I have a renewed interest in G-Shocks. Been wearing Seiko auto's for some time now. But G-Shocks have always beckoned me to come back. Wish I still had my first one from the mid 80's I think it was, looked like a current DW5600E. G-Shock's remind of when my life was simpler ... one watch, one 3-blade stockman pocket knife, one lock-back knife on my belt, one flashlight, one well stocked tool box, one rifle, one revolver, one duffel bag of clothes. Life was good, life was simple. It's still plenty good, but man do I have lots of "stuff" now. LOL!
I have kicked around the idea of getting a G-Shock with the Tough Solar feature. However, I've also been thinking about just getting a DW6900 or maybe a DW6600 and stealthing the bezel with Goof-Off.
I mean, when the batteries do die, they'll get replaced along with a new gasket, some silicone lube for good measure and away we'll go.
Anyhow, I have read probably just about everything contained within this Casio G-Shock forum along with other sources out on the web regarding Tough Solar. The poll here indicated that most of you believe in, rely upon and even prefer the Tough Solar feature. Not to start a riot or flame me war, but it seems there has been a fair number of people who have had problems with Tough Solar to the point of having to send their watch to a Casio service center for repair, often with less than positive results. Still, many of you would rather rely upon Tough Solar than a regular battery when traveling or being in situations where you would prefer to have your watch function reliably.
Why so much faith in a feature that may very well fail well before a battery ever will and maybe fail when it's not so convenient? Are the failures isolated incidents or are the non-failures isolated incidents?
I'm just not convinced that Tough Solar is better than just a battery for both reliability and longevity.
I would like some more discussion on this if it would be ok.