After window shop in KL and reading this comparison(at Rolex forum), i decided to go for CXV, really love my 3rd Ball watch after Aviator GMT and ManU like Fireman Racer
While the two references represent what might be considered the upper end of the Ball Hydrocarbon/diver line, the two watches have their own distinct personalities.
They do share the same eta 2892 movement and COSC status, bracelets that are constructed in the same manner, and of course Ball's gas light tecnology (more about that later).
However; in many respects the two are totally different animals.
After wearing both and studing the differences, I've come to the conclusion the Ceramic XV is the "Gentleman" as opposed to the "Brute" which is the Deepquest.
If James Bond wore a Ball it would be the Ceramic XV. Capable of performing any task one could ask of a timepiece yet fully at home under the cuff of a tux or the black sleeve of a ninja.
The Deepquest makes no bones about being a purpose built professional watch ready to go places it's owner couldn't take.
Let's explore,
Perhaps the first thing that catches the eye of anyone thinking about a new timepiece is the dial.
With it's concentric rings, full 3,6,9,12 numbers, and broad ornate hands, the XV draws the eye. The Deepquest with it's clean dial (though having depth) and indices presents a "cleaner" look with everything you need and nothing you don't for it's intended purpose.
Both, of course have a date feature with the DQ's being in the more traditional 3 o'clock position.
Thickness favors the Deepquest by a mile certainly fitting for a watch capable of 3000 meters. Here, however Ball's use of titanium gives it the feeling of a much lighter watch than on would expect from it's demensions. Indeed it's feels on par if not a tad lighter on the wrist than the Ceramic XV given the latter's steel construction.
As we see the DQ is the much more massive of the two despite being only 1mm larger than the VX. The difference of course lies with the thicker case.
While on the subject, no comparison could be complete without mentioning the monoblock case of the DQ as opposed to the traditional caseback of the CVX,
Here we can see the real difference in thickness, but don't be fooled by the DQ's thickness. Because of the titanium case and the shape of the caseback the watch hides it's girth well on the wrist and with proper adjustment of the bracelet displays little of the "top heavy floppyness" some brands with all steel case have shown,
Crown protection, as we see, take different pathes as does the means to anchor the bracelet to the case. The ceramic with it's traditional screws and Ball's unique crown protector represent "the norm" in the Hydro carbon line while the T5 screws and huge crown favor a more traditional look in a deep diver. (Note: the crown on the DQ really has to be tried to get a feeling of it's strength).
Certainly the domed crystal of the Deepquest as opposed to the flat crystal of the ceramic give a depth to the dial that harkens to it's professional strength.
Luminosity. I have to say I had to think about this. Both use tritium tubes, both bring all there is to bear that T series tubes are known for, but the 3,6,9,12 numerials and their additional tubes give the VX a look that is just amazing.
Both use superluminova on the bezel insert, but here we see the difference between the "traditional" and one designed for a purpose.
While on the subject of luminosity I've noticed a bit of a difference regarding the bezel inserts.
Perhaps it's the difference in applying to ceramic as opposed to brushed titanium, but to eye the insert on the Deepquest just BURNS. I swear if someone in an adjoining room stickes a match the DQ's insert will start to glow like crazy.
I have to mention something about accuracy. Certainly all watches are different and how we wear our watches can affect it's ability to preform, but these two are among the most accurate and CONSISTENT pieces I have. The Deepquest seems to a tad below +2 sec. and the Ceramic...aw I'm not sure, it gained 6 seconds in 15 days. That's wearing each reference 24/7 respectively.
Noteworthy as well is the lack of positional variation and consistency each has exibited from the workhore 2892 movement as well as lack of any "handslack" when setting the time.
