GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

Thread: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Member RichardD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    233

    GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    OK, I'm mulling over buying another watch that I don't need and can't afford. And these three are top of my list (largely because Casio don't seem to want to produce a DLC-coated Oceanus; yes, I know that it would be expensive. But I'd so buy one, and hang the expense).

    What is there to choose between them? My preference is for the 2000 - I'm not a big fan of combining analogue and digital (you end up relying on one or the other in my experience; rarely do they both work well together), which probably rules out the 2500. Unless someone can persuade me otherwise.

    The main choice appears to be between the 2000 and the 3000. Now I know that the 3000 is a lot bigger - but is there any way in which it is better? The dial screams "tough mvt", unlike the 2000, but they are both atomic - what's tough mvt adding to the mix? As far as I can tell from youtube videos, the hands move to their different positions at exactly the same speed, so tough mvt doesn't seem to improve on that aspect.

    Advice appreciated. Even if it comes to nothing (probably as a result of SWMBO putting her foot down on this).
    Q - "Are you one of those people who does The Times crossword puzzle in 10 minutes?"

    A - "I have NEVER taken 10 minutes!"

  2. #2
    Member cal..45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CMOWE (Central Madhouse Of Western Europe)
    Posts
    8,522

    Re: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    agreed about ana-digis, they are neither fish nor fowl (none the less i have four of them, lol)

    tough movement means that the hands are being aligned automatically once per hour (between 5 minutes to the hour and 5 minutes after). this is not to confuse with atomic timekeeping. hands just can go out of place sometimes (what happened to my GW-2000 two, three times without obvious reason) and tough movement takes care of that. watches without tough movement (like the GW-2000) can get aligned manually, but it is a complicate process, one has to look after in the manual every time.

    so, that would actually give the GW-3000 a huge advantage but unfortunately casio decided - in their indefinitely wisdom - not to incorporate a countdown timer (GW-2000 got a 24h one) and a ridiculous short 24 minutes stopwatch (GW-2000 also got a 24h one), which leads the purpose of a chronograph ad absurdum. honestly, a cluttered dial for nothing but the technical look is just not worth the money in my book, you are far better off with any seiko 5 mechanical watch, for a fraction of the price.


    cheers
    We are 12.6 %

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    2,809

    Re: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    2000 is the best module for functions I think - like you I don't usually care for ana-digi so I rule out 2500.

    3000 is probably the more striking piece.

    The stopwatch on a chronograph...if you are going to be a power-user of a stopwatch or a countdown timer...you're gonna want a digital anyway for that I reckon.

    I like the tough-movement feature...but you can also manually adjust the hands back to correct position if they get out of whack by pushing a few buttons. I have had to do that once ever on my 2000.

    I also agree that if you want a functional analogue watch you can get one for considerably cheaper - and all sporty chronos have a cluttered dial really - but that's not really the point is it :D

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NW USA
    Posts
    2,973

    Re: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    Hi Richard. Well, you know what tough movement is... you have/had one watch already featuring it. :-D It is as described accurately above a system that aligns, on the hour, the main hand positions.

    Now that I've had time to settle in to pictures of these three, I'd stick with the 2000. The GW-3000 is too bold for me, and on the GW-2500 I don't care for the 12 and 6 numerals- too brazenly borrowing from other genres. I liked the GW-2000 OK when I had it. Sometimes it seemed too cramped for its many functions, but I'd still pick it over the other two.
    "It is easier to discover a deficiency in individuals, in states, and in providence, than to see their real import or value." - HEGEL

    *SBBN019 and SBBN011 shrouded divers*
    The Spring Drive Landmaster SBDB003 -- My Apollo 17 Speedy Pro -- Shout-out to Konrad Damasko!
    Airwolf and Chronomaster hangin' out -- NATO nuts with DC66 and SBDX001 -- Two deadly Sinns

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    550

    Re: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    I own all three:

    Most striking appearance = GW3000
    Best looking [especially for a small wrist] on the wrist = GW2000
    Best functionality = GW2500

    Functionality tends to be in the eye of the beholder to the same extent as beauty.

    I don't care about the stopwatch limitation of 24m on the first two: you might.

    The GW2500 has excellent integration of analog/digital functionality [simple to use countdown timer, alarms, et al]. I also much prefer the display of the second time zone: 12h indication with an AM/PM indicator. The 24h second time zone display on the first two is almost unreadable to my old eyes. I also find it slightly simpler to flip time zones on the GW2500. Moreover, the GW2500 has a very simple way to display a third time zone that involves the digital display. This makes it easy to display, in effect, a permanent home time zone, time at your location, and a third time zone of, perhaps, temporary interest.

    I travel a lot and find this useful. If you don't travel much, or don't have this need, this functionality won't count in your plus column.

    If I personally had to pick just one, it would be the GW2500, because it provides easy-to-use functionality that matters to me. Your mileage may vary. And I sure like the other two.
    /Forrest

  7. #6
    Member casioman74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    passaic nj port richey fl
    Posts
    546

    Re: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    the 3000 is a must have.. it's big but fits well...............
    A watch doesn't just tell time, it also tell's a story.........................

  8. #7
    Member Doug507's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,890

    Re: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    I gotta go with my GW-2500b... It is quickly becoming a favorite.
    " Don't trust anyone who says they're too good for an SKX007 and claims to be a WIS" - A Pine Tree

    Watches: Rolex GMT Master II 16760,
    Rolex Submariner 14060M, Doxa 750T Sharkhunter, Doxa 1200T Professional, Marathon SS Navigator (1992 Kuwait), Seiko SRP777, Seiko SKA427P1, Seiko SKX007, Garmin Fenix 5, Suunto Core and countless G-Shocks

  9. #8
    Member sharper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    446

    Re: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    Another vote for the GW2500, I might be bias since I have one myself


    Quote Originally Posted by Doug507 View Post
    I gotta go with my GW-2500b... It is quickly becoming a favorite.

  10. #9
    K42
    K42 is offline
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    597

    Re: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    Add another (bias) vote for the GW-2500. I find that it has a more clean and simple appearance as compared to the other 2.

    I find the others to have a really busy face/display with the combination of all the extra text, markers, and sub dials.


  11. #10
    Member BenL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    HKG
    Posts
    35,399

    Re: GW-2000BD vs GW-2500 vs GW-3000BD

    My vote would probably go to the 3000, simply because of looks and the "freshness" factor.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •