ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

rondv22 · 29 October 2019, 06:03 AM

I have 6.5" and found the 15202 fit really big lug to lug. I chose 15450 and love the fit, it's perfect ! I believe that the 15202 is even wider than the 15400. I tried the 15400 once and lug to lug wasn't bad, but the watch looked really huge on my wrist.

Bearxj86 · 29 October 2019, 08:43 AM

Do not forget the 14790st. It shares more DNA with its ultra thin case and proportions including the jumbo-like bracelet.

I love mine and my wrist is 6.75 inches. I think this is a better fir for you

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mongrelnomoad · 29 October 2019, 05:13 PM

We 6” wrist guys are not well served by sports watches. That 202 is way too big.

I’m still wearing a 36mm RO and a 5066 Patek, as anything larger just doesn’t sit right.

29 October 2019, 06:03 AM	#31
rondv22 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Real Name: Ron Location: Canada Watch: Lange Posts: 54	15202 is wider the 15300 lug to lug I have 6.5" and found the 15202 fit really big lug to lug. I chose 15450 and love the fit, it's perfect ! I believe that the 15202 is even wider than the 15400. I tried the 15400 once and lug to lug wasn't bad, but the watch looked really huge on my wrist.

29 October 2019, 08:43 AM	#32
Bearxj86 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Location: Los Angeles Watch: 3970 Posts: 3,894	Do not forget the 14790st. It shares more DNA with its ultra thin case and proportions including the jumbo-like bracelet. I love mine and my wrist is 6.75 inches. I think this is a better fir for you Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

29 October 2019, 05:13 PM	#33
mongrelnomoad 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2019 Location: Here and there... Posts: 1,902	We 6” wrist guys are not well served by sports watches. That 202 is way too big. I’m still wearing a 36mm RO and a 5066 Patek, as anything larger just doesn’t sit right.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)