My Gulfman arrived last week and since then I've been thinking a lot about it, and also the G-1010 that arrived about the same time.
Specifically, is it of the same quality that the original 90s Masters series watches had, and does it have their impact?
I own the original Riseman, Gaussman, Raysman and yellow Mudman. I once came close to getting a Wademan on this forum but really, I had spent enough. Really
As far as I understood it, each of those original "Men" was supposed to showcase a G with different special features - Wademan had a digital compass, Raysman was the first tough solar (I have never owned a better quality Casio), Riseman had twin sensors, Mudman was mud resistant, Fisherman had tide graph, and so on. I thought all these were well designed and laid out.
The thing is, what does Gulfman bring to the table? Frogman and Wademan were definitely titanium, so in theory already rust resistant?
To me, this new Gulfman does not make much of an impact. It's quite small, and the display is too small. The tide graph and moonphase specifically. As a result the moonphase only has 4 segments. Why is there such a big (relatively) second counter dial? I never did understand the point of those.
Feature-wise this Gulfman is good, a 24 hour stopwatch and countdown are always good, as are multi-alarms. But for me the case finish and strap are not great quality, either. The bezel has rough machining lines on it. A double buckle would at least be nice, and I'm sure the buckle isn't titanium, is it?
I paid £45 and thought that would be a total bargain, but for me this is only a watch worth about £50. I suppose at the heart of this, I think a "man" watch - a Masters series watch - should still be a range-topper. I paid just £35 for my G-1010 and though analogue-only is pretty confusing, the watch feels better quality than the Gulfman, and looks better too. I think analogue Gs have really come to the forefront lately.
This Gulfman is clearly a mid-range G-Shock at best. I think it's a pity that Casio have diluted that. I also think it's dubious to offer so many different versions of a "man" watch.
But maybe I am making way too much of it! What do you all think? Especially those of you who were collecting in the 90s?