ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Jim Green · 3 January 2008, 11:26 AM

Went to the AD today and they had a new GMT IIc that I was able to try on. Beautiful watch! my problem is that I have small wrists and it looked just to big on my wrist and am unsure if I want to drop $5950 for watch that I may not wear. Does anyone know if they will ever make this watch in a mid size? I really like the rolex brand and am very happy with the mid size datejust I purchased 6 months ago

None of my other watches seem to get any wrist time now that I have a rolex

There was a nice mid size Yachmaster that caught my eye but it was a D serial number so it must have been on display for some time. Are the mid size watches not that popular? How are their resale values?

Perdu · 3 January 2008, 11:40 AM

Personally, I would not worry about the date serial number. For example, some sites show X as 1991, but many of the higher of this serial number were sold in 1994 and some in 1995. I see people get hooked up on the date, but the date on the serial number is not the date Rolex made the watch. It is the date the case was stamped out. The movement was often assembled and put into that case at a later date.

I would not drop the money on the GMT IIc if your first instinct is that it's too big. Although many may disagree, I think a watch can look too big on a small wrist, and then it looks a bit bling bling.

About resales values. Personally, I would never buy a watch for resale value - you will loose money unless you have something really special. Buy what you want. A Rolex is not just for Christmas, it's for life.

Go with your gut.

JBat · 3 January 2008, 11:51 AM

Jim,

I'm pretty skinny-wristed myself, but I've been happily wearing my GMT IIc for over a week now. It's my opinion that the key is getting the bracelet sized correctly. I'm a pretty big guy with small wrists, and in the context of my overall appearance, the watch fits me just fine, just like my full sized SMP before that.

I don't know the particulars of your situation, but that's my $.02 worth. That said, if it doesn't feel good from the get-go, you probably should trust your gut, like Perdu said.

From my understanding, a Sub or Explorer II wears smaller than the GMT IIc, so you may want to try those, or go with the mid-sized YM, like you were thinking.

Good luck!

sheldonsmith · 3 January 2008, 11:57 AM

My wrists are 6.5" and have no problems with GMT's. The new GMT rides lower than the Sub and SD....

-Sheldon

Jim Green · 3 January 2008, 12:04 PM

Thanks for the info

They had the older GMT I was able to try on as well, it seemed to be a bit smaller than the GMT IIc. I really like the look of both the watches and if I were to get one of them I would probably go for the older one due to its size. I think the MSRP was about $5075 on the older one. Is it a bad idea to consider the older one? Would it lose more value? Also if I decide to get the mid size Yachtaster they had should I expect a greater discount since it was a D serial # ? According to my research that watch was made around 2005

pilapandet · 3 January 2008, 12:06 PM

I am a very small person myself. I have to remove a link from my bracelet and move adjustment position all the way in so I can wear my GMT. To me, I don't think is too big at all. I used to hate a big watch. Now, I don't think that I like anything smaller than GMT size. It look funny to me when saw a co-worker wearing his mid-size TT Date-Just. I don't want you to miss an opportunity to wear a great watch that ROLEX can offer. Which to me is GMT.

crimscrem · 3 January 2008, 12:09 PM

I too have smaller wrists, measuring at 6". I tried on an old GMT and thought that it looked fine. Strangely, when I tried on a YM a few weeks ago, I thought that one looked big, even though it's the same 40mm.

JBat · 3 January 2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Green

Thanks for the info

They had the older GMT I was able to try on as well, it seemed to be a bit smaller than the GMT IIc. I really like the look of both the watches and if I were to get one of them I would probably go for the older one due to its size. I think the MSRP was about $5075 on the older one. Is it a bad idea to consider the older one? Would it lose more value? Also if I decide to get the mid size Yachtaster they had should I expect a greater discount since it was a D serial # ? According to my research that watch was made around 2005

I don't think you can go wrong with one of the older GMT's. They're terrific watches. If you go that route, you might want to take a look at one of the Pepsi or Coke bezeled versions before deciding. Very cool and very classic.

Todd V · 3 January 2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Green

Is it a bad idea to consider the older one? Would it lose more value? ...

In my opinion, it's a great idea. I bought my 16710 Z-serial about two months ago. I've worn it every day since then.

<----- See avitar

mike · 3 January 2008, 01:30 PM

Jim, there's never been a "mid-size" GMT. There's certainly nothing wrong with the 16710.
Many consider it an ideal size sport watch.

I think it's more a function of proper sizing. A comparison of thickness,

sharif · 3 January 2008, 02:45 PM

I have never seen a wrist, that a full sized Rolex doesn't look good on.

Heck, even with Sandy's TINY TINY wrist, she has warmed up to the midsized, and I think it looks fabulous.

As Mike and others have mentioned, its all about proper sizing. And until it's sized, it will never look correct on your wrist, simply by trying it on at the AD.

I say go for the one you love!

swisscottg · 3 January 2008, 04:49 PM

I needed a watch with 2 timezones to replace my 12 yr old Breitling Aerospace with a leather strap and grey dial.

i tried the Stainless GMT IIc and Explorer II and went with the explorer with the white dial. I too have small wrists and the IIc which is gorgeous was just too big and heavy on the wrist. Had my explorer for 3 months and wear it comfortably for every occasion.

Jim Green · 3 January 2008, 04:59 PM

Thanks for all the responses

I really do like the look of the GMT IIc and the older GMT as well. I think I might stop back in and see if they would size the bracelet down so it fits my wrist so I can see what it would actually fit and look like. I don't know if they would take the time to do this but I guess it is worth a try.

rolex5 · 3 January 2008, 05:01 PM

If I were you, I'll go w/ the YM (36mm) instead of the GMTII.

The only minor problem is the Z series which is not hard to find.

Personally, I would not go against w/ my first feeling or impression.

Best luck to you.

SPACE-DWELLER · 3 January 2008, 10:16 PM

Welcome to TRF, Jim!

I don't believe Rolex will ever make a midsize GMT II, but the new GMT IIc is actually a very comfortable watch to wear, and it is just a matter of sizing it up properly to let it fit your wrist.

f16570 · 4 January 2008, 12:44 AM

At first glance it may appear large but trust me it will wear off.
Watches are never a great idea as an investment.

f

BigHat · 4 January 2008, 03:21 AM

Watches are like TVs. Once home, nobody ever says they wish they bought the smaller one.

Okay the analogy is pushing it but you get the point.

Maybe you should try on a few Panerais, and couple of AP Royal Oak Offshores and a Hublot Big Bang. After that the GMT will look tiny on your wrist.

llamaofdoom · 4 January 2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Green

Went to the AD today and they had a new GMT IIc that I was able to try on. Beautiful watch! my problem is that I have small wrists and it looked just to big on my wrist and am unsure if I want to drop $5950 for watch that I may not wear. Does anyone know if they will ever make this watch in a mid size? I really like the rolex brand and am very happy with the mid size datejust I purchased 6 months ago

None of my other watches seem to get any wrist time now that I have a rolex

There was a nice mid size Yachmaster that caught my eye but it was a D serial number so it must have been on display for some time. Are the mid size watches not that popular? How are their resale values?

If you're most comfortable with mid-size watches, go with the Yachtmaster. The mid-size Yachtmaster isn't very popular...but if you like mid-size watches, then I wouldn't worry about that.

Re: the D serial...it's about a year or so old...so it's been sitting there a little while. See if the AD will give you 15%+ off on it. I've never been one to worry about getting the latest serial when there's money to be saved/made.

JBat · 4 January 2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHat

Watches are like TVs. Once home, nobody ever says they wish they bought the smaller one.

Okay the analogy is pushing it but you get the point.

Maybe you should try on a few Panerais, and couple of AP Royal Oak Offshores and a Hublot Big Bang. After that the GMT will look tiny on your wrist.

Lol! Good point!

0luke1 · 4 January 2008, 08:20 AM

I have a large, heavy, steel Oris that after a full day (especially if it involves an airline flight), I can't wait to get off my wrist. That's why I just bought a GMT II and passed on the "c." The lighter band makes a difference.

There's also the fact that you can get a discount on the older model right now. That will make your wallet more heavy, but that's always OK.

3 January 2008, 11:26 AM	#1
Jim Green Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 26	Tried on the New GMT IIc Today Went to the AD today and they had a new GMT IIc that I was able to try on. Beautiful watch! my problem is that I have small wrists and it looked just to big on my wrist and am unsure if I want to drop $5950 for watch that I may not wear. Does anyone know if they will ever make this watch in a mid size? I really like the rolex brand and am very happy with the mid size datejust I purchased 6 months ago None of my other watches seem to get any wrist time now that I have a rolex There was a nice mid size Yachmaster that caught my eye but it was a D serial number so it must have been on display for some time. Are the mid size watches not that popular? How are their resale values?

3 January 2008, 11:57 AM	#4
sheldonsmith 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Member 202♛ Posts: 1,815	The new GMT rides lower and.... My wrists are 6.5" and have no problems with GMT's. The new GMT rides lower than the Sub and SD.... -Sheldon __________________

3 January 2008, 10:16 PM	#15
SPACE-DWELLER "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Bo Location: Denmark Watch: Rolex, of course! Posts: 22,436	Welcome to TRF, Jim! I don't believe Rolex will ever make a midsize GMT II, but the new GMT IIc is actually a very comfortable watch to wear, and it is just a matter of sizing it up properly to let it fit your wrist. __________________ With kind regards, Bo LocTite 221: The Taming Of The Screw...

3 January 2008, 11:40 AM	#2
Perdu "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Gary Location: GMT-6 Watch: GMT Posts: 3,350	Personally, I would not worry about the date serial number. For example, some sites show X as 1991, but many of the higher of this serial number were sold in 1994 and some in 1995. I see people get hooked up on the date, but the date on the serial number is not the date Rolex made the watch. It is the date the case was stamped out. The movement was often assembled and put into that case at a later date. I would not drop the money on the GMT IIc if your first instinct is that it's too big. Although many may disagree, I think a watch can look too big on a small wrist, and then it looks a bit bling bling. About resales values. Personally, I would never buy a watch for resale value - you will loose money unless you have something really special. Buy what you want. A Rolex is not just for Christmas, it's for life. Go with your gut.

3 January 2008, 11:51 AM	#3
JBat "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: John Location: Washington Watch: 16710, 16610, DJ Posts: 7,329	Jim, I'm pretty skinny-wristed myself, but I've been happily wearing my GMT IIc for over a week now. It's my opinion that the key is getting the bracelet sized correctly. I'm a pretty big guy with small wrists, and in the context of my overall appearance, the watch fits me just fine, just like my full sized SMP before that. I don't know the particulars of your situation, but that's my $.02 worth. That said, if it doesn't feel good from the get-go, you probably should trust your gut, like Perdu said. From my understanding, a Sub or Explorer II wears smaller than the GMT IIc, so you may want to try those, or go with the mid-sized YM, like you were thinking. Good luck!

3 January 2008, 12:04 PM	#5
Jim Green Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 26	Thanks for the info They had the older GMT I was able to try on as well, it seemed to be a bit smaller than the GMT IIc. I really like the look of both the watches and if I were to get one of them I would probably go for the older one due to its size. I think the MSRP was about $5075 on the older one. Is it a bad idea to consider the older one? Would it lose more value? Also if I decide to get the mid size Yachtaster they had should I expect a greater discount since it was a D serial # ? According to my research that watch was made around 2005

3 January 2008, 12:06 PM	#6
pilapandet "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Alexander Location: Anaheim Hills, CA Watch: GMT Master II SS Posts: 425	I am a very small person myself. I have to remove a link from my bracelet and move adjustment position all the way in so I can wear my GMT. To me, I don't think is too big at all. I used to hate a big watch. Now, I don't think that I like anything smaller than GMT size. It look funny to me when saw a co-worker wearing his mid-size TT Date-Just. I don't want you to miss an opportunity to wear a great watch that ROLEX can offer. Which to me is GMT.

3 January 2008, 12:09 PM	#7
crimscrem "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Indiana Watch: SS DJ/SS GMT-IIc Posts: 583	I too have smaller wrists, measuring at 6". I tried on an old GMT and thought that it looked fine. Strangely, when I tried on a YM a few weeks ago, I thought that one looked big, even though it's the same 40mm.

3 January 2008, 01:30 PM	#10
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	Jim, there's never been a "mid-size" GMT. There's certainly nothing wrong with the 16710. Many consider it an ideal size sport watch. I think it's more a function of proper sizing. A comparison of thickness,

3 January 2008, 02:45 PM	#11
sharif Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: South East USA Posts: 671	I have never seen a wrist, that a full sized Rolex doesn't look good on. Heck, even with Sandy's TINY TINY wrist, she has warmed up to the midsized, and I think it looks fabulous. As Mike and others have mentioned, its all about proper sizing. And until it's sized, it will never look correct on your wrist, simply by trying it on at the AD. I say go for the one you love!

3 January 2008, 04:49 PM	#12
swisscottg "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 11	I needed a watch with 2 timezones to replace my 12 yr old Breitling Aerospace with a leather strap and grey dial. i tried the Stainless GMT IIc and Explorer II and went with the explorer with the white dial. I too have small wrists and the IIc which is gorgeous was just too big and heavy on the wrist. Had my explorer for 3 months and wear it comfortably for every occasion.

3 January 2008, 04:59 PM	#13
Jim Green Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 26	Thanks for all the responses I really do like the look of the GMT IIc and the older GMT as well. I think I might stop back in and see if they would size the bracelet down so it fits my wrist so I can see what it would actually fit and look like. I don't know if they would take the time to do this but I guess it is worth a try.

3 January 2008, 05:01 PM	#14
rolex5 Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Earth Watch: TT RG Jubi TOG Posts: 163	If I were you, I'll go w/ the YM (36mm) instead of the GMTII. The only minor problem is the Z series which is not hard to find. Personally, I would not go against w/ my first feeling or impression. Best luck to you.

4 January 2008, 12:44 AM	#16
f16570 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: F Location: Scotland Watch: Exp II White Face Posts: 4,272	At first glance it may appear large but trust me it will wear off. Watches are never a great idea as an investment. f

4 January 2008, 03:21 AM	#17
BigHat Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Real Name: Matt Location: Arlington, VA Watch: Lange One MP Posts: 4,043	Watches are like TVs. Once home, nobody ever says they wish they bought the smaller one. Okay the analogy is pushing it but you get the point. Maybe you should try on a few Panerais, and couple of AP Royal Oak Offshores and a Hublot Big Bang. After that the GMT will look tiny on your wrist.

4 January 2008, 08:20 AM	#20
0luke1 Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 49	I have a large, heavy, steel Oris that after a full day (especially if it involves an airline flight), I can't wait to get off my wrist. That's why I just bought a GMT II and passed on the "c." The lighter band makes a difference. There's also the fact that you can get a discount on the older model right now. That will make your wallet more heavy, but that's always OK.

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