The A1 big difference in those two is that the 656 has the high level of magnetic resistance, due to its inner cage of soft iron. That most likely accounts for all of the price difference in the two.
Other differences:
556=brushed, 656=beadblasted
556=hash marks on dial, 656=3,6,9,12
556=gloss dial, 656=matte dial
556=see-through caseback, 656=solid back (the caseback incorporates the back of the soft iron antimag. cage)
really, they only look slightly similar. totally different watches.
Beadblasted surfaces tend to show scratches easier than some other type finishes. The exception to that would be the tegimented beadblast surface found on the 756/757 and the 856/857. The 656 is not tegimented. It's a straight beadblasted steel. The only experience I have with a normal beadblasted Sinn is an older 256. It was quite nice and didn't show scratches, but it was more of a satin blasted finish than the current offering.
The 556 is the entry level Sinn without all the bells and whistles. But it's quite nice and beautifully designed. I attest to the fact that it's a great watch since it's one of two Sinn's that I own. It can be dressy or you can go into the water since it has 200m water resistance.
Both have the same movement - differences are largely cosmetic I think. May be a difference in magnetic resistance - check the specs on chronomaster.co.uk you'll find the detail there.
The 556 is slightly more dressy I think... less toolish.
I have a 556 myself and would like a 657. Horses for courses.
Would add that you should buy the steel bracelet with the watch as buying it afterwards is expensive and you can buy a great leather strap for $25.
Hi
I was only admiring the 556 this morning - a colleague of mine at work has one..then I see your post on the form..haha!!
It is a truly classic piece of kit...beautifully designed and executed and a joy to hold and look at.
One thing to mention that I think adds to the pleasure of this watch is the glass back...Truly a "high end" touch on such a budget watch and something that its cousin does not have. Holding it I can state that this watch makes a fine dual purpose watch - Great everyday dress watch, mixed with a sports watch feel and water resistance.
I own a U1 and so love my larger watches - but I am seriously tempted to get one of these for my own.
-They are on the 556, whereas on the 656, they are not.
Whether the lume is good (enough) or not really boils down to personal preference. Bedtime is closing in now, but I'll try to do a few comparison shots of my 656 tomorrow - using the same exposure, shooting it immediately after a charge, an hour after, three, six...
If good lume is a primary concern of yours, I'd recommend a few brands/models with (IMHO) terrific lume:
Most of the decay has now taken place - the watch looks about like it does in the last shot for several more hours.
Note that these photos were done in pitch black darkness - if there is any residual light in the room, the extremely legible, high-contrast dial makes it possible to read the time even though the lume is weak. The exposure is quite accurate - the photos give a good approximation of what the dial actually looked like.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
WatchUSeek Watch Forums
22.5M posts
576.4K members
Since 2005
A forum community dedicated to watch owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about watch collections, displays, watch winders, accessories, classifieds, and more! We welcome all manufacturers including Casio G-Shock, OMEGA, Rolex, Breitling, Rolex and Tudor, Seiko, Grand Seiko and others.