Mudman vs frogman first casio

Thread: Mudman vs frogman first casio

Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Mudman vs frogman first casio


    Im in the market for my first casio.

    I cant decide between the frogman and the mudman.

    I like the solor power of the frogman, and water depth (even though i dont swim lol)

    I like the price of the mudman. But its missing the solor power. Is the solor power that good of a option though?

    And the mud man says its depth is 200m just like the frog man. But is it as good?

    Help me pick one!

  2. #2
    Member Maine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Northants, UK

    Re: Mudman vs frogman first casio

    Solar mudmen are available, but they're not universally adored from an aesthetic point of view.

    I don't mind them myself; however those who have any sort of Frogman seem to think they're the best Gs. I haven't got one, so I don't know...
    The Search function on vBulletin forums isn't very smart. If you want to search for a complete string in the G-Shock forum, or for posts which include multiple words, use Google, and enter into the search box. Then use normal google syntax after that to enter your search.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Re: Mudman vs frogman first casio

    If you have the chance to own the frogman, go for it.. It's really a superb watch. Build quality is great! Goodluck!

  4. Remove Advertisements

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Re: Mudman vs frogman first casio

    -Much higher aesthetic value.
    -Probably the most sought after g-shock.
    -Dive tested. This means that each frogman is tested to go 125 percent of the garunteed depth that it says. So the frogman will likely go deeper than 200 meters
    -Made with titanium to prevent rusting.
    -Much higher price, depending on which frogman you buy, you could certainly get a few mudmen for the same price.
    -Much larger on the wrist. Some people like a larger watch, but I don't.
    -Screwback. Some may think this is a pro. You must take it in to the shop if you ever need it opened up. The pro of this is there is no screws, so you have no risk of stripping them and needing to buy new ones.

    -Mud resistant. There are no openings in the case, all the buttons are part of the case. This makes it impossible for mud or anything to get in. The resin will probably last longer because of this.
    -Smaller on the wrist. The watch looks a lot bigger than it really is. It is the perfect size for me, but I have a small wrist.
    -Has nubs on the back that keep the watch on your wrist even when it is loose. It is the only watch I can wear loosely while I run and not have it bounce all over the place.
    -Has two stopwatches. They can both run at the same time and you can see them both on the home screen without even going back to the stopwatch mode.
    -Low price. One hundred dollars is the highest you will ever pay for it. Most of the time you can get it on sale for less. A hundred is a lot, but far less than a frogman.
    -Buttons are hard to press. Not extremely difficult, but it does take effort to press a button.
    -Strap keeper moves all over the place and must be constantly moved back over the extra strap.
    -Caseback is made of stainless steel. Stainless steel is a pretty good material and most likely won't rust on you, but titanium in the frogman is far superior.

    I don't have a frogman, so there is probably more to add there. I do have a mudman and I really like it. Even if the prices to both watches were the same, I would take a mudman. I like the look so much better.

    And about solar/atomic, nobody really needs them. I personally think atomic is a worthless feature since you can manually sync a watch in less than 30 seconds using the computer. Quartz watches are very accurate anyways, my mudman loses about 1 second per week, which is very good for a quartz watch.

    As for solar, I think it is a good feature but I hate it. I had a solar GW-5600J and returned it. I don't like worrying about how much of a charge my watch is getting all the time. Solar batteries still need to be replaced just like regular ones. Sure they last about 2-3 times longer, but it isn't like the watch is just going to work forever on nothing but the sun. Regular batteries last a very long time anyway, they can last 10 years if you are conservative with the light and the sound. And they are so easy to replace, a quick trip to radio shack and the battery can probably be replaced in a few minutes. Solar/atomic also lower make the watch less tough, since they can break, and increase the price of the watch while taking away features (Solar/atomic watches will always have features takes out that the battery powered ones still have).

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