ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

leopardprey · 9 October 2007, 04:04 AM

38mm to 42mm size is perfect.

Bigger than that it is like wearing a Dive computer or Dive Compass on your wrist.

Next watch I am considering is actually 42mm, the upper limit of a watch size for my 7.5 inch wrist, but the watch is also only 9.5mm thick, so it sits very flat. (It is a Vacheron Overseas that I want!). Very elegant, classic, and sporty and practical.

Senna · 9 October 2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediSubExII

Don't get me wrong, the Ball is a fantastic robust and accurate timepiece, but it doesn't make me go mmmm....

I'm afraid none of the watches Ball makes make me go mmmm either. Not my cup of tea at all!

unclesallie · 9 October 2007, 08:56 AM

TRUEenough!

Senna · 9 October 2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

If you want a really big watch, check out Omega's XXLarge Railmaster!!!!

I have! It actually wears smaller than a chunky 44mm Luminor due to its slimmer case and fairly sleek design.

Senna · 9 October 2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPTL

I read somewhere (maybe on this forum) that Rolex deliberately kept their sports lines at 40mm. Seemed that Rolex designs their watches to last for generations, and increasing the size and weight would put undue strain on the bracelets, leading to more watches being worn improperly (as bracelets wear out) and thus suffering premature wear/damage.

Rolex have had/are having problems with straps for a ages which is why we're probably going to see more and more solid center links in place of the crappy hollow ones they've been using in most of their sports lines over the years.

I'm sure they'll address their metal strap quality further if they increase the size/weight of their cases. They make too many watches (1 million per year) to mess up!

Transient · 10 October 2007, 12:31 PM

I think the 16610 is a perfect size. I also have an Omega Seamaster Chrono and, at 41mm, is just perfect too !! I adore them both. The Omega is thicker, larger, more a robust watch, and the Sub is a great size (face and width) to wear all the time.

dodyj27 · 10 October 2007, 12:37 PM

WoW!!! Price increase is goood news for sellllers :)

9 October 2007, 04:04 AM	#61
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	38mm to 42mm size is perfect. Bigger than that it is like wearing a Dive computer or Dive Compass on your wrist. Next watch I am considering is actually 42mm, the upper limit of a watch size for my 7.5 inch wrist, but the watch is also only 9.5mm thick, so it sits very flat. (It is a Vacheron Overseas that I want!). Very elegant, classic, and sporty and practical.

9 October 2007, 08:56 AM	#63
unclesallie 2024 ROLEX SUBMARINER 41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Real Name: dan Location: Pennsylvania Watch: keystone pocket Posts: 5,917	TRUEenough!

10 October 2007, 12:31 PM	#66
Transient "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Real Name: Rob Location: Sydney, Australia Watch: Rolex & Omega Posts: 697	I think the 16610 is a perfect size. I also have an Omega Seamaster Chrono and, at 41mm, is just perfect too !! I adore them both. The Omega is thicker, larger, more a robust watch, and the Sub is a great size (face and width) to wear all the time.

10 October 2007, 12:37 PM	#67
dodyj27 Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Faisal Location: SA Watch: hmmmm.. Posts: 28	WoW!!! Price increase is goood news for sellllers :)

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