Thinner Lugs for the next GMT References?

[cvo]

Just wondering if others are thinking the GMT references will move toward thinner lugs within the next few years; in-line with the Sub references.

[dba]

One can only hope.

[cvo]

After seeing all of the new Sub posts, I now notice the thicker lugs on the GMT Masters. I am neutral to either but can definitely see the progression of thinner lugs to be the path forward. Not necessarily good or bad, just slightly different. Slight modifications stir Rolex Enthusiasts to go out and purchase more watches. As we see, it is working very well. I thought I was done after I finally was able to procures my Sub Date a couple of years ago, and now, I am hunting again.

[iTreelex]

it's going to be lug-less. just the watch head, you have to carry it around in your pocket

[bmb15]

Originally Posted by cvo

Just wondering if others are thinking the GMT references will move toward thinner lugs within the next few years; in-line with the Sub references.

Probably yes, but pure speculation.

[fskywalker]

Great if so!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kostas]

eventually they will go back to wire lugs

[bmb15]

Originally Posted by iTreelex

it's going to be lug-less. just the watch head, you have to carry it around in your pocket

Yes, a new Rolex pocket watch would be great! I propose a 1665 DRSD w/o HEV but w/ easy fixation on my diving suite.

[cvo]

It is interesting how a post can go in so many different directions. Keeping me engaged for sure. Thanks for all the possiblities of thinner lugs to lugless Rolex watches.

[brucethemanlee]

Although the GMT (pre BLRO and BLNR - jubilee) had the similar super case the lugs were already shaped a little bit differently than Sub. The lugs were just not as fatty as the standard Sub - at least to my eyes. Its one of the reasons I liked BLNR oyster over the Sub.

When the new BLRO came out - it was widely reportedly that Rolex "slimmed" the lugs. Side by side BLRO and BLNR - oyster it looks very similar but if they did it is very minor. Or is it a visual thing due to the jubilee?

That said when on the wrist my BLRO does feel and look slightly slimmer than my BLNR (oyster)

Unlike the new 41mm Sub, the change to the lugs very noticeable compared to the old 40mm Sub

[Psmith]

The GMT already had an alleged 'tweak' a while back, although you'd need a microscope to determine any difference. The new Sub's lugs are only 'thinner' because they increased the width of the bracelet. So unless the GMT is also slightly increased in size and fitted with a larger bracelet it could simply remain as it is (but who knows with Rolex). As an aside, it's funny how the Sub's bigger bracelet and clasp has largely escaped the attention of the obsessives who complained about the lugs.

[Andad]

I would expect to see this change across the range.

[cvo]

Originally Posted by brucethemanlee

Although the GMT (pre BLRO and BLNR - jubilee) had the similar super case the lugs were already shaped a little bit differently than Sub. The lugs were just not as fatty as the standard Sub - at least to my eyes. Its one of the reasons I liked BLNR oyster over the Sub.

When the new BLRO came out - it was widely reportedly that Rolex "slimmed" the lugs. Side by side BLRO and BLNR - oyster it looks very similar but if they did it is very minor. Or is it a visual thing due to the jubilee?

That said when on the wrist my BLRO does feel and look slightly slimmer than my BLNR (oyster)

Yes, I agree with you. The difference is not as noticeable as the change with the new subs.

The other variables would be to upsize the GMT case and bracelet, clasp and have similar proportion to the sub. We’ll wait and see.

[brucethemanlee]

Originally Posted by cvo

Yes, I agree with you. The difference is not as noticeable as the change with the new subs.

The other variables would be to upsize the GMT case and bracelet, clasp and have similar proportion to the sub. We’ll wait and see.

I'm ok with BLNR oyster and the lug shape (they're just not as square as the 40mm sub)

I'm perfectly ok with the way BLRO looks - don't think Rolex needs to adjust

[jed11]

Originally Posted by iTreelex

it's going to be lug-less. just the watch head, you have to carry it around in your pocket

[Kostas]

Originally Posted by brucethemanlee

I'm ok with BLNR oyster and the lug shape (they're just not as square as the 40mm sub)

I'm perfectly ok with the way BLRO looks - don't think Rolex needs to adjust

I think they will thin them further

[joli160]

It looks good as is.
Given the popularity of the GMT which “blocky” case is identical to the old Sub there is no need to change.

[bmb15]

Originally Posted by Andad

I would expect to see this change across the range.

Yes, very likely.
Hope this thread does not end in another poll (as a recent one) about thick vs thin lugs. (Irony behind the no lugs pocket watches)

[fnfiveseven]

I am actually scared of this to happen! I am trying to get the current GMT with the fat lugs.

[garyk]

There are so many comments of the now discontinued Submariner line with their big, fat or over size lugs which I happen to really like. So my question, are all the naysayers of these lugs hoping eventually Rolex will go lugless? Here’s what it may look like in a watch I’ve had since the 70s...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[whited3]

Is guess it's a matter of time until the GMT follows suit. Interestingly, it was the with the GMT that Rolex debuted the super case in 2005.

[thenewrick]

I’d guess they end up sharing the case and bracelets as the datejust 41

[928ktgold]

Originally Posted by joli160

It looks good as is.
Given the popularity of the GMT which “blocky” case is identical to the old Sub there is no need to change.

It was changed already with the new new BLRO and BLNR. It’s not just the jubilee perspective. Here is a video where they did a close analysis and shows the differences. It’s subtle but noticeable.

https://youtu.be/1tuz-sFTkHY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk