Casio G-Shock oak or square? | Which is my favorite and why

Affiliate links:
G-Shock GWM5610-1: amzn.to/3S3IHPG
G-Shock GA-B2100: amzn.to/3TRiKnM
-
These two G-Shocks are legends be it in price, quality, size and looks. But one of them will have wrist time and I'll explain which I prefer between the Casio G-Shock oak or octagonal and the "Square" 5600 series.

[@benironside1264]

I own both and use them for different purposes. I use my oak as a daily beater for work/general office days as it’s abit more “acceptable” in that environment. I use my 5610 for gym, climbing and anything where I’m throwing myself around more

[@crisoclock]

That makes lots of sense! Kinda same here. Take care

[@duncanhamilton5841]

Have both you have in the video, plus a yellow and a black SolarOak. Wear both equally, depending on my mood although all play second fiddle to my Rangeman 😊.

[@crisoclock]

Wow awesome! You’ve got very good taste in watches I see 😁💪🏼

[@adsagp]

Yes, good choice with the Rangeman, I have the 9400 positive display and love it. Really thinking about getting a Square G, which is a downgrade accept for the form factor and the world time swap.

[@gaius_marius]

I find that digital G-Shocks are much easier to read, and are thus more practical as tool watches. The oak has a negative display which is covered by the hands most of the time, so it makes it very difficult to see what's going on in the digital window.

[@crisoclock]

Yes, that’s very true. I removed the section about negative display because both these models can also be found in positive/negative display options (I really don’t like negative displays either btw). Thanks for sharing!

[@antonioau_gb89]

but the oak looks so cool

[@crisoclock]

It does indeed!

[@FDLTGM]

​@@antonioau_gb89But the square is the OG legend.👍

[@bidhrohi12]

I don't like the oak because it puts "style" before practicality. Busier face, unnecessary complications, and the blocked negative display. The G-shock square is pretty much perfection in a watch. It looks great, but everything that looks good also serves a very practical purpose. No excessive showy features purely for aesthetics.

[@Jun235sg]

Those are the top 2 g shock every g shock lover should have.

[@crisoclock]

absolutely!

[@FalseTeeth-o4y]

The octagonal are more handsome but the squares are more iconic.

[@crisoclock]

Very true 👍🏼

[@watchthis90]

If you like analog: oak If you like digital: square

[@crisoclock]

I love analog yet I prefer the square one… I guess it’d make sense for most people tho 👍🏼😉

[@mush3641]

Currently my beta G-Shock is gbd-200, while replacing the new battery does the job, i'm looking for a tough solar model, these two classes/categories caught my attention. Thank you for your video, I think ga-b2100 is a perfect match for me

[@crisoclock]

Awesome! The GA-B2100 is a great model indeed! Take care

[@mikeyblueeyes8449]

I own both the gw5610 U and the ga2110 SU and I love them both because both I don't have to worry about damaging and both can put up with alot as trusty tools but I will say aesthetically the casio GA 2110 is pure class:)!!

[@crisoclock]

Very true!

[@vaclav_fejt]

I sold my GA-2100 after I got my GW-M5610U last year. Observed changes: + better wearability (deciding factor) + better display legibility (deciding factor; my 2100 had a negative display) + solar (nice bonus) + radio sync (nice bonus) + iconic design (It just looks right, as opposed to a new, fashion-forward one) + I don't ever misread the time (I sometimes get lost on a numberless dial) - weaker light (2100 can be used as an improvised torch) - quieter alarm (surprisingly) - worse legibility under shallow angles (unsurprisingly; it's a well-known strength of physical hands. Or get the MIP display, but that still feels too "smart watch" for my taste). - I miss the lumed hands (at night, I can't just glance at the faint glow, I have to turn on the powerful LED) - There's something endearing about analogue which the digital misses. Plus these can dance around the dial if you want. I'm hoping to get the smaller GMA-S-2100 with a positive display, obviating the biggest cons of the Casioak. We'll see.

[@crisoclock]

Wow interesting! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and personal experience. Take care

[@vaclav_fejt]

@@crisoclock What can I say, I'm extremely nitpicky about almost perfect watches. :D Have you noticed these differences now that I pointed them out, or do your specimens produce different results? I had a radioless solarless Casioak, which is a tiny bit thinner than the full volley option. My brother now has that Casioak and he complains that he can't wear it with a suit. Other times, it's on his wrist all the time. A wholly practical man.

[@NotThatSlow]

Have both, enjoy both - Yellow solar Casioak and bog standard battery quartz DW5600 here.

[@crisoclock]

Awesome! Funny enough I just ordered the yellow Oak :) take care

[@vaclav_fejt]

Neat. I'd love to get a simple 5600 (especially since they're available in so many colours), but my nails are too soft for the A button.

[@markfernley4664]

I was between to two. Sided for the 5610 as it offered something different; a solid, nice looking digital to go with the others in my little collection. I love it - had it on every day since I got it. That said the same would probably be true if I got the 2100.

[@crisoclock]

I understand! Pretty much same thing for me - love it!

[@Mongoose069]

The best one is the one you wear.

[@crisoclock]

Always 😉

[@sumanthparakala2005]

Spot on! I love my gshock, GA-1000A , love the size , and other features

[@edwardsjohnpaul]

I own both, and the square almost always wins. It does everything better, with the obvious exception of analog. They're both better on a composite bracelet, a worthwhile upgrade for either.

[@crisoclock]

Thanks for sharing and I agree with you on all points! The square wins for me all the time too 😉 Ps: are yours also scratched? Any of them?

[@PKVKishan]

I own exactly the same versions of both, and I, too, prefer the square. I don't quite like the negative display on the 2100. It is not readable in most conditions. Overall, though, the 2100 looks better on the wrist.

[@crisoclock]

So funny that you have the same 2! Yes I agree on the looks of the 2100 ok the wrist, and yes readability wise it’s terrible! Take care

[@stephenwolf8806]

The problem with the Casioak is that the hands are too short and look stunted. The digital display is too small and difficult to read at a glance. The 5610 is the better choice between these two.

[@crisoclock]

I can totally see that! Thanks for sharing your thoughts

[@kentrustee12]

To protect the face of the casioak you can fit a 30mm tempered glass protector for a couple of £ and it won’t be noticed.

[@crisoclock]

Absolutely 👍🏼 I made a video later about that 😅😉

[@Sireth]

I like the Oak because I prefer analog watches.

[@crisoclock]

Yep, that’s something I do like a lot too (easier to estimate time left for example)

[@brucebush5744]

Prefer the square - it does everything well, it does a lot, nothing is superfluous. The Casioak looks better as an “office” watch - although still isn’t great in that role - but the day and digital displays serve little practical function and spoil the aesthetics of the face.

[@crisoclock]

Interesting indeed! Thanks for sharing 😊

[@dimplepreet818]

Square is Class ,Best G shock model ever

[@crisoclock]

I totally agree!

[@yashkumar2042]

Square because of my small wrist

[@crisoclock]

Makes sense!

[@adebisi27]

square

[@crisoclock]

Can see why! 😌

[@adebisi27]

@@crisoclock looks more compact on wrist

[@TexXasBBQ]

🟥>🔴 The design was and remains a stroke of genius

[@crisoclock]

👍🏼💪🏼