You guys are now responsible for me going back and looking at a whole new section of watches.... Casio! Im going to pull trigger, just not sure which one. Imo the bench mark is 5610- not too expensive, faithful to original, mind boggling levels of accuracy etc. However, i have been walking around with a millemetri grafted to my arm for years now, not sure if i can hack normal sizes. The 5500 and 5510 caught my eye, size and design. Then there is the godzilla of the pack, the gx, which like all monsters I find strangely compelling. A square precursor to mudmaster etc. Question is which one? All the models here are negative displays, just interested in size and design here.
Heres the full fat gshock vs arnold’s running man
CASIO G-SHOCK DW-D5500BB-1 VS G-SHOCK DW-5600BB-1
Heres king kong vs arnold
CASIO G-SHOCK DW-D5500BB-1 VS G-SHOCK GX-56BB-1
If you can pull it off, the GX56 is not a bad choice! But, I personally think the 5600 series is a great size to wear and with wide range of functions differences, case materials of different price range to choose from.
The 5500 series design look special, I think.
P.S, like the above member have mentioned, you'll eventually buy all of it, LOL.
I have the 5610 positive display. It's an incredible piece of tech. That said I just have a preference for the positive display 5600 since it will show the current time in other modes while the 5610 doesn't.
I had the king g Shock (GX 56). The negative display isn't the best in low light but the light button takes care of that. Keep in mind it has buttons that are protected like a mud master meaning they can be difficult to press. That said I loved it anyway and would still have it except for the fact that it was just too large for my wrist.
We should name this ......"No not another Casio thread"
