ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

77T · 25 June 2013, 07:04 PM

This is just a random thought and my opinion only,,,

It is time for either a Submariner II or a DSSD-II. Bigger case, functional command ring for multi-countdown timers and permanent lume with tritium gas tubes like Ball and others.

Just taking a page from the YM-II in size difference - or maybe even larger at 50mm.

JED POLAND · 25 June 2013, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warrior

40 mm isn't too small BUT 42mm certainly isn't too big for a sport watch for the vast majority of wrist sizes imo. (i.e. 6.25 inches and above more or less.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billythekid

42mm is the perfect size for any watch

Quote:

Originally Posted by c.rod

im sorry but the watch in that pic loos ridiculously small imo.

+3 ;)

In my opinion it is not the size in mm that makes a watch look big or small - it is overall design, especially a bezel.
Check out my Navitimer World (46) against EII (42) and GMTII (40).

To me, NW looks like 50mm in comparison with 42/40mm.
Because there is (almost) no bezel on it.

Pleximannen · 25 June 2013, 09:09 PM

Absolutely not. The tide has turned. The bigger watch trend is a thing of the past imho. Sure, there are plenty of people who buy oversized blingy watches but they are most definitely not the trend-setters these days. That's my general observation anyway.

padi56 · 25 June 2013, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dream99

I read lots about guys saying 40mm watches being to small for them. Do you think this is the case and will Rolex eventually realise perhaps a 42-44mm Sub would be a better watch for most or would it compete with the DSSD to much for their long term stratergy ?

Is the Submariner too small, only if you have in in your head its too small IMHO. Myself have quite large wrists 8" plus and IMHO the sub is a perfect size,and I have no trouble wearing vintage watches 30mm-36mm size either.Today there is some sort of mentality that bigger heavier is better which is not always the case especially with watches.

JED POLAND · 25 June 2013, 09:15 PM

"trend"? "trend-setters"? LOL!

Daytona-Dan · 25 June 2013, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77T

or maybe even larger at 50mm.

No wall clocks for watches please!

Unless you've got REALLY bad eyes!

KING · 11 May 2019, 02:30 AM

IMHO, it really depends on ur wrist size. I am 7.5, and does feel it is too small. Recently bought a 43mm, feels so much better...

TimeToWatch · 11 May 2019, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dream99

I read lots about guys saying 40mm watches being to small for them. Do you think this is the case and will Rolex eventually realise perhaps a 42-44mm Sub would be a better watch for most or would it compete with the DSSD to much for their long term stratergy ?

No. I think it’s too big. The 16610 was perfect.

RTG · 11 May 2019, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dream99

I read lots about guys saying 40mm watches being to small for them. Do you think this is the case and will Rolex eventually realise perhaps a 42-44mm Sub would be a better watch for most or would it compete with the DSSD to much for their long term stratergy ?

I think the sub will remain 40mm for a long time. At 40mm it is too small for some, too big for others and just right for the majority. Nothing in the world is truly one-size-fits all. Personally I like 42mm but Rolex would be stupid if they made all of their watches just for me.

shapa · 11 May 2019, 03:47 AM

It's not small. It's just not well proportioned. It's top heavy.

Kliminator · 11 May 2019, 03:54 AM

Thread got bumped from the grave in 2013! I think 40MM is a great size. The proportions of the 5 digits is better than the 6 IMO

VicLeChic · 11 May 2019, 06:17 PM

The problem is not its 40mm case size, although it's on the small size for a sports watch by modern standards. 40mm seems to suit many people so that's not the issue. I personally prefer 42-44mm sports watches, but 40mm is OK.

The problem for me is the 28mm dial, which I find too small. Basically too much bezel and case for a small dial, it looks even worse with the bulkier supercase and maxidial where bigger markers in the same dial make it look smaller.

With the arrival of the YM42, case size is slightly increased and so is the dial. They should have kept the same markers instead of using larger ones, but at least they're making a step in the right direction.

huba01 · 11 May 2019, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomchicago

40mm far too small. 60mm is minimum, 80-100mm much more in line, with one meter diameter cases to really become the norm.

crazymcmichael · 11 May 2019, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passionata

What s going on guys? It s the second thread recently complaning on Rolex sizes
All Rolexes are just perfect in size.Attachment 345281
Pls do not comment the shirt,i love it,thanks.

Best
George

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

George sorry to say this but your keyboard looks horrible dirty you really need to clean it

Andad · 11 May 2019, 07:36 PM

The Sub has probably grown bigger in the past 6 years.

Brew · 11 May 2019, 07:53 PM

WIS size queens are silly.

25 June 2013, 07:04 PM	#241
77T 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: PaulG Location: Georgia Posts: 42,017	This is just a random thought and my opinion only,,, It is time for either a Submariner II or a DSSD-II. Bigger case, functional command ring for multi-countdown timers and permanent lume with tritium gas tubes like Ball and others. Just taking a page from the YM-II in size difference - or maybe even larger at 50mm. __________________ Does anyone really know what time it is?

11 May 2019, 07:36 PM	#255
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,533	The Sub has probably grown bigger in the past 6 years. __________________ E

25 June 2013, 09:09 PM	#243
Pleximannen Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Sweden Watch: 1665 Sea-Dweller Posts: 64	Absolutely not. The tide has turned. The bigger watch trend is a thing of the past imho. Sure, there are plenty of people who buy oversized blingy watches but they are most definitely not the trend-setters these days. That's my general observation anyway.

25 June 2013, 09:15 PM	#245
JED POLAND Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Real Name: JED Location: Poland/Worldwide Watch: keeper Posts: 37	"trend"? "trend-setters"? LOL!

11 May 2019, 02:30 AM	#247
KING "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: New York Posts: 18	IMHO, it really depends on ur wrist size. I am 7.5, and does feel it is too small. Recently bought a 43mm, feels so much better...

11 May 2019, 03:47 AM	#250
shapa "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2018 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 267	It's not small. It's just not well proportioned. It's top heavy.

11 May 2019, 03:54 AM	#251
Kliminator 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: West Coast Posts: 2,367	Thread got bumped from the grave in 2013! I think 40MM is a great size. The proportions of the 5 digits is better than the 6 IMO

11 May 2019, 06:17 PM	#252
VicLeChic Banned Join Date: Jul 2014 Real Name: Victor Location: Spain Watch: YM 116622 - SD43 Posts: 2,598	The problem is not its 40mm case size, although it's on the small size for a sports watch by modern standards. 40mm seems to suit many people so that's not the issue. I personally prefer 42-44mm sports watches, but 40mm is OK. The problem for me is the 28mm dial, which I find too small. Basically too much bezel and case for a small dial, it looks even worse with the bulkier supercase and maxidial where bigger markers in the same dial make it look smaller. With the arrival of the YM42, case size is slightly increased and so is the dial. They should have kept the same markers instead of using larger ones, but at least they're making a step in the right direction.

11 May 2019, 07:53 PM	#256
Brew "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Real Name: Larry Location: Finger Lakes Posts: 6,007	WIS size queens are silly.

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