ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

A.Sharp · 17 March 2012, 01:29 AM

Why does the GMTIIC look so much bigger on peoples wrists in pictures than the Daytona? Arent they technically the same size? I get the bezel protrudes etc, but still.

When I tried it on in person, it did not look too big at all, and I have a small wrist. when i look online and see people with wider wrists, it still looks too big.

SaddleSC · 17 March 2012, 01:32 AM

The Daytona wears much smaller than the other 40mm sport models. I think it is because of the smoother, rounder case lugs combined with the busier dial and lower overall height. In person, you will see the same thing as in the pictures.

floater156 · 13 April 2012, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

The Daytona wears much smaller than the other 40mm sport models. I think it is because of the smoother, rounder case lugs combined with the busier dial and lower overall height. In person, you will see the same thing as in the pictures.

x2

Atomant · 17 March 2012, 01:34 AM

Daytona is 39mm someone correct me on that. THe GMT iic is 40mm and it looks bigger with super case wider lugs. That is why it looks bigger in pictures. It is a bigger watch.

padi56 · 17 March 2012, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomant

Daytona is 39mm someone correct me on that. THe GMT iic is 40mm and it looks bigger with super case wider lugs. That is why it looks bigger in pictures. It is a bigger watch.

The Daytona is 40.02mm x 12.60mm but they call it 40mm and weighs in at 140 grams while the GMT11C 152 grams and 40mm x 12.80 mm case both 20mm lugs

Spartan · 17 March 2012, 02:18 AM

Agreed. The Daytona wears smaller.

I chose my Blue Sub TT over the TT Daytona because of this.

The Daytona is too "clean and smooth" around the edges,
optical illusion?

A.Sharp · 17 March 2012, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

The Daytona is 40.02mm x 12.60mm but they call it 40mm and weighs in at 140 grams while the GMT11C 152 grams and 40mm x 12.80 mm case both 20mm lugs

Thank you for this! Roxas dosnt seem to agree? if this bc of how it is measured or something>?

Roxas · 17 March 2012, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.Sharp

Thank you for this! Roxas dosnt seem to agree? if this bc of how it is measured or something>?

Sorry, I thought I posted the link. I probably forgot that. http://clockmaker.com.au/rolex_case_size.html

powerfunk · 17 March 2012, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxas

Sorry, I thought I posted the link. I probably forgot that. http://clockmaker.com.au/rolex_case_size.html

Thanks for sharing; that's actually a really cool link.

A.Sharp · 17 March 2012, 02:06 AM

you may be right, but i think its considered 40mm (the daytona). I gues its how you measure it?

Roxas · 17 March 2012, 02:47 AM

Daytona is 39 mm but Rolex advertises it as 40 mm.

Timber Loftis · 17 March 2012, 03:58 AM

Thickness.

horseco · 17 March 2012, 04:40 AM

This illustrates the difference...

Speed · 17 March 2012, 05:19 AM

Great side by side.

Perhaps it is the bezel's "teeth" on the GMT and wider lugs which make it look bigger than the Daytona???

Roxas · 17 March 2012, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed

Great side by side.

Perhaps it is the bezel's "teeth" on the GMT and wider lugs which make it look bigger than the Daytona???

Actually, it doesn't just look bigger. It is bigger. I believe the case size of GMT IIc is about 41.5-42 mm (again Rolex advertises it as 40 mm) but I cannot find the link now.

There are many models that the actual size doesn't match the official specification. Maybe Rolex wants to make it easy to understand for the customers. They probably don't want to say that case size of Daytona is 39 mm, YM is 41.5 mm, Explorer II is 39.5 mm, Sub-Date is 40 mm, Sub No-Date is 39.5 mm, SeaDweller is 39.5 mm, etc.

rocco1109 · 17 March 2012, 05:30 AM

...I think the Daytona is 39mm

esm · 17 March 2012, 05:37 AM

thinner lugs and bezel makes it smaller, visually.

i guess the busy dial didnt either

Melanotaenia · 17 March 2012, 07:40 AM

I always thought the difference in appearance with respect to size is mostly related to the gigantic bezel on the GMT compared to the smaller smoother one on the Daytona. As mentioned, the lugs are also noticeably larger.

Speed · 17 March 2012, 08:02 AM

I was going by Padi's specs. He's pretty detail oriented...and his figures show the watches to be the same, no?

dddrees · 17 March 2012, 08:14 PM

The Daytona just wears a bit smaller than the GMTIIC or SubC. The case design and actual size are just a bit smaller.

TimingIsEverything · 17 March 2012, 08:52 PM

The Daytona is not 39mm it's 40. Even says it at Rolex's website.

HL65 · 17 March 2012, 09:03 PM

It is 40mm regardless of what Nick Hacko the watchmaker says--I will go by what Rolex says as they carry a bit more weight. As for difference in size--the GMT does look and wear a bit larger as does a Sub. Also--side by side pictures can be a bit deceiving. Last but not least--1 mm in size difference--doe sit really make much difference? Just saying...

lhanddds · 18 March 2012, 01:24 AM

It's the bigger lugs on the GMTIIC. I finally decided they weren't for me and this will put a few Rolexes out of the picture for me. I like the new Explorer II in pics but have not tried one on yet.

Atomant · 18 March 2012, 03:02 AM

anyone noticed that the daytona's got asymmetrical lugs? Lugs are thinner on the 'pushers' side. I used to own one, that's why I noticed.

Z-Sub · 18 March 2012, 03:07 AM

the slender lugs and polished finish makes Daytona look smaller as well.

horseco · 18 March 2012, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomant

anyone noticed that the daytona's got asymmetrical lugs? Lugs are thinner on the 'pushers' side. I used to own one, that's why i noticed.

Funny, I thought I was the only one who noticed...

TSW · 18 March 2012, 03:09 AM

Because it has a complete other case.

nyjohnchan · 18 March 2012, 03:50 AM

The 40mm is measured at the widest point of the case, not top to bottom. Notice that the new gmt and sub cases are wider on top and bottom. Thats why they look bigger than the daytona.

improviz · 18 March 2012, 06:17 AM

There is clearly a difference. The bezel of the GMT dwarfs that of the Daytona in height and is definitely thicker in diameter. In addition, the case is taller, and significantly fatter at the lugs, so it does wear noticeably larger. Here's a side by side so you can see the bezel differences:

horseco · 18 March 2012, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by improviz

There is clearly a difference. The bezel of the GMT dwarfs that of the Daytona, and the case is thicker, so it definitely wears noticeably larger. Here's a side by side:

Great pic... thanx...

17 March 2012, 01:29 AM	#1
A.Sharp "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: New York City Posts: 2,062	Why does the GMTIIC look so much bigger than a daytona in pics?! Why does the GMTIIC look so much bigger on peoples wrists in pictures than the Daytona? Arent they technically the same size? I get the bezel protrudes etc, but still. When I tried it on in person, it did not look too big at all, and I have a small wrist. when i look online and see people with wider wrists, it still looks too big.

17 March 2012, 01:32 AM	#2
SaddleSC "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Charles B Location: GMT -7 Watch: Hulk 116610LV Posts: 6,131	The Daytona wears much smaller than the other 40mm sport models. I think it is because of the smoother, rounder case lugs combined with the busier dial and lower overall height. In person, you will see the same thing as in the pictures. __________________ Hulk 116610LV + GMT II 126710 BLNR + Explorer 124270 + Air King 126900 + Submariner 16613LB

17 March 2012, 01:34 AM	#4
Atomant "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Fernwood Posts: 3,455	Daytona is 39mm someone correct me on that. THe GMT iic is 40mm and it looks bigger with super case wider lugs. That is why it looks bigger in pictures. It is a bigger watch. __________________ 116613LN 16600SD 16610LV 116710 16710 16570 Speedy 3570.50 PAM25 Oris TT1 and a bunch of G-Shocks. Flipped: Daytona 116520 Seamaster 2231.80

17 March 2012, 02:18 AM	#6
Spartan "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Canada Watch: ALL of them Posts: 450	Agreed. The Daytona wears smaller. I chose my Blue Sub TT over the TT Daytona because of this. The Daytona is too "clean and smooth" around the edges, optical illusion? __________________ ROLEX1675:126660:226570BL:116613LN:114060 Pam00279 : Pam00270 : OMEGA3861 : Navitimer A23322 :

17 March 2012, 05:30 AM	#16
rocco1109 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Real Name: Will Location: Colorado USA Posts: 556	I know this is crude but... ...I think the Daytona is 39mm

17 March 2012, 02:06 AM	#10
A.Sharp "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: New York City Posts: 2,062	you may be right, but i think its considered 40mm (the daytona). I gues its how you measure it?

17 March 2012, 02:47 AM	#11
Roxas "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Earth Watch: 14060M Posts: 516	Daytona is 39 mm but Rolex advertises it as 40 mm.

17 March 2012, 03:58 AM	#12
Timber Loftis "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Real Name: Jon Location: Chicago Watch: IIc,DJII,P244,A1-Z Posts: 2,857	Thickness.

17 March 2012, 04:40 AM	#13
horseco "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: Anthony Location: North Jersey Watch: Daytona 116528 Posts: 3,426	This illustrates the difference...

17 March 2012, 05:19 AM	#14
Speed "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 19,706	Great side by side. Perhaps it is the bezel's "teeth" on the GMT and wider lugs which make it look bigger than the Daytona???

17 March 2012, 05:37 AM	#17
esm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Eric Location: Location,Location Watch: this, bro... Posts: 15,340	thinner lugs and bezel makes it smaller, visually. i guess the busy dial didnt either

17 March 2012, 07:40 AM	#18
Melanotaenia "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Jonathan Location: NYC Watch: Explorers and Subs Posts: 620	I always thought the difference in appearance with respect to size is mostly related to the gigantic bezel on the GMT compared to the smaller smoother one on the Daytona. As mentioned, the lugs are also noticeably larger. __________________ 16570 -- 16600 -- 16610 -- 116610LV -- 216570 -- 116400

17 March 2012, 08:02 AM	#19
Speed "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 19,706	I was going by Padi's specs. He's pretty detail oriented...and his figures show the watches to be the same, no?

17 March 2012, 08:14 PM	#20
dddrees "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: Dan Location: USA Watch: This N That Posts: 34,253	The Daytona just wears a bit smaller than the GMTIIC or SubC. The case design and actual size are just a bit smaller. __________________ When it captures your imagination, that's when you know you have found your passion. Loyal Foot Soldier of The Nylon Nation. Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

17 March 2012, 08:52 PM	#21
TimingIsEverything Banned Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: WatchULookinAt Location: US Posts: 564	The Daytona is not 39mm it's 40. Even says it at Rolex's website.

17 March 2012, 09:03 PM	#22
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 64,006	It is 40mm regardless of what Nick Hacko the watchmaker says--I will go by what Rolex says as they carry a bit more weight. As for difference in size--the GMT does look and wear a bit larger as does a Sub. Also--side by side pictures can be a bit deceiving. Last but not least--1 mm in size difference--doe sit really make much difference? Just saying... __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

18 March 2012, 01:24 AM	#23
lhanddds Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: USA Watch: of course Posts: 8,429	It's the bigger lugs on the GMTIIC. I finally decided they weren't for me and this will put a few Rolexes out of the picture for me. I like the new Explorer II in pics but have not tried one on yet.

18 March 2012, 03:02 AM	#24
Atomant "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Fernwood Posts: 3,455	anyone noticed that the daytona's got asymmetrical lugs? Lugs are thinner on the 'pushers' side. I used to own one, that's why I noticed. __________________ 116613LN 16600SD 16610LV 116710 16710 16570 Speedy 3570.50 PAM25 Oris TT1 and a bunch of G-Shocks. Flipped: Daytona 116520 Seamaster 2231.80

18 March 2012, 03:07 AM	#25
Z-Sub 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: So Cal, USA Watch: Not a ONEWatch Man Posts: 7,383	the slender lugs and polished finish makes Daytona look smaller as well. __________________ SS Submariner Date "Z" SS SeaDweller "D" SS Submariner "Random" TT Blue Submariner "P" SS GMT-Master ll "M", Pepsi Pam 311, 524, 297

18 March 2012, 03:09 AM	#27
TSW "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: TSW Location: Le Brassus Watch: Rolex & AP's Posts: 27,449	Because it has a complete other case. __________________ AP Owners Club IG @swiss.watch.connection

18 March 2012, 03:50 AM	#28
nyjohnchan "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: new york Watch: sub,DSSD,daytona Posts: 30	The 40mm is measured at the widest point of the case, not top to bottom. Notice that the new gmt and sub cases are wider on top and bottom. Thats why they look bigger than the daytona.

18 March 2012, 06:17 AM	#29
improviz "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Tejas Watch: your step Posts: 2,806	There is clearly a difference. The bezel of the GMT dwarfs that of the Daytona in height and is definitely thicker in diameter. In addition, the case is taller, and significantly fatter at the lugs, so it does wear noticeably larger. Here's a side by side so you can see the bezel differences: __________________ 116520 white; 16613 black; 116710; 16570 polar; 16600. AP 15400; 15703. Blancpain Fifty Fathoms. Glashutte Sport Evo GMT. Omega Planet Ocean 2907.50.91; Planet Ocean Liquidmetal LE 222.30.42.20.01.001; Seamaster 2255.80.00. Breitling Crosswind, white. Panerai PAM 005. VC Overseas Chrono, black.

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