Sub C or GMT IIC for Small Wrists ?

[AboutTime]

I’m thinking about buying a stainless steel Sub C or GMT IIC but, because I have small wrists, I can never truly try on either watch at my AD. Understandably, my AD doesn’t want to remove links from a new watch bracelet just so that I can see if it would fit me comfortably. I’ve read the TRF threads devoted to Sub C bracelet adjustment vs. wrist size, but I haven’t seen a similar thread for the GMT IIC. Would the bracelets of the Ceramic Sub and Ceramic GMT be equally easy to adjust for my small flat wrist (about 6.25 inches)? It would seem that the bracelet of the Sub C offers more adjustment options, but the shorter clasp cover of the GMT IIC might offer some advantage to those of us with small wrists.

Do you think the Sub C or GMT IIC would be easier to fit to my small flat wrist (about 6.25 inches)? And, do you think the large numerals on the bezel of the GMT IIC would make that watch appear too large on a small wrist?

[SLS]

GMT IIc would be my thought due to the width of the Sub C clasp.

[antbkny]

Life is short, just get the one u want!

[mr.president1]

There honestly about the same. I feel that the GMT would be more suitable though there won't be much of a difference.

[nelsonhtb]

I have small wrist as well and GMT kinda fits. Friends have said it too big for me but just like what you see on wrist.

[Vipes]

I have similar size wrist as you. I have a sub LVC and the clasp is fine. If your wrist is flat then you should be ok. The clasp of the sub definitely helps with the fit and it comes with a half link. Good luck.

[H_tony11]

I have the exact wrist size as you.
Before my purchase, i had the opportunity to try both sub c and gmt II.
I think they both are similar in terms of size, but gmt does look slightly bigger as the number on the ceramic makes it appear bigger.
My opinion, Just get what ever you think is your prefereable model.
I ended up took the sub C as it looks cleaner but Either way, You CANT go wrong with any

Good luck on your purchase

[psv]

GMTIIC sits flatter on the wrist and is a tad thinner as well, so that would be my choice. Or try on the Explorer 39mm.

[roger0770]

I have a small wrist (~6 inches), and I owned the 2C before. The newer style bracelet is not an issue when fitting on a small wrist at all. I ended up letting it go for I prefer the classic design. You will be fine.

[G8RDPM]

There is no wrong decision here.
I have a small wrist. I picked the GMT because it sang to me.
Either one will make you happy!

[Roley]

The GMT wears a little smaller IMO... and sits flatter on the wrist. With the option of a number of removable links and micro adjustments to the clasp, you shouldn't have a problem getting a comfortable fit with the GMT.

The sub C date sits high on the wrist, because of the larger case back, or deeper case back. Design for depth rate of the watch.

The sub ND or 114060 has a slighty thinner case, because it does not have the date complication in it. I would try on all the models at your AD. You can get a good feel and cosmetic visual of the watch with just the head of the watch resting on your wrist. Hope this helps. Good luck with your chioce.

[m j b]

Originally Posted by Roley

You can get a good feel and cosmetic visual of the watch with just the head of the watch resting on your wrist.

Originally Posted by Token74

Understand your AD's position, but they are asking you to take a punt on a pretty expensive item which is not reasonable in my view.

I would insist they size a bracelet for you.

I concur with both opinions stated above. Let the watch rest on your wrist and see if you can decide. If you still can't, and neither watch really calls out to you, explain that you are about to spend $9000 on a watch and the least they can do is pull out a few links. It is soooooooooo easy to do on a Rolex, that only an orangutan could mess it up.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by m j b

... the least they can do is pull out a few links. It is soooooooooo easy to do on a Rolex, that only an orangutan could mess it up.

Well... When I purchased by Sub-C at the local Rolex AD, the sales lady removed a few links to size the bracelet. During which process she managed to scratch up the edge of the bracelet, and apply much more glue than was necessary. It made the bracelet to get stiff and ultimately get stuck after a few days. I had to take it for a cleaning to the local RSC...

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by m j b

I concur with both opinions stated above. Let the watch rest on your wrist and see if you can decide. If you still can't, and neither watch really calls out to you, explain that you are about to spend $9000 on a watch and the least they can do is pull out a few links. It is soooooooooo easy to do on a Rolex, that only an orangutan could mess it up.

I'm sorry, but I would not pay AD prices for a watch that had screws removed and replaced. I don't see AD's doing this anytime soon. And I don't blame them.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

I'm sorry, but I would not pay AD prices for a watch that had screws removed and replaced. I don't see AD's doing this anytime soon. And I don't blame them.

I agree with this. The two ADs local to me don't even take the stickers off until a watch is sold. You can spend a lot of money on a nice suit too and they won't tailor it for you first to make sure it will fit you properly. Whether you agree with this analogy or not, the point is that there is a high degree of confidence that a newly purchased Rolex can be fit to just about anyone properly. One often times overlooked reason people like Rolex is because they are a very comfortable watch. Between the half links, easy links, and clasp adjustments, just about everyone walks out happy.

As far as an AD not being able to screw up a watch just by removing links, guess again:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=330238

Back on the subject, and this is only my opinion, the lugs on a watch should not extend beyond the wrist, floating out there in space. If it does it looks too big to my eye. You should be able to see at least a little bit of wrist on top outside both lugs. The watch and bracelet should pretty much follow the contour of the wearer's wrist. I don't know for sure but I doubt the Sub measures much more if any than the GMT from the tip of the 12 o'clock lugs to those at 6 o'clock.

The main difference on a small wrist would be the larger clasp on the Sub. If the wrist is small and many links have to be removed I suppose the larger clasp could give the impression that there are hardly any links on the bracelet at all. That may look a little odd. I own both watches and prefer the smaller clasp on the GMT as I don't care for the underside of the wrist being basically all clasp from side to side. I have no issues with the GMT's lesser ability to be micro adjusted. But I don't have a particularly problem with my wrist expanding and contracting due to temperature changes and water retention. So the ability to make repeated "on the fly" adjustments is not important to me. I haven't had to adjust my GMT since I bought it and I've even lost some weight since then. YMMV.

Keep in mind that the longer clasp and Glidelock feature on the Sub bracelet is not designed in mind with the need to make frequent on the fly changes because the fit on the average person changes that much from day to day. It is the design of the new Rolex dive extension mechanism, to make it easier to get on and off over a wet suit. Sure, a Glidelock on a GMT would be nice, but I'd rather it be incorporated into the current GMT clasp rather than the longer Sub clasp. Very few people need that much adjustment if it isn't required to accommodate a dive suit. The range available on the GMT clasp is plenty sufficient, particularly with the easy link there. Just make it via a Glidelock mechanism rather than the current method of needing to move in and out to a different set of pin holes.

[b5audia4]

I have a small wrist, and both the LV and BLNR fit fine and doesn't look awkward.

[hhcave]

My wrists are 6", I tried on the Submariner and size was almost okay, the only problem for me was that the lugs poked out over the ends of my wrist (clasp length was no issue).. Should be okay I would think if your wrists are 6.25"

I ended up buying the Explorer I (214270) 39mm - loved the design and (more importantly) discovered that for my 6" wrists the maximum dial size I can wear is 39mm (even the DJII doesn't fit as the lugs go over). Having said this, I have tried on other pieces like the Glashutte PanoMatic Lunar or even the 42" Panerai Luminors among others but they seem to wear smaller than Rolexes.

Anyway, best to try them on - good luck!

[Miamipawnsab]

Gmtc I have a small wrist and like how it feels. I personally like the old style sub but I like the new gmts

[Rickn]

My wrist is a little under 6.5" and both watches will work fine. But the clasp on the sub is really superior to the standard rolex oyster bracelet

[T. Ferguson]

Really, the only question is which one you should get first. The answer is, it doesn't much matter unless you dive regularly or need the GMT function for travel or work.

[second time]

Once sized correctly either one will be comfortable and look great.

[watchwatcher]

As others have said, not a whole lot of difference. For what it's worth, I've had both and I think I had to take less links out of the GMT, making it a little easier to size. But they both work fine.

[samsam]

From what I've seen, the sub looks chunkier. Bracelet wise, I'm not sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DCgator]

The GMT-C I believe will provide a better fit....imo.

[threemonkeys]

My wrist is 6.25 or 6.5 (forgot) and I have both watches. The GMT feels less bulky to me - especially with the smaller clasp and lower profile. But you really can't go wrong with either.

[nelsonhtb]

My wrist 6.5 inches, removed 2 links. Sometimes in the afternoon when gets hot it feels tight just release extension.

[wisguy]

Both are ok.

I found a prevously owned GMTIIc more comfortable, the smaller clasp and flatter case make it so.

[Token74]

I think both will be fine, however, you need to try them. Understand your AD's position, but they are asking you to take a punt on a pretty expensive item which is not reasonable in my view.

I would insist they size a bracelet for you. If they can't do it with a new one, ask them to size a used one, surely no harm in that. If they don't sell used, find someone who does just for the sake of trying them.

[Reu]

Go with the model you want. I think you'll be fine!

Whilst you have a smaller size wrist (I too only have about 6.75) I think the shape of your wrist also plays an important part.

From what I know there's not much difference in size, although someone recently mentioned that the Sub case is slightly deeper.

[Fiery]

Cca. 6.3 inch flat wrist here. I've picked the Sub-C (vs. the GMT IIC which I actually preferred) on the basis that I figured the GlideLock clasp may help to compensate the wrist swelling during the summer months. But as it turned out, the initial setting was perfect and I never bothered playing with the GlideLock. The only Sub-C specific feature that helped a lot though was the inclusion of the half-link. After removing 2 full links from each side of the bracelet, now I've got 3 full links plus a half link on the 6-hour side, and 5 full links (counting the ones showing out of the GlideLock) on the other side. I'm not sure if recent GMT IIC models (like the BLNR) would offer a half-link, but back in 2010 the GMT IIC didn't bear that feature, that's for sure. Of course it should also be possible to buy a Sub-C half-link, polish the center, and add it to the GMT IIC bracelet...

BTW, the shorter GMT IIC clasp is a myth. It is shorter only on the outside (the actual clasp housing), which fools the mind. But the actual inner part (the scissor mechanism) is the same length on both watches, so they fit similarly on smaller wrists. Except for the added weight of the GlideLock clasp which may actually be preferred to compensate for the relatively heavy watch head.

Here's how the Sub-C looks on me: