Since there’s been so much talk and buzz about the new and old Mudmen around here lately I thought it’d be fun to do a quick and informal comparison between the father and son. I’ve got both a DW-8400-BM-1T and a G-9000 so these are the two I’ll use for the review. Your mileage might differ if you have a GW-9000.
Lets jump right in.
The hallmark of and probably the major change from tradition that Casio introduced with the original Mudman was the covered buttons. The thought obviously was to eliminate little crevices that mud and dirt could penetrate in thereby affecting performance.
Both the old and new Mudmen have addressed this in different ways. With the old, Casio has covered up the normal buttons with a pliable plastic/rubber covering. With the new, the buttons are a much harder plastic with no pliability. Is one better than the other? Well, it’s hard to say.
It is a fact that the old do have a limited lifespan. Anyone who’s been a long time searcher of the Mudmen series of watches has undoubtedly comes across old Mudmen for sale with torn or ripped out buttons, so it’s quite possible that Casio realizing this inherent weakness has made the change in the new model. I will say that the new ones certainly inspire more confidence than the old.
Cases and straps are probably the Achilles heel of all old G’s. They rip tear or otherwise just disintegrate. Is the old better than the new? There’s no way I can objectively answer this question. Of course we’d like to think that Casio is improving their plastic compounds with all new releases, but there’s no way to tell.
I do think Casio took a step in the right direction with the plastic covering over the caseback on the new model. If in fact mud resistance is a real concern, I’d bet this caseback covering could provide an extra layer of resistance over the 8400. Anyone who’s ever taken apart an old well worn G can attest to the gunk that can seep into the gaskets over time. Incidentally, I see this both with the old heavy back screw in cases as well as the newer 4 screw plate cases. Lastly, I will note that eagle eyed owners will see that the plate screws in the 9000 are just a little more beefier than those in the 8400.
I have also noticed that the strap on the 9000 is slightly thicker than that on the 8400. As far as overall weight (not that it’s any indication of quality) they both seem to me to weigh the same. Since the 9000 is a little smaller, I suppose you could say it feels a little more dense than it’s older larger relative.
When you get to the functions, it’s easy to pick a winner. The 9000 clearly wins with its enhanced stopwatch and alarm functions vs. the 8400’s older traditional capabilities. Of course, let’s not forget the cool Dual Illuminator technology as well.
Obviously when you look at overall physical design, no one can pick a winner. This is a totally subjective area and everyone will have their own opinion. The 8400 is definitely a bigger and thicker watch. On the wrist, the 8400 comes across as big and chunky while the 9000 projects a sleeker modern more purpose built profile. Both are fun to wear for this Gshock collector.
When you look at actual model variations, it’s easy to give credit to the 8400 series which came in multiple color scheme variations. Only time will tell if Casio does the same with the new 9000.
Bottom line, both are fine watches and besides that the fact that the 8400 is certainly at this time more collectible, I’m pretty sure no one can objectively say that one is overall better than the other. And just because the 9000 can be had for much less than an 8400, don’t think in any way at all that it is any less of a G.
Hope you enjoyed the quick and dirty write up.
>>> SOURCE <<<
Our Notes : Mudman DW-8400 are the older version of the Gshock Mudman. Release at 1995, DW-8400 series considered to be the Father of the Gshock Mudman series.
