Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Smiths Everest vs. Armida A6 Comparison Review (lots of pics!!!)

Recommended Posts


I said I would do a comparison between these two watches in order to back up my statement that the Everest is worth the little extra it costs. Here is my shot at a comparison review. I have decided to skip out on the movement because they both use the Miyota 9015, and there is plenty of information on this movement. I have broken it down into sections to hopefully make it easier to follow, so here we go.


One of the areas where the Armida beats the Smiths is in the presentation department. The A6 comes in a screw-top orange plastic tube. Inside is a foam insert in which the watch is embedded. There is also a decent rubber strap, extra spring bars and a strap removal tool. The watch has the typical plastic wrap on the bracelet and case/crystal. The Everest comes in a leatherette single-watch case with a button clasp to hold the watch in. It is packed with a micro-fibre cleaning cloth, and also has the typical wrapping on the watch. Now, there wouldn't be as much of an edge for the A6 if I was reviewing my original Everest. That watch came in a 2 watch zippered travel case, with a pen, and the cleaning cloth. The new case is how the Smiths comes now, so this is a more fair comparison for those who are thinking of buying now. Edge to the A6.




Both watches are 40mm w/o crown, and have 22mm lugs. One bezel is polished the other brushed. I personally prefer the polished finish, but the brushed adds a bit more of a tool watch feel. For me it makes the Armida a little less versatile. Looking over the cases, the quality of the Smiths outshines the Armida. Both watches have drilled lugs. The curves of the lugs are much nicer on the Everest, the brushing on the case is done better, and I think the lugs look a little more substantial. The watch just looks more durable IMO. Both casebacks are screw down, and look nice. I personally prefer the cleaner look of the Smiths caseback. For those that really value WR the Smiths is 100m while the Armida is 200m. For what I will do with these watches, 100m or 200m doesn't make a difference to me. It is also worth noting that the Armida is also anti-magnetic to 70,000 A/m while the Smiths is 4800 A/m.

For the crowns, I prefer the larger, easier to grasp Armida crown. It also has a large 'A' on the crown, while the Smiths is a generic looking blank crown. Both screw down nicely and look good. One gripe I have is that when the crown is fully screwed in on the A6, the A is nowhere near straight. This is a small issue, but I think they should have put in a little more effort.

The crystals are both domed acrylic. The Armida is apparently double-domed. For some, this might be beneficial, but I really like the slight distortion that the crystal causes around the edge of the Everest. For me, the double-dome loses some of the character that I love about domed acrylic.

Overall, I give the edge to the Smiths.












While both of these watches are obvious references to the Rolex Explorer, the dials are quite different from each other. The Armida seems to be a more direct homage to the Rolex, with its smaller, subdued minute markers, while the Smiths has a bit of its own character with its relatively long minute markers. This seems to be a little bit of a polarizing effect, with some liking it, other hate it. I personally like the dial. I find that on the A6 they almost get lost in the dial. The numbering and the hour marks are well done on both watches. But if you examine closely, you ccan see that the edges are just a little bit sharper on the Everest that shows a little more attention to detail. I do prefer the more rounded numbers on the Everest as well, but that is just personal preference.

On the Armida there is a sloped rehaut which makes the dial a bit smaller than the Smiths. It looks great, but I do however, like how the dial on the Everest is right out to the edge of the crystal. The dial on the Smiths has less writing on it, which may be a benefit to some(I am indifferent to this). I think that the 'Everest' written in black on the Smiths dial is a nice subtle touch.

The hands of the Smiths are also somewhat polarizing. Many people think that they are too short. While I somewhat agree, I still find them to be quite adequate. For the Armida, I think the hands are almost too long, but they still work well with the watch. They are a beautiful polished brass, which makes this watch more unique.

I would give a very slight edge on the dial finishing to the Smiths, but the hands a a bit better on the Armida. All together though, I find the Everest more visually appealing.






4-Bracelet and Clasp

This is the part where I find the Smiths to be far superior to the Armida. Both of the watches have solid links and end links. Both are brushed, but the Armida is polished on the sides. Both have screw links that require 2 screwdrivers, which is quite cumbersome. The end links on the Smiths have a very nice, raised centre piece, which makes the link look like 3 separate pieces, while the Armida is a solid piece of metal with grooves cut in to look like 3 separate pieces(looks cheap to me). The design of these end links affect the wrist appearance quite a bit. The bracelet seems to almost fall straight down off the Armida, while the Everest has a nicer curve to it, wrapping around the wrist a little better. Both clasps are nicely machined, and serve their purpose well. The Armida has a safety flip lock, the Smiths is only a friction clasp. I prefer the look of the Smiths, but like the added security on the Armida.

The Smiths is a run-away in this department. I may not have explained it well enough, but if you see it, you might understand.









In conclusion, both of these watches represent a good value at their price point with the Miyota 9015. The Armida is a very nice watch, and it is not at all my intent to say otherwise. I just wanted to compare these two similar watches. Now, to my eyes it is easily apparent that the quality of the Smiths is higher than the Armida. Also in my defense on this is the fact that my wife, who has no interest in watches and knows next to nothing about them could easily see the quality differences without me mentioning anything. With the 10% off I got during their Christmas sale, the Armida was under $385 CAD with the extra strap, and spring bar tool. Without the sale it would be $425. With no sales, the Smiths was $460. I feel that the Everest is easily worth the extra $35. If I could only have one, it would be the Everest. Since I don't have to choose, I will keep both, as I find them different enough from each other to warrant having both in my collection. Thanks for taking the time to read my comparison, and I hope you enjoyed it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Excellent comparison! Ever since I purchased the Armida I've been curious about the differences. I share your disappointment with the Armida's end links, they do look quite blocky. I wonder, does the Smiths bracelet fit on the Armida?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nice write-up, and I'm always happy to see that many photos.

I still prefer the Armida though. I guess I much prefer the brushed 'tool' finish to it. Sadly, Mercedes hands will forever be a deal-breaker for me.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I am pretty sure the Smiths bracelet will fit the Armida. Same shape, and I think the lug holes are pretty close to the same. I will take a closer look later. As for the caseback causing the Armida to wear higher, I have found that both feel very similar on the wrist.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Just a rather splendid piece of work.Wonderful comparison,expertly done.

Also the quality of critique is unfussy & informative.

Sincere thanks for posting this.I have an interest in purchasing an A6 in due course & this detailed comparison confirms my thinking.

For what it's worth,I don't care for the Smiths at all & will obtain the A6.The dial on the Everest is utterly generic & I can do without it all year round.The A6 just seems like a very nicely thought out,no frills,budget explorer executed to a price with the usual Armida quality.I do not care about the bracelet as I am a NATO fan,so any bracelet is just a bonus.

Thanks for sharing.Top drawer.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Very informative and well written comparison/review. Seeing them side by side was very instructional, one of these will (probably


) be my only watch purchase of 2014. Appreciate you taking the time to do this.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nicely done comparison and review. I still can't decide which of the two I like better. I like the brite and unique dial of the Smiths but I also like the vintage coloring on the Armida dial. I would like to get one of the two in the future. Fortunately for me I was able to obtain my Parnis which is a model they no longer seem to produce. It nicely fits the bill for now. I'm very happy with it at a bit less than about a third the price.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Very nice. I used to own that same Parnis a while ago. I wanted to use it as a beater, so I wouldn't damage my Smiths a bunch. Turns out, I still preferred my Smiths. When I sold it, I actually sold it on a Zulu so I could keep the bracelet. It is currently on my 'Bond' sub homage.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...