Have worked? It could then have had the shape of the original with greater scratch resistance. I used to have a Panerai with a dome shaped sapphire crystal. Would that be too fancy for the field watch aesthetic?
I'm a total acrylic apologist, but I find most plastic crystals just feel slightly 'warmer' than sapphire, no matter the shape, and match the vintage aesthetic better. i've had a few watches with domed sapphire (Tudor Black Bays come to mind) and I find the look just slightly more modern.
Yeah but if you attempt so much as some light weeding the crystal is toast. A $700 "tool watch" needs to be *at least* as durable as Tim Apple's wares or it's nothing but a cosplay accessory for dilettentes. How is it ever supposed to develop "patina" or a "tropical dial" if it has to be protected from cufflinks?
It's 2026. Amazon can get a 32mm sapphire crystal to my house by 8am tomorrow for $10; what's Swatch's excuse?
Then you rub the acrylic with some polywatch or toothpaste, and bada bing bada boom, back to new.
Meanwhile, sapphire while harder than acrylic is also more brittle, and so more susceptible to shattering. Sapphire also reflects more light than acrylic - necessitating an AR coating. And AR coatings scratch easily, and these (often quite visible) scratches are not repairable.
The shatter resistance and lower reflectivity, to me, would be in keeping with the spirit of a "field watch".
Anyone whose lived experience suggests that Polywatch can address the same level of injury that will shatter sapphire or scratch ceramic coatings does not live a life in need of a field watch.
i believe that, as evidenced by the many other sapphire crystals on their many other khaki fields, it's a deliberate choice. of course we can argue about whether or not we think it was the right one
Love the review, Tony! Looking at your wrist shot, and thinking back to whenever I tried on similarly shaped 36mm field watches, I’d always find myself wishing they were just a few millimetres smaller. I think it has to do with how much of a field watch’s design is basically just dial - there’s no bezel or subdials to break up the space. So for those of us with smaller wrists, I feel like field watches with long lugs like this fit even better when they are around 33–34mm.
I actually recently wrote up a summary of my own search for one, which ended with an IWC Midsize Pilot from the 2000s.
'procurement committee' of one is a funny line. and well chosen, btw! i owned a mkxii for years, IWC makes some of the best watches in this category (yours included).
Nice eval, Tony. I’ve had the Hamilton 250 for 3 months now, and do enjoy it. I wear it more than my 42mm Murph. Didn’t think it would work on my 7 3/4” wrist, until I tried it on at the Hammy event in NYC.
I’ve got a few more straps it looks good on, mainly khaki, black and different shades of green, but keep going back to the green OEM strap. Tried to like the leather, but apart from looking bleh, it feels strange and uncomfortable to me.
Next test…Can it survive a Chicago or Minnesota winter? 🥶
funny, another commenter mentioned it too—favorably, saying they bought and enjoy it—maybe i should try to get my hands on one. I've yet to see in person!
Only somewhat related, I recently borrowed a friend's modern type 2 for a few weeks and though it was pretty good.
I've had my eye on those too. As a field watch aficionado I guess you're obligated to be more interested in the type 2, but I think the plainer type 1 looks better. How'd it wear on a skinny wrist (the most important question for me)?
MHO for a rough and ready field watch I’d take a Tudor FXD (or a Sinn or Seiko etc) over this FXD 100% of the time.
Much sturdier and surpasses this watch in every way. I like off grid camping so want great lume, automatic reliability, a screw crown safety, in a trim package when in the field.
If it’s just for a (very) simple vintage field look? Then the hand wind, weak faux lume and printed dial is fine 👍
i don't think of the FXD or Sinn as a real competitor to the Hamilton, different price brackets, and i agree they offer more specs. as for seiko, i haven't spent enough time with its updated field watches to know how it really compares on the attributes you mention, or if it's the same, '(very) simple vintage field look,' as you describe the Hamilton.
Dancy article on Field Watches, Tony - every collector needs a handful of them - and I would skip all of the new ones as the Vintage availability appears to be vast. Best wishes
After spending a lot of time looking for a quality long term field watch, I eventually plumped for the Benrus DTU-2A/P. Pretty faithful to original specs, but doesn’t make the compromises that the Hamilton does (i.e. has double domed sapphire with ar / has the screw down crown / has an automatic ETA). I personally love the notion of the smaller case size for these pieces.
That said, I think you’ve offered a great review and argument on why the Hamilton is nearly perfect. 👍
Could a domed sapphire crystal
Have worked? It could then have had the shape of the original with greater scratch resistance. I used to have a Panerai with a dome shaped sapphire crystal. Would that be too fancy for the field watch aesthetic?
I'm a total acrylic apologist, but I find most plastic crystals just feel slightly 'warmer' than sapphire, no matter the shape, and match the vintage aesthetic better. i've had a few watches with domed sapphire (Tudor Black Bays come to mind) and I find the look just slightly more modern.
Yeah but if you attempt so much as some light weeding the crystal is toast. A $700 "tool watch" needs to be *at least* as durable as Tim Apple's wares or it's nothing but a cosplay accessory for dilettentes. How is it ever supposed to develop "patina" or a "tropical dial" if it has to be protected from cufflinks?
It's 2026. Amazon can get a 32mm sapphire crystal to my house by 8am tomorrow for $10; what's Swatch's excuse?
Then you rub the acrylic with some polywatch or toothpaste, and bada bing bada boom, back to new.
Meanwhile, sapphire while harder than acrylic is also more brittle, and so more susceptible to shattering. Sapphire also reflects more light than acrylic - necessitating an AR coating. And AR coatings scratch easily, and these (often quite visible) scratches are not repairable.
The shatter resistance and lower reflectivity, to me, would be in keeping with the spirit of a "field watch".
Anyone whose lived experience suggests that Polywatch can address the same level of injury that will shatter sapphire or scratch ceramic coatings does not live a life in need of a field watch.
Look, you can be disingenuous, but you're a grown man and this is embarrassing - so I'm out. Enjoy the watch I'm sure you didn't buy anyway.
I don’t think it’s an excuse, it’s just a heritage-driven design decision. Swatch also sells modern Speedies with hesalite.
It's got a Nivachron hairspring (introduced 2018). It appears "heritage-driven design decisions" have their limits.
i believe that, as evidenced by the many other sapphire crystals on their many other khaki fields, it's a deliberate choice. of course we can argue about whether or not we think it was the right one
Love the review, Tony! Looking at your wrist shot, and thinking back to whenever I tried on similarly shaped 36mm field watches, I’d always find myself wishing they were just a few millimetres smaller. I think it has to do with how much of a field watch’s design is basically just dial - there’s no bezel or subdials to break up the space. So for those of us with smaller wrists, I feel like field watches with long lugs like this fit even better when they are around 33–34mm.
I actually recently wrote up a summary of my own search for one, which ended with an IWC Midsize Pilot from the 2000s.
'procurement committee' of one is a funny line. and well chosen, btw! i owned a mkxii for years, IWC makes some of the best watches in this category (yours included).
Nice eval, Tony. I’ve had the Hamilton 250 for 3 months now, and do enjoy it. I wear it more than my 42mm Murph. Didn’t think it would work on my 7 3/4” wrist, until I tried it on at the Hammy event in NYC.
I’ve got a few more straps it looks good on, mainly khaki, black and different shades of green, but keep going back to the green OEM strap. Tried to like the leather, but apart from looking bleh, it feels strange and uncomfortable to me.
Next test…Can it survive a Chicago or Minnesota winter? 🥶
agree, i really didn't like the leather. i hope it holds up just fine all winter...luckily that's not for a few more months :)
Have you tried the Benrus DTU reissue? Any houghts on that one vs this Hamilton?
funny, another commenter mentioned it too—favorably, saying they bought and enjoy it—maybe i should try to get my hands on one. I've yet to see in person!
Only somewhat related, I recently borrowed a friend's modern type 2 for a few weeks and though it was pretty good.
I've had my eye on those too. As a field watch aficionado I guess you're obligated to be more interested in the type 2, but I think the plainer type 1 looks better. How'd it wear on a skinny wrist (the most important question for me)?
Like the article and the L.A. - Skubal reference! 😀
go cubs go
This was terrific. Thank you!
thanks david, saw your post - hope the back is recovering!
MHO for a rough and ready field watch I’d take a Tudor FXD (or a Sinn or Seiko etc) over this FXD 100% of the time.
Much sturdier and surpasses this watch in every way. I like off grid camping so want great lume, automatic reliability, a screw crown safety, in a trim package when in the field.
If it’s just for a (very) simple vintage field look? Then the hand wind, weak faux lume and printed dial is fine 👍
i don't think of the FXD or Sinn as a real competitor to the Hamilton, different price brackets, and i agree they offer more specs. as for seiko, i haven't spent enough time with its updated field watches to know how it really compares on the attributes you mention, or if it's the same, '(very) simple vintage field look,' as you describe the Hamilton.
I agree, but those are far pricier than the Hamilton. The Hamilton is also a couple mm thinner
Dancy article on Field Watches, Tony - every collector needs a handful of them - and I would skip all of the new ones as the Vintage availability appears to be vast. Best wishes
I meant 'Dandy'
haha, and thank you tom!
After spending a lot of time looking for a quality long term field watch, I eventually plumped for the Benrus DTU-2A/P. Pretty faithful to original specs, but doesn’t make the compromises that the Hamilton does (i.e. has double domed sapphire with ar / has the screw down crown / has an automatic ETA). I personally love the notion of the smaller case size for these pieces.
That said, I think you’ve offered a great review and argument on why the Hamilton is nearly perfect. 👍