Head-to-Head with Orient's Clubman Chronograph

In today’s post, I’ll dive into a head-to-head comparison of two intriguing chronographs that debuted at a similar price point—around $3,000 when new. One, of course, is an Orient: the Clubman Chronograph Reference WZ0031DS from 2007. The other is a Frederique Constant FC-392CH6B4 from 2010, which besides being the closest item in my collection in terms of price and function, also allows us to engage in an interesting Japanese vs. Swiss face-off (which I'll try to judge as objectively as one can!)

When it comes to dimensions, the Orient is 41mm x 49mm with a height of 15mm, while the Frederique Constant is slightly larger at 43mm x 53mm and also 15mm thick. The FC’s larger case size offers a bit more presence but can feel bulkier on smaller wrists, while the Orient feels noticeably more comfortable and balanced, especially with its bracelet. Weight-wise, the Orient is lighter at 105g (or 180g with the bracelet) compared to the Frederique Constant’s 116g. Both watches offer 100m of water resistance, so they’re well-equipped for everyday wear. The Orient’s 20mm lug width makes it versatile, whereas the FC’s 23mm width adds to its solid stance.

The Orient WZ0031DS houses a Seiko caliber 6S37, operating at 28,800 bph with a 50-hour power reserve. It’s incredibly smooth to wind, set, and operate, adding a tactile quality that gives a satisfying feel in every adjustment. In contrast, the Frederique Constant uses the ETA Valjoux 7750, also at 28,800 bph but with a shorter 42-hour reserve. While the Valjoux is a classic, well-regarded movement, the Seiko caliber offers a slight edge in user experience.

My Orient runs at +9 seconds per day, while the Frederique Constant is at -9 seconds per day — both can be considered solid performance, especially since neither has been serviced since it was produced, but speeding up a little is definitely better than lagging behind.

From a design perspective, the casebacks differ significantly. The Orient provides a full view of its Seiko movement, which is sharp and functional, though it’s not highly decorated or particularly ornate. The Frederique Constant, on the other hand, offers only a small viewing window into its movement, but the rest of the caseback is richly covered, featuring the FC logo, gold plating, and a glimpse of the golden rotor, that make it visually appealing and elegant.

Both watches feature similar chronograph layouts with three sub-dials, but the Orient also has a power reserve indicator, which adds functionality and reinforces its sporty character. When it comes to readability, the Orient offers strong contrast and lume for low-light visibility. The Frederique Constant lacks lume and has medium contrast, which can make it slightly harder to read at a glance.

The overall finishing of both watches is similar on the outside, with smoothly polished, pebble-like surfaces. While some elements of the FC, such as the crowns and caseback, are more elaborately made, the dial of the Orient is more impressive on close up, with more layers and sharp use of color.

As for rarity, the FC is officially a limited edition of 1,888 pieces, not super rare then but also not a watch you're likely to come across on the street. Despite the absence of specific production data, it’s likely that the Orient is much rarer, especially given its limited distribution in the Japanese domestic market. This scarcity also helps the Orient hold its value exceptionally well, with pre-owned models often selling close to their original price. Meanwhile, the FC typically resells for around half of its new price or less, depending on condition.

Both watches bring unique qualities, but there’s something special about the Orient. Its rarity, unique color scheme, and even a certain legendary status among Orient collectors give it a distinctive allure. While I can appreciate the design and craftsmanship put into the FC, I find myself favoring the Orient. The specs, feel, and even my personal affinity for the brand tip the scales. Objectively, both are great watches, but for me, the Orient stands out as something special in my collection.

Orient's King Diver Depth Gauge Watch

Incorporating depth gauges into dive watches made a lot of sense, especially before the advent of dive computers, which began to gain popularity in the late 1980s. Before these electronic devices, divers relied on mechanical wristwatches to measure depth and time spent underwater. Mechanical depth gauges provided a convenient, all-in-one tool for divers to stay aware of their limits. However, integrating these mechanisms into watches presented challenges—such as complexity, cost, and reliability issues—which explains why relatively few brands attempted this.

Despite these challenges, a number of notable brands did succeed in producing mechanical depth gauge watches, each using different systems to achieve accurate depth measurement. Some of the earliest examples of this combination popped up in 1968. Such was the Favre-Leuba "Bathy 50", which used a membrane system to translate water pressure into depth readings.

Another example from the same year was Nivada's "Depthomatic". This watch used a different mechanism, called the Bourdon tube. However, whatever the system used the concept is the same – these are different mechanical structures that converted water pressure into a circular movement (of either a needle or a circular tube), and that movement was placed against a scale that converted the pressure into water depth.

Orient did not take long to follow this trend, and in 1970 introduced the King Diver Depth Gauge into the Chronoace line. The new model was seen as a unique response to the growing demand for practical dive tools.

Orient's King Diver Depth Gauge used a capillary tube system, where water entered the watch through an inlet at 3 o’clock, compressing air to display depth on the dial. Its robust 42mm stainless steel case, rated to 100m depth, made it a durable tool for divers. Additionally, its specialized version of the caliber 42 movement – without a quick-set date button – enhanced its water resistance, making it an even more reliable companion for underwater exploration.

Depth gauges eventually fell out of favor as electronic dive computers became the standard, during the 1980s. It is worth noting that dive watches with depth gauges have not completely disappeared, although they now serve more as novelty than practicality. Take, for instance, the highly complicated mechanism embedded in the 1999 IWC "Deep One" – which not only shows you the current depth, but also the deepest you reached.

As a side note, it's worth mentioning another means of "measuring" depth, although measurement is a big word for this crude, yet innovative approach. If you ever wondered what that colorful markings on some old king diver models was intended for – here's the secret: Different wavelengths of visible light get absorbed by the water in different depth. And so, you can tell at what depth you are (very roughly) by noticing when each of the colors on the internal bezel disappears.

Back to the Chronoace King Diver Depth Gauge, this watch is not just a relic of a bygone era but a testament to Orient’s adventurous approach to watchmaking in the late 1960s and early 1970s - taking inspiration from the Swiss watch industry and incorporating it into its own very Japanese watchmaking.

Like many other Orient divers from those years, its size makes it a perfectly wearable watch even by today's standards – although you will need some hard work and luck to find one nowadays, and likely a bit of cash to make it come your way.

The picture of the IWC Deep One was taken from monochrome-watches.com. Pictures of the Orient Depth Gauge King Diver and other models that appear in this post were taken from various sale ads and the 1999 Orient Watch Catalog book.