in an only occasionally worn watch. Seems like the reasons you like it are good enough reasons to get one. And they are pretty and classic. Go for it!


----------



## omega1300

Hardaway said:


> I wouldn't hesitate with the quartz for a second. It's not as if the mechanical version of this watch has a haute horological movement with a see through caseback for you to admire it.





IllCommunication said:


> Personally I wouldnt spend that kind of money on quartz. Not a knock on doing so (looking at a tank solo for my wife in quartz) but I think its slightly overpriced for what it is. I supposed it depends on the deal you can get at an AD.
> 
> I do understand the usefulness of quartz in an only occasionally worn watch. Seems like the reasons you like it are good enough reasons to get one. And they are pretty and classic. Go for it!


Thank you both - much appreciated!! I'm still debating with myself! 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Davidson

I'm going to the boutique to look at this watch today. I love the style and the size. Does anyone know if Cartier still offers a mechanical watch in the same general style/size? There used to be a Louis that was about the same but mechanical, right?


----------



## omega1300

Davidson said:


> I'm going to the boutique to look at this watch today. I love the style and the size. Does anyone know if Cartier still offers a mechanical watch in the same general style/size? There used to be a Louis that was about the same but mechanical, right?


To my knowledge they still make a beautiful Tank Louis in solid rose gold with a mechanical movement.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayfalcon22

The cartier solo large in yellow gold is a watch im currently saving up for, i love it and while i have other highend watches it doesnt bother me that its a quartz, im actually glad that cartier offers it. 8k for a mechanical version is out of my price point and i would miss out on such an iconic design.


----------



## Jayfalcon22

Something else I forgot to mention,
























I want to like the reverso in classic size but i feel like its too small, and the large is too big. I love the history , the brand and the design of the watch but when i try it on I dont feel it looks good on me. So i did a test and purchased the seiko tank as an experiment to see if i prefer the square design instead and it was a hit, i instantly knew that the square design looks better on me. I recently got an opportunity to vist the cartier boutique and tried on the solo large and without a doubt I know i like it more than the reverso.. but to be honest i originally wanted the reverso due to its manual wind and horology significance but the cartier won me over and now thats the watch i have my eyes set to be my dress watch in my collection. As andditional bonus the cartier looks better in yellow gold than the reverso, and it checks the yellow gold watch in my collection I woultried to attach pictures but not sure if my account is too new


----------



## Jayfalcon22

Here is another shot:








Large and medium:


----------



## omega1300

Jayfalcon22 said:


> Something else I forgot to mention,
> View attachment 14022355
> View attachment 14022355
> View attachment 14022361
> View attachment 14022361
> I want to like the reverso in classic size but i feel like its too small, and the large is too big. I love the history , the brand and the design of the watch but when i try it on I dont feel it looks good on me. So i did a test and purchased the seiko tank as an experiment to see if i prefer the square design instead and it was a hit, i instantly knew that the square design looks better on me. I recently got an opportunity to vist the cartier boutique and tried on the solo large and without a doubt I know i like it more than the reverso.. but to be honest i originally wanted the reverso due to its manual wind and horology significance but the cartier won me over and now thats the watch i have my eyes set to be my dress watch in my collection. As andditional bonus the cartier looks better in yellow gold than the reverso, and it checks the yellow gold watch in my collection I woultried to attach pictures but not sure if my account is too new


Great insights - thank you!! Have to agree - the yellow gold Cartier looks outstanding on you.

I've always preferred them to the Reverso myself. Not sure why, but Cartier has that something extra.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Casey Wai

The Tank Solo was always a watch I liked however on the wrist I noticed that if the fit isn’t good, it turns to end up wearing a little too flat on the wrist. If the lugs extend too far out then I believe a smaller size would be better. Cartier tank watches are originally worn quite small on famous men’s wrists. If it’s too big it looks like a little rectangular saucer on the wrist and does not seem to wrap around well. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stebesplace

As Casey pointed out, it's easy to think you need a larger Tank when you think about dimensions on paper, and compared to other modern watches. The reality however, is that a Tank is designed to be worn small, highlighting the strap as much as the watch itself. It shouldn't be sized and treated like a standard round or tonneau case normally is.

You really have to try these on to see how the fit works. The expectation of a Tank is to be smaller, which won't appeal to everyone these days. Some will call it feminine, but the reality is that it's unisex, which is rare for most watches, and acceptable in smaller sizes.

Some argue not having a line of mechanical movements is a negative in the medium and large size. Quartz has its benefits too, and it's not as though the quartz movement is ugly, on the contrary, you're actually getting something finished quite nicely.









I think what impressed me most, is that even being a quartz model, they only lose about 15% or less of their value on the second hand market. I'd most likely opt for purchasing as a boutique or AD (if you're able to get a discount at an AD)


----------



## Jayfalcon22

stebesplace said:


> As Casey pointed out, it's easy to think you need a larger Tank when you think about dimensions on paper, and compared to other modern watches. The reality however, is that a Tank is designed to be worn small, highlighting the strap as much as the watch itself. It shouldn't be sized and treated like a standard round or tonneau case normally is.
> 
> You really have to try these on to see how the fit works. The expectation of a Tank is to be smaller, which won't appeal to everyone these days. Some will call it feminine, but the reality is that it's unisex, which is rare for most watches, and acceptable in smaller sizes.
> 
> Some argue not having a line of mechanical movements is a negative in the medium and large size. Quartz has its benefits too, and it's not as though the quartz movement is ugly, on the contrary, you're actually getting something finished quite nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what impressed me most, is that even being a quartz model, they only lose about 15% or less of their value on the second hand market. I'd most likely opt for purchasing as a boutique or AD (if you're able to get a discount at an AD)


Your absolutely right I have been waiting for a good opportunity to purchase a preowned and there are not many in the market and when they are they hold their value very well..

Judging by my pictures do you think this is too big on me? I have a 6.5" wrist, its the large model.. to my eyes it looks dressy but big enough that i can wear it casually without it looking so tiny


----------



## stebesplace

Jayfalcon22 said:


> Your absolutely right I have been waiting for a good opportunity to purchase a preowned and there are not many in the market and when they are they hold their value very well..
> 
> Judging by my pictures do you think this is too big on me? I have a 6.5" wrist, its the large model.. to my eyes it looks dressy but big enough that i can wear it casually without it looking so tiny


The large appears just right for your wrist. I believe a large can go well up to a 7.25" wrist. Again, these watches are meant to be smaller and more unisex friendly. Besides, not having a central seconds, and lack of a date window class it up nicely.


----------



## omega1300

A poor photo, but just as a thread update, I tried the large Solo Tank last weekend. Really liked the fit, a definitely still don't want a date or seconds hand.

The finishing and quality were really nice in person, and I loved how light and thin it wore. The strap was also amazingly soft.

Here it is on my 8" wrist.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 14060

The Cartier is a good fit for your wrist and it looks good. If you want something mechanical, the Girard Perregaux 1945 might be a good alternative. Buy used.


----------



## chronomaestro

I'm going with the XL because of automatic movement and second hand. I believe all XL after 2015 will have Cartier's own mechanical movement, not ETA.


----------



## chronomaestro

Wrist watches were made traditionally small. I think the XL is not too big to look funny and big enough to give presence on the wrist. Just my opinion.


----------



## chronomaestro

Wrist watches were made traditionally small. I think the XL is not too big to look funny and big enough to give presence on the wrist. Just my opinion.


----------



## wickets

im trying to decide between the xl and santos....xl has the edge on price, santos on looks and the new(?) quick strap change system.....so conflicted here


----------



## chronomaestro

The XL actually looks very classy in real life. I too have small wrist but the XL looks just right, not too small and not too large. I have to admit that Cartier watches (all of them) carry a sense of elegance regardless of the model. And the customer service at Cartier boutique sure beats the online experience. You are paying more for sure but in return, they provide other complimentary services that more than made up the the price difference. (The experience may vary according to the sale specialist but I'm referring to customization options such as extra strap or engraving with no additional charges, etc.)


----------



## heb

I love the watch. Although my retired lifestyle has absolutely no use for such a beautiful dress watch, I sure would like to get the mechanical version of same. I've seen some described as a "silver dial" watch. That would suck because it is either "refrigerator white" or nothing for me.

I think in the long annals of wristwatches, from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, it is second in beauty to only those Rolex Submariners from the 50's and 60's.

heb


----------



## vesspone

One month ago I was considering to buy a Tank Solo large and I read this thread.
My thoughts were exactly those listed by omega1300, the opener of this thread:
- Classic tank look
- No date
- No seconds hand 
- Blued hands 
- Classy black leather strap

Last week I finally bought a brand new Tank Solo large steel watch at the Cartier boutique and I'm absolutely delighted!
Here I want to share my thoughts about *steel vs gold* version.

I agree with the sentence _If the steel version is a "classic" then the yellow gold version is a *"CLASSIC"*_ but are you sure that you need the "most classic" one?

Although the most of you consider this watch an occasionally worn watch or a dress watch, I consider the Tank Solo as my every-day watch. Steel is more discrete than gold. In my working environment for example, it is nice to have a classy watch, but it would not be appropriate to wear something that looks too much as a luxury item.
A classic watch that is not striking: that's the Tank Solo in steel.

Also the buckle made me prefer steel instead of gold. The steel version has a folding buckle (or deployant clasp), the gold one has a traditional ardillon buckle. It's strange that no one did mention the Deployant Clasp, an inventon patented by Cartier in 1909.

What i like most of the deployant clasp is that the watch doesn't move around your wrist: it stays firmly in the center of the wrist even if the strap is comfortably leak. With other watches, if the strap is not tight enough, the watch moves away from the center of my wrist and I have to use the other hand to put it back in the center position every time I want to know what time it is. With the deployant clasp this doesn't happen because the size of the clasp does not allow a rotation around the wrist (I hope the explanation is clear enough :-s)

Another advantage of the deployant clasp is that taking off the watch (i.e. for washing your hands) and putting it on again is really fast. So you can take it off easily every time you wash your hands and protect (the strap) from water.

My last (but not least) thought has to do with the quartz movement.
Last year I had to pay €1.100 to repair a 3 years old Zenith Elite Ultra Thin with automatic movement.
Replacing the battery of the Tank Solo costs just €40 at the Cartier Boutique.
The quartz movement is definitely a plus for me.


----------



## hyjadenlee

vesspone said:


> One month ago I was considering to buy a Tank Solo large and I read this thread.
> My thoughts were exactly those listed by omega1300, the opener of this thread:
> - Classic tank look
> - No date
> - No seconds hand
> - Blued hands
> - Classy black leather strap
> 
> Last week I finally bought a brand new Tank Solo large steel watch at the Cartier boutique and I'm absolutely delighted!
> Here I want to share my thoughts about *steel vs gold* version.
> 
> I agree with the sentence _If the steel version is a "classic" then the yellow gold version is a *"CLASSIC"*_ but are you sure that you need the "most classic" one?
> 
> Although the most of you consider this watch an occasionally worn watch or a dress watch, I consider the Tank Solo as my every-day watch. Steel is more discrete than gold. In my working environment for example, it is nice to have a classy watch, but it would not be appropriate to wear something that looks too much as a luxury item.
> A classic watch that is not striking: that's the Tank Solo in steel.
> 
> Also the buckle made me prefer steel instead of gold. The steel version has a folding buckle (or deployant clasp), the gold one has a traditional ardillon buckle. It's strange that no one did mention the Deployant Clasp, an inventon patented by Cartier in 1909.
> 
> What i like most of the deployant clasp is that the watch doesn't move around your wrist: it stays firmly in the center of the wrist even if the strap is comfortably leak. With other watches, if the strap is not tight enough, the watch moves away from the center of my wrist and I have to use the other hand to put it back in the center position every time I want to know what time it is. With the deployant clasp this doesn't happen because the size of the clasp does not allow a rotation around the wrist (I hope the explanation is clear enough :-s)
> 
> Another advantage of the deployant clasp is that taking off the watch (i.e. for washing your hands) and putting it on again is really fast. So you can take it off easily every time you wash your hands and protect (the strap) from water.
> 
> My last (but not least) thought has to do with the quartz movement.
> Last year I had to pay €1.100 to repair a 3 years old Zenith Elite Ultra Thin with automatic movement.
> Replacing the battery of the Tank Solo costs just €40 at the Cartier Boutique.
> The quartz movement is definitely a plus for me.


I totally agree with you! 
I am not much of a dress watch kind of guy myself, but I've noticed that there are certain occasions where I want a dress watch in my collection. Large Tank with the quartz movement sounds like a perfect fit. 
So tempting!


----------



## omega1300

vesspone said:


> One month ago I was considering to buy a Tank Solo large and I read this thread.
> My thoughts were exactly those listed by omega1300, the opener of this thread:
> - Classic tank look
> - No date
> - No seconds hand
> - Blued hands
> - Classy black leather strap
> 
> Last week I finally bought a brand new Tank Solo large steel watch at the Cartier boutique and I'm absolutely delighted!
> Here I want to share my thoughts about *steel vs gold* version.
> 
> I agree with the sentence _If the steel version is a "classic" then the yellow gold version is a *"CLASSIC"*_ but are you sure that you need the "most classic" one?
> 
> Although the most of you consider this watch an occasionally worn watch or a dress watch, I consider the Tank Solo as my every-day watch. Steel is more discrete than gold. In my working environment for example, it is nice to have a classy watch, but it would not be appropriate to wear something that looks too much as a luxury item.
> A classic watch that is not striking: that's the Tank Solo in steel.
> 
> Also the buckle made me prefer steel instead of gold. The steel version has a folding buckle (or deployant clasp), the gold one has a traditional ardillon buckle. It's strange that no one did mention the Deployant Clasp, an inventon patented by Cartier in 1909.
> 
> What i like most of the deployant clasp is that the watch doesn't move around your wrist: it stays firmly in the center of the wrist even if the strap is comfortably leak. With other watches, if the strap is not tight enough, the watch moves away from the center of my wrist and I have to use the other hand to put it back in the center position every time I want to know what time it is. With the deployant clasp this doesn't happen because the size of the clasp does not allow a rotation around the wrist (I hope the explanation is clear enough :-s)
> 
> Another advantage of the deployant clasp is that taking off the watch (i.e. for washing your hands) and putting it on again is really fast. So you can take it off easily every time you wash your hands and protect (the strap) from water.
> 
> My last (but not least) thought has to do with the quartz movement.
> Last year I had to pay €1.100 to repair a 3 years old Zenith Elite Ultra Thin with automatic movement.
> Replacing the battery of the Tank Solo costs just €40 at the Cartier Boutique.
> The quartz movement is definitely a plus for me.


Thank you for your input and some great additional thoughts on the gold vs steel debate. At one time, I thought I wanted gold - but honestly, I keep coming back to the steel. It contrasts so nicely with the black leather, that for me, I think it's the way to go as well.

I also love the deployant, and like to hear that it keep the watch from moving around too much (annoys me as well)! I'd love to see some photos of your Tank!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chronomaestro

I got the Tank Solo pair for my wife and I (XL for me and Small for her). I wouldn't think twice about getting these. There is nothing "entry level" about this watch. I think it was just watch snobbiness when people called this "entry level". It is elegant in its own way. The XL now has Cartier's own movement.


----------



## omega1300

chronomaestro said:


> I got the Tank Solo pair for my wife and I (XL for me and Small for her). I wouldn't think twice about getting these. There is nothing "entry level" about this watch. I think it was just watch snobbiness when people called this "entry level". It is elegant in its own way. The XL now has Cartier's own movement.
> 
> View attachment 14192799
> View attachment 14192801
> View attachment 14192803


Thank you! Great photos and a great pair of watches!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bigclive2011

Always loved the look of the Tank, a true classic watch.

I had a Gold plated Cartier Must de Cartier in the 90’s and only sold it because it was too small for my huge arms.

Would definetly get a larger size Tank again, although I am On a ban for at least a year.


----------



## chronomaestro

bigclive2011 said:


> Always loved the look of the Tank, a true classic watch.
> 
> I had a Gold plated Cartier Must de Cartier in the 90's and only sold it because it was too small for my huge arms.
> 
> Would definetly get a larger size Tank again, although I am On a ban for at least a year.


Sorry to hear you are on a ban. What you may want to do is to get a pair  (one for her of course, not all for you). The Solo XL should fit larger wrist. It comes in gold too. I like stainless personally.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mikkolopez

This is a good idea to complement my Solo XL. Time to get a pairing for the wifey.



chronomaestro said:


> I got the Tank Solo pair for my wife and I (XL for me and Small for her). I wouldn't think twice about getting these. There is nothing "entry level" about this watch. I think it was just watch snobbiness when people called this "entry level". It is elegant in its own way. The XL now has Cartier's own movement.
> 
> View attachment 14192799
> View attachment 14192801
> View attachment 14192803


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chronomaestro

It goes a long way ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

