[CDKJudoka]

As much as I liked the look of my Regulus Red/Black, It was pretty much useless unless you were in direct light.

This was with indirect incandescent light that was less than a meter away.

This was in direct light.

I really wanted to like it, but if I can't read the watch without using the backlight or taking my torch out to see it, I won't wear it. Mind you, I normally don't wear digital watches and most of my analogs either have tritium or another luminescent material in the face and hands. If the face was even 50 nits brighter, I wouldn't have replaced it with a Suunto Core.

 

[CitizenPromaster]

I actually received my first (used) Regulus today, and I immediately felt like an action hero!

It's not much bigger than some of my Pilot watches, but it's really thick.

Even compared to my Archive it's really thick.

The legibility of the Regulus is not great. Of course the big digits on the Archive help, but under some angles/light conditions I can't read the time on the Regulus but I can still just make out the time on the Archive.

As for tactical, back in the 90s this was considered a field watch.

Does a watch have to be built like a tank if it is not the size of a tank?

Granted, the little Marathon watch was not meant for Special Operations, and for example a Marathon CSAR would be a better comparison purpose wise and size wise, but while a CSAR has a chronograph, it does not have a countdown timer either, though I guess you could use the bezel to count towards a time, but it certainly doesn't have a second timezone. Are these things essential? As a civilian who knows nothing about the military, I wouldn't think so, but I see that guy on YouTube as confirmation.

Either way, I found a cheap Surplus Carbon too, so I bought that just for fun. I'm not sure what the carbon part is though, don't they all (except for the full stainless) have a polycarbonate case with a stainless caseback and a stainless bezel? Or is the bezel also polycarbonate on the Surplus Carbon?

 

[CitizenPromaster]

Some first impressions after wearing it for a few hours. Strap is pretty stiff yet comfortable if you don't make it too tight. Buttons are very hard to push, you really need to be a Special Operator, after setting two time zones my weak thumb muscles hurt Also, it's ridiculously large, but I guess it makes sense for surfing or mountainbiking or kayaking or whatever?

I've read some of the threads about the Regulus, and the G-Shock fans saying it is not competition etc. Well, I would never buy a G-Shock myself. I like that they exist, but I think the screens and digits for the time are too small for such big watches, and I don't need ABC, and I don't like the big round G-Shocks, and the smaller square G-Shocks I only like in titanium, which are like 5,000 USD, so no thanks.

Then why did I buy a Regulus? Out of curiosity. They look cool and are more to my taste than most G-Shocks. I might sell them, I might keep them, who knows.

 

[Rocket1991]

Some first impressions after wearing it for a few hours. Strap is pretty stiff yet comfortable if you don't make it too tight. Buttons are very hard to push, you really need to be a Special Operator, after setting two time zones my weak thumb muscles hurt Also, it's ridiculously large, but I guess it makes sense for surfing or mountainbiking or kayaking or whatever?

I've read some of the threads about the Regulus, and the G-Shock fans saying it is not competition etc. Well, I would never buy a G-Shock myself. I like that they exist, but I think the screens and digits for the time are too small for such big watches, and I don't need ABC, and I don't like the big round G-Shocks, and the smaller square G-Shocks I only like in titanium, which are like 5,000 USD, so no thanks.

Then why did I buy a Regulus? Out of curiosity. They look cool and are more to my taste than most G-Shocks. I might sell them, I might keep them, who knows.

I never understood why i need G-Shock shock resistance. I never managed to break any digital watch via shock.
It's like high numerical value of WR watches. You don't need it but it makes you feel good.
If you like it it all what matters. I have few Nixon watches and they may be not a bargain but they are nice and cool and ironic. If that's your thing. I like these i have.

 

[CitizenPromaster]

I never understood why i need G-Shock shock resistance. I never managed to break any digital watch via shock.
It's like high numerical value of WR watches. You don't need it but it makes you feel good.
If you like it it all what matters. I have few Nixon watches and they may be not a bargain but they are nice and cool and ironic. If that's your thing. I like these i have.

I love Nixon watches. Before I bought my first Citizen long ago, I had seen the Nixon Rotolog (the walnut version), not knowing it was a Nixon. Only a few years ago I discovered that watch was made by Nixon, and there have been many designs by Nixon and Adidas (by Nixon) since then that I love. Recently I've bought a few Adidas by Nixon watches to add to my collection of (almost exclusively) Citizens, they are just so nice!

 

[CitizenPromaster]

"I think the screens and digits for the time are too small for such big watches"

To illustrate my point, I made this:

Obviously Adidas (by Nixon) is doing it right, and the Regulus is doing much better than the Casio, and you might think it could be bigger, but we have to remember this lay-out has been created to show two big independent chronographs simultaneously AND show the time, day and date, and they really maximized the size of the digits considering all of that.

For the wasted space on the Casio, there is just no excuse.

It's just lazily re-using an ancient style of screen module made for tiny watches that also waste space with useless text.

I'm not crapping on Casio, I just prefer a better use of the available real estate.

 

[Rocket1991]

"I think the screens and digits for the time are too small for such big watches"

To illustrate my point, I made this:

View attachment 17197628


Obviously Adidas/Nixon is doing it right, and the Regulus is doing much better than the Casio, and you might think it could be bigger, but we have to remember this lay-out has been created to show two big independent chronographs simultaneously AND show the time, day and date, and they really maximized the size of the digits considering all of that.

View attachment 17197567

For the wasted space on the Casio, there is just no excuse.

View attachment 17197575

It's just lazily re-using an ancient style of screen module made for tiny watches that also waste space with useless text.

View attachment 17197585

I'm not crapping on Casio, I just prefer a better use of the available real estate.

Same with Timex. Adidas actually used Timex sourced internals. Probably Timex made digital watches for them in the past.

 

[CitizenPromaster]

Same with Timex. Adidas actually used Timex sourced internals. Probably Timex made digital watches for them in the past.

On the current Adidas watch website they mention they cooperate with Timex, however, the (digital) watches I have bought all say Adidas by Nixon on the back. I don't know if this means they no longer cooperate with Nixon, or if they cooperated with both at the same time, or something else, but the digital watch above was made by Nixon.

But by same with Timex, do you mean the digits are small like Casio or do you mean they are also bigger?

 

[CitizenPromaster]

This one is made by Timex, as you can read on the back.

Very similar to an actual classic styled Timex. For this classic genre, the small digits are fine, but for G-Shock they could have made something bigger imho.

I'm not very familiar with Casio, but it seems the biggest they can come up with is this. And others seem to agree: which current Casio watches have the biggest digits? | WatchUSeek Watch Forums

But more often it is this...

 

[Rocket1991]

Timex opposite to Casio has very simple and uncluttered layout with very big digits. Which on maximum sized Ironman allowed me to easily read it on the run without any backlight with single streetlight in the distance.

 

[CitizenPromaster]

As for the people doubting the special operations pedigree, I have very little reason to doubt this guy:

 

[Schirra]

Honestly, I speak as a collector of practically any watch, because I think I have explored all possible fields (those who know me know it!) Comparing Casio's technology and philosophy with Nixon's is very difficult.

Not only for manufacturing and technology but also for the philosophical one.

I love my Regulus, although the first one I had, it arrived faulty, I realized how little 'company' is Nixon compared to Casio, with crappy customer service, while Casio I think is the best in the world.

That said, I don't think the REGULUS will ever compete with even the simplest DW5600 G-Shock.

The issue of larger numbers is deeply felt, I realize it and I too find it more difficult to read such small digits compared to the REGULUS, and this is also due to myopia ... when I was younger the vision was perfect, but I think this cannot be the only point for comparison.

I think that Casio, in its range of proposals, has characteristics ranging from fashion to more technical use and it will always be easier to see an operator in theaters of war with a DW-6600 than with a REGULUS, while Nixon basically remains a good brand of commercial watches, like many others, who had a good idea, developed it well and knew how to create a good "utility" watch that can give a change in one direction, but as we have seen, there are several things to improve, even in the simple fact of changing a strap: it is not possible that many reports that the screws of the spring bars break for a simple operation.

Something is wrong and it is not good.

 

[CitizenPromaster]

Something is wrong and it is not good.

Can't argue against that logic

 

[CitizenPromaster]

• 1) why is the second time zone missing?
• 2) why is the countdown timer missing?
• 3) why has the date remained reversed giving priority to the month?
• 4) why still keep the screw-on spring bars when it is clear that those who have tried to replace them have often snapped their heads making it almost difficult to wear with a NATO? (Maybe marking the correct part to unscrew with a reference would have been better?)

1) I was watching a video on the MK-1 and I noticed he was able to start, stop and reset the chronographs from the main time mode using buttons A and B. On the Regulus, in main time mode, button A switches time zone, and button B shows the year.

So the second time zone was sacrificed for easier access to the dual chronograph function, which is the party trick of the Regulus anyway.

2) And deleting the countdown timer is one less mode to cycle through, now you are only left with Time, Chronograph and Alarm, and you can operate the chronographs in two of the three modes. And to be fair, a countdown timer is pretty useless tactically speaking, especially if it is not always displayed like the chronographs are. Assuming you always use silent mode, how will you tell the countdown timer is ending? If for some reason you want to "countdown" 45 minutes, better to set the chronograph and see when it reaches 45 minutes by paying attention, or if for some reason you really want a sound signal, simply set the alarm to 45 minutes from the current time.

3) The day and date are probably an afterthought, or a bonus. As I've said before, this watch is all about displaying two big chronographs with big digits for the hours and minutes and small digits for the seconds. In main time mode, that left them space in the bottom segment to display the day and date, and they simply went with the American format, being an American brand. That it looks silly to the rest of the world, or that it looks illogical, I guess they took for granted. Also, they wanted an easy to operate watch, and adding a way to swap the date and month makes for a more complicated user interface, which is exactly what they were trying to avoid.

Actually, the module in the MK-1 is even easier to operate, at the expense of functions in which they perhaps saw little practical value. Want to know another timezone? Do the math or simply set it to Zulu. Want to countdown something? Count up or set the alarm.

4) I think the Regulus and the MK-1 were developed simultaneously, or the MK-1 was developed not long after. I doubt there were that many people who even bothered to fit a NATO, so they wouldn't have broken any screw-bars, and the few that did, may not have been reason for them to worry.

So to put it in the words of Nixon: "Designed in conjunction with US Special Forces then re-geared with the most mandatory functions. The Regulus Mk-1 combines specialized, high-tech features with sleek and practical design. Less bulk for more critical deployment."

Less bulk functionally, and less bulk in the case. It makes sense to me.

 

[ChromeFreeDisco]

The Regulus is a credible G-shock alternative, not necessarily better but different. Maybe more useful in some use cases, but we should leave it down to people to decide what best fits their needs. But I would say it's easier to read than equivalent G-shocks with a negative display.

 

[Schirra]

So to put it in the words of Nixon: "Designed in conjunction with US Special Forces then re-geared with the most mandatory functions. The Regulus Mk-1 combines specialized, high-tech features with sleek and practical design. Less bulk for more critical deployment."

....

Less bulk functionally, and less bulk in the case. It makes sense to me.

Well, a very precise examination which is certainly seen with personal logic certainly makes sense and I thank you for a large amount of time dedicated, I find that your work is an example of how a forum of enthusiasts should work!

I keep thinking that since the REGULUS had already been created with the "collaboration of the special forces" (as they themselves claim) and that in the first promotional video, it is the Navy Seal "collaborator in the design" who explains the characteristics of the watch, it would make no sense to renounce all the design of the first version, producing another one (which I don't know has had consultations with different operators in the MK-1 version) which offers a module substantially based on a chronograph (double) and the time, pretty much the same as my 1975 Seiko 0634-5000

True, there are alarms, but I think it's absurd to use an alarm as a countdown.

Probably for my mindset, but I can't imagine, during training, for example, or in front of a drone control screen, that an operator is constantly looking at the chronograph to perform a programmed task after, I don't know, 37 minutes, distracting himself from everything he has to do for fear of missing the fateful moment when he will have to press a key or do whatever else was planned

I imagine then that the vibration countdown of the GD-350 fully outclasses the use of a Nixon Regulus MK-1 compared to the real functionality in the field and since the MK-1 has the silence why not add a very simple vibration motor of the cost of a few cents and offer true tactical functionality?

And one would still wonder why then in the first version "designed and produced in collaboration with the operators of the special forces" the aforementioned functions (time zone and countdown) were foreseen.

Were US special forces operators wrong? Have they changed their mind?

If it is Nixon herself, in their communication sent to specialized sites, who writes "the new strap allows use with aftermarket NATO" why do they use screw spring bars that can break if the correct direction of anti-rotation is not indicated of the two sides?

G-Shock has been using simple spring bars since 1984, and thousands of operators around the world use their G-Shock, Timex, and any other watches in the field every day, with very normal spring bars without problems.
Not to mention that with two simple adapters, each G-Shock can use dozens of different types of NATO straps.

Why then, given that the till has been re-engineered, not to provide a truly standard strap connection system?

These are questions I believe, we will never have an answer to.

I have been dealing with design for almost 40 years and I have also collaborated with a famous international watch company, I know marketing well, and my idea is that Nixon wanted to produce a slightly cheaper version of the REGULUS (I point out that in Italy the MK-1 costs half of the REGULUS) and to do this I have reduced the "over-structures" to make a very basic version: even the simple sale in an envelope, designed to "take up less space in the supply room" in my humble opinion is part of this concept of saving money, it doesn't surprise me and I accept it in full: I'm very democratic about using marketing to sell a product if the marketing doesn't try to sell me something that isn't in the product, but in this Nixon has been consistent and fair so it deserves respect.

In the end, I am happy with my two Nixons and I appreciate them, still consider them an interesting moment of "military" watchmaking or in any case "usable" or "used by" the military operators, but I think the "old version" is much more valid than the MK-1 and superior on a number of levels.

 

[CitizenPromaster]

In the end, I am happy with my two Nixons and I appreciate them, still consider them an interesting moment of "military" watchmaking or in any case "usable" or "used by" the military operators, but I think the "old version" is much more valid than the MK-1 and superior on a number of levels.

I have no figures to back up my next statement, but I think the MK-1 was not made for special operators at all. That market is VERY limited, and not a solid business case. Using them for advice on the standard Regulus makes for a nice marketing tool though. I think the actual customers for the MK-1 are law enforcement, or at least the masses that make up "federal" or government jobs in the field like first responders. What does a police officer or fire fighter care about a countdown timer or a second timezone? They just want a sturdy watch, right?

So I think the original version is what the special operators wanted (and got as a gift from Nixon for cooperating or can still buy with their own money), and that complete or standard watch for special operators is the concept and image Nixon is trying to sell to us civilian watch buyers, and the MK-1 is the trade agreement complient version for government buyers (in bulk).

I don't see the MK-1 for sale when I go their website though, and maybe I actually prefer the MK-1, since I don't care about any of the functions other than time, and I like the cleaner look of the MK-1. I don't think I will spend more money right now though, two Regulus is fine for now.

 

[CitizenPromaster]

My Surplus Carbon arrived.

Either way, I found a cheap Surplus Carbon too, so I bought that just for fun. I'm not sure what the carbon part is though, don't they all (except for the full stainless) have a polycarbonate case with a stainless caseback and a stainless bezel? Or is the bezel also polycarbonate on the Surplus Carbon?

To answer my own question, the bezel indeed looks to be polycarbonate on the Surplus Carbon instead of stainless.

I really don't know what to do with two of these, but I'll keep them for now.