# Torn between 65 40mm or 65 42mm or CW Trident C60



## Colombia (Sep 7, 2015)

Looking for my first diver. Although I would love to have the new Aquis, it seems a little out of my budget. Those of you with 7.5in wrist, does the 40mm wear small?? Did you regret not going with the 42mm version. And lastly, how does the CW compare with the 42mm version of the 65. Thanx for your help.


----------



## trh77 (Feb 16, 2017)

7.25" wrist here. I find the 40 wears small-ish, but I'm in the minority. Here's my 40mm with my 43mm Aquis.










I'd definitely get the 40 over the 42 though. The dial makes the watch, and I find the 42 a little too homage-y.


----------



## Colombia (Sep 7, 2015)

I totally agree on the dial part. My only concern is that it would wear small considering I'm 7.5 maybe a tad bit more. Nice combo btw!!


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

I think the 40mm wears reasonably bigger than its size due to the thin bezel. I too chose the 40mm over the 42 because it was unique. The 42mm is gorgeous though! Never liked the hands on the Tridents!
For the record,my wrist is 7.00''!


----------



## JonS1967 (Jan 2, 2013)

My wrist is 7.25 inches. I think it's perfect.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Michael Day (Feb 19, 2016)

My vote is for the 42. Classic dial.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ard (Jul 21, 2014)

It wouldn't be much of a decision for me, Oris 40mm all the way. In the looks category I don't see the CW in the same class.


----------



## Scribeliever (Mar 4, 2017)

Oris over the CW, and 42 over the 40.


----------



## imarx (Apr 29, 2014)

I think the 40 mm wears perfectly on my 7+ inch wrist, but I lean towards smaller sizes - nothing above 40 mm in my collection at the moment.


----------



## Colombia (Sep 7, 2015)

Both versions are gorgeous and **** their own unique style. Anyone else have pics of The 42mm?? Thanx


----------



## sticky (Apr 5, 2013)

I drive a C60 and can't really comment on the quality of the 65 (it'll be top flight though) but I'd grab the 42 without thinking about it.


----------



## husonfirst (Nov 20, 2011)

I think the 65 40mm wears a bit bigger due to the bezel and dial being black. The Ward Trident, if you are referring to the 43mm version, will be bigger and chunkier than the 65 42mm. The lugs are bigger as well.


----------



## Michael Day (Feb 19, 2016)

Colombia said:


> Both versions are gorgeous and **** their own unique style. Anyone else have pics of The 42mm?? Thanx












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## stone1 (Aug 4, 2016)

40mm is the most suitable for me I think cause I have a 7.2" wrist size... Wouldn't go for anything bigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tyrantblade (Jan 18, 2016)

I'm surprised nobody is advocating for the Trident; they are lovely watches at a very good price for the quality and specs that you get.

I just got a MKI Trident GMT and it fits perfectly for me and is just an amazing watch for the price (i got this one from a CW forum sale)


----------



## Level.5x (Jun 7, 2015)

I've had a C60 for almost 2 years and I bought the Oris 65 about a month ago.

The Oris 65 just has so much more charm and character than the Chr. Ward C60. The design feels more congruent and purposeful.

The Chr. WARD C60 on the other hand, feels more like a sum of parts that came together as a finished watch. A very excellent finished watch but lacks that something special.

In most categories, like the case, the bracelet, case back, and water resistance, the C60 is simply better(I think). The dial and the domed sapphire crystal is definitely better on the Oris though but somehow, the Oris still wins by far more than just this.

Really like the Oris 65 on this Bulang & Sons SmokeyJack strap and some Horween Derby English Tan:

























Also like the C60 on the B&S SmokeyJack strap:









My next strap I want for the Oris 65 is this one from Bas & Lokes:


----------



## Ruggs (Apr 1, 2016)

I love the box crystal on this. I agree that the trident is a nice piece, and an incredible value at sale prices. Probably can't go wrong 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elbilo (Sep 11, 2011)

I have a 7.5 in. wrist and tried both of the Diver 65 models (with all strap options) at an AD. The size difference between the two is apparent when compared together (another AD only had the 42mm, which I thought wore smaller at that time). The 42mm fit comfortably and was sized well on my wrist, but I favored the 40mm for several reasons, including: the dial is more interesting; the 40mm case size is a nice modern size, but small enough to more appropriately capture the vintage feel/vibe; the 20mm lug width makes it easier to find alternative straps. The 42mm case seemed slightly bloated for a heritage piece (if it was a modern watch design, then I'd have no fault with the case) and the dial is more bland, though the blue is stunning and the date window offers some minor interest.


----------



## Michael Day (Feb 19, 2016)

If you can't decide on the ones listed then perhaps none are the right one. Maybe while you're thinking about those you should keep looking at others. Above: Aquaracer WAK2110

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Colombia (Sep 7, 2015)

Thanks for the suggestions fellas. I think I've narrowed it down to both versions frpm Oris. I'm leaning towards the 40mm due to the dial.


----------



## Colombia (Sep 7, 2015)

Michael Day said:


> If you can't decide on the ones listed then perhaps none are the right one. Maybe while you're thinking about those you should keep looking at others. Above: Aquaracer WAK2110
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The Aquaracer is also a nice suggestion. But maybe a little bit out of my budget. I'm trying to stay under the 1k. The search continues lol


----------



## Neognosis (Sep 10, 2014)

Have you worn them?

I anticipated liking the 40 more, due to the unique dial and my smallish wrist size.

But when I put them on....


----------



## RossFraney (Mar 2, 2017)

Definitely Oris anyway, due to brand history etc. although I must admit CW make some really nice looking watches imo. On purely aesthetic reasons I could be persuaded


----------



## Justin8836 (Apr 17, 2016)

42MM on 8'wrist


----------



## thedose (Dec 23, 2011)

As someone who previously owned CW watches and now owns an Oris, I say this: Oris all the way, they are not even in the same class, with Oris being much higher than CW (which I would put in the same boat/class/tier as Frederique Constant)


----------



## rosborn (Oct 30, 2011)

RossFraney said:


> Definitely Oris anyway, due to brand history etc. although I must admit CW make some really nice looking watches imo. On purely aesthetic reasons I could be persuaded


Brand history is a silly reason. At some point in history, say 1918, Oris' history was no better or wore than Christopher Ward. Every company has to have a "born on" date. Same goes for Rolex. Both Oris and Rolex started about the same time, `1904, and were the "new kids on the block" 100 years ago. I'd buy your reson for not wanting a Christopher Ward iif you cited aesthetics but you cited history and that's just silly.


----------



## vfrock (May 10, 2014)

Definitely the C60 over any Oris. Oris is overpriced and overrated. 

Their resale values are the worst.


----------



## MR028 (Dec 3, 2016)

rosborn said:


> Brand history is a silly reason. At some point in history, say 1918, Oris' history was no better or wore than Christopher Ward. Every company has to have a "born on" date. Same goes for Rolex. Both Oris and Rolex started about the same time, `1904, and were the "new kids on the block" 100 years ago. I'd buy your reson for not wanting a Christopher Ward iif you cited aesthetics but you cited history and that's just silly.


I disagree, history of a brand is an important consideration in my opinion as it speaks to a brand's experience and authenticity. So Oris has 100 years more experience than Christopher Ward, and has correspondingly made & sold many more watches and effectively 'stood the test of time'. In terms of authenticity Oris can claim to have made Pilots Watches, for instance, going right back to 1917, not that that long after the pioneering of powered flight itself. Oris' inception in 1904 is around the same time that purpose-built wristwatches were becoming popular. CW cannot claim these things. So history, experience & authenticity are other aspects that people may take into consideration in addition to just aesthetics.


----------



## Michael Day (Feb 19, 2016)

rosborn said:


> Brand history is a silly reason. At some point in history, say 1918, Oris' history was no better or wore than Christopher Ward. Every company has to have a "born on" date. Same goes for Rolex. Both Oris and Rolex started about the same time, `1904, and were the "new kids on the block" 100 years ago. I'd buy your reson for not wanting a Christopher Ward iif you cited aesthetics but you cited history and that's just silly.


People (not all) do connect with me than the watch. The back story can be the difference when stick between two brands or models. Eg, moonwatch.

I connect in this way to each of the watches I own. Of course that's on top of liking the watch.

A longer history also serves to what direction the brand is headed and their overall vision. A new brand may not be clear about what this is yet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Colombia (Sep 7, 2015)

Well people, as some of you might have seen on on WRUW threads, I ended up purchasing a CW. I could not pass up a deal I saw here on a brand new C60 gmt. Well, this was about 3 weeks ago and it is already gone!!! Although it is a nice watch, i just couldn't vibe with it. It didn't have that wooow factor after trying it on. Sooooo....this is what I replaced it with..


















And my CW










Overall quality is amazing. I heard many stories about the bracelet and all I can say is wooow!!! I'm glad I made the decision. Thanks everyone for the recommendation, but next will be 40mm 65.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------

