Reply With QuoteIt's not too small. 40mm is just about perfect IMHO...
Just throwing it out there guys... (to gauge current opinion; I know it's been asked before!).
I tried on a SubC ND today and, although the quality seemed a step up from my Seamasters, I couldn't get over:
1) How small the bracelet was (width) - I think it was around 12mm at one point!
2) That a 40mm case seems a bit small in today's climate...
Either way, I understand I am wrong as they sell so many but just wondered what your opinions were (especially if you own one!).
Lew
It's not too small. 40mm is just about perfect IMHO...
Thinner bracelets are more comfortable - generally speaking.
My SMPs are v comfy though.
38-42mm is an ideal size range for me, and I even wear 36mm occasionally.
It's just a matter of time...
I don't own one but I think 40mm is an excellent size in today's climate. Aren't oversized watches a bit... Over? Having said that, it will of course depend on your wrist size, your taste, what you're wearing, and perhaps most of all, on what you're used to.
Trick is get someone else to wear it, look at it from that perspective they look fine, 40mm to the eye of the wearer can be deceiving, I often think the sub looks small on my wrist compared to my others ( Panerai and BP 44mm 45mm) but when my dad visits and i see his sub it looks fine on the wrist in fact quite chunky.
Try a SeaDweller same size but thicker case by 2mm they look great.
Last edited by Fords; 21st May 2013 at 23:00.
i think they are too small for my tastes. One of the lads i work with has one, it is a beauty and i love the look of it but when i tried it on, it looked like a shirt button. i have 7.5 inch wrists which i dont consider to be too massive but either way, subs look too small on me.
strange thing is that my b1 is only 41mm and my explorer is 42mm and both look fine to me. (although i wish they were both a few mm bigger)
As mentioned , it's all about perspective.
Also ref : "Other people's Rolexes"for determining why it always looks better (and bigger) on the wrist of another.
40mm = perfect for most folks
I find the proportions slightly off on the new submariner as the lug design make it look a little bloated.
Having said that, I personally think that 40mm is the perfect size. I have a UN Maxi at 40mm and one at 42.7 and honestly..... I prefer the 40mm size but don't tell the wife....
Chris
Not too small. However the fat case and skinny bracelet is rather unattractive in my opinion. If you want a big Rolex why not get the new Sea Dweller? No reason to ruin the Submariner as well.Originally Posted by Spk
I agree that the big watches may be the trend now, but 40mm is still the perfect size for most people
Sack off the sub. A new zenith pilot's watch is the one for you my dear. (57mm).
40mm-42mm is perfect for small wrists.
Agreed on the perspective thing. 40 has always looked great to me. My wife once watched me try on a friend's Sub and said that it looked like a "dainty lady's watch" on my 7.5+ wrist.
It's a bit like asking if the proportions of the Venus de Milo or Marilyn Monroe aren't a bit "off". For most viewers those proportions are the classic ideal, and it's the same with the Rolex sub - it works for the majority of wearers. I agree that if you have wrists bigger than 7.5" or smaller than 6.75" it might seem a little out, but I don't believe most wearers fall into either group.
Last edited by TakesALickin; 23rd May 2013 at 20:01.
I agree that the proportions of the Subc are pretty much a sweet-spot for most sizes of wrist - Rolex tend to judge these things pretty well. Also, it's big enough to look ok in the "big-watch-age", but will not look silly when trends change.
If you're trying one on, it certainly depends what you go in wearing though - if you're wearing a PAM, it will look small, if you're wearing vintage, it will look big.
I do also agree with the bracelet/lug comments though, I can't help thinking that a mm or two wider links on a narrower shoulder would have looked much better - it is only apparent at some angles though, normally on the wrist, it looks ok.
I have one, perfect size, and the glide-lock clasp means you get a perfect fit whatever the weather.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
I lust after the original subs, even the original tudor subs as well, through the display window. Then I try one on and I'm reminded how small it feels after wearing larger watches. Case design has a lot to do with it though. I think the new ceramic subs are a good size, they wear bigger then their 40mm spec sheet says. I just refuse to shell out that sort of money for a SS sports watch.
I was in a similar quandary a few months ago. I've always bought larger watches, the largest being 49mm and the smallest being 42mm (even this was a little small). I bought an LV and subsequently an SD. Both wear fine and are a lot more comfortable to wear for long periods, with weight being the other factor I suppose.
Although I'm warming to the newer design, I still think the older style case is an ergonomic masterpiece.
To go against the grain here, I find that Subs are way too small for me to wear regularly. I've not got massive wrists, they're fairly small overall but quite flat so I can (and do) wear larger watches comfortably. Also, I'm not a superskinny teenager so a larger watch matches my overall body size better.
I wear my Omega POC 9300 most days, using my SMP only for occasional more formal wear with a suit. I've recently been trying to get used to my SMP on a NATO but I'm struggling to adjust to the smaller size.
I love some of the pictures of Subs posted on here and elsewhere on the web, but in real life I find them too insubstantial for my tastes. I tried the new Sub-C ND recently and was completely underwhelmed. It had no wrist presence, a very average bracelet and felt very overpriced compared to my Omegas.
However, I absolutely LOVE the DeepSea. So much so that I had to buy the 'poor man's substitiute' - a Deep Blue Master III...
I just got an Explorer II, the older 16570 one, which is about 40mm and quite thin. Switching from my Ingy 3227 to the Explorer was strange as the Explorer felt very small and fragile. Especially the bracelet feels thin and kinda cheap compared to the IWC.
Given a day or two I'm sure that I'll adjust to the Exp. When I switch back to the Ingy it will no doubt feel like massive lump of steel.
If you get a SubC you'll just have to wear it for a day or two and I'm sure it will feel fine. Don't use size as a reason not to buy a new watch :-)
If it was me and I was looking at spending £5000 on a wtach, I would need to make sure I had no doubts before buying it!!!!
The safe option is to buy used at a good price so it can be moved on for little or no loss if it doesn't suit...
I dont think any watch is too small or too large its all about appreciating what they are proportionally, for example a Panerai is best suited to 44mm and the Rads are superb at 47mm(I wear them both) I also wear the Steel sports from Rolex at 40mm and am equally happy with the Sub ND and the thickness of a Seadweller. Non are too small they are perfectly proportioned for what they are and I appreciate each and everyone of them equally.
If these forums didnt exisit, nor did tape measures you wouldnt care
RIAC
I'd say that the current Submariner verges on being a bit large for many.
I'm tall and my flat wrists that are nearly 8" around, and I find the classic pre-ceramic-bezel 40 mm case ideal for a casual watch. I suspect that it's simply a case of distorted perception from too-large watches, the majority of which aren't carried off quite as well as their wearers think.
Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
I actually think it wears a bit big for a 40mm . I know that it sounds odd , but when you compare it to other 40mm watches including the previous 40mm rolex sports it actually wears and feels larger. If they had made it bigger it would have been too big IMHO.
James
40mm is a perfect size for many people, there is a good reason Rolex and many other watch makes use this size
I have a Panerai as well but there are only certain times I feel like wearing it due to its size, most days its the sub or Daytona
I used to think that my (25 stone) friend's Rolex Sub looked enormous and clunky, but then I was wearing a 34mm Oris in those days. It was only after getting into watches myself and owning a few larger watches that I now think of it as a pretty small watch these days.
My 1680 on my 7.25" wrist looks fine to me.
The newer models wear a tad bigger.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Hi
I think its a good size i guess it depends on your wrist size
I used to feel the same way. I had a couple of friends with 16610s and I loved getting together with them because I thought the 16610 looked so insubstantial next to my Seiko MM300 or Fortis MarineMaster. Then one day, the bug just hit me - I had to have a Rolex. Whatever a fanboy is, I was the opposite of that before - maybe I was the president of the He-man Rolex Haters Club. But then it was like a light switch flipped. I still have all my other, larger watches but it's the Rolex sub that gets 80% of my wrist time. The other watches now seem a little large and clunky (although I still love them too).
Last edited by TakesALickin; 23rd May 2013 at 05:29.
It's a great universal size. I did see a guy with 9" wrists with a Sub once and that was definitely too small for him. Optically it's a mix of dial colour, dial size, bezel size, lug-lug size and Rolex just know how to do it like no other brand.
I have 7.5" wrists and I think it looks good, but then again I also appreciate the DJI, which is notably smaller.
Unless your wrists are exceptionally small or big, the Sub is always a safe bet in terms of size.
I have the same thought, im currently wearing bremont Alt C and S500 which are 43mm and fairly chunky but the subs are drawing me in everyday! the 40mm does seem small but only in comparison with what im used to. I think i need to try some on!
i know the older models of the sub are a little smaller, is this the same for the sea dwellers too?
I'm really not sure what's going on with that. If you compare the 16610 and 116610 Subs, side by side, they're clearly not the same size (in diameter or any other measure). Either the old Sub's size was overstated, or more likely, the new Sub's size is understated. The current Subs are the largest "40mm" watches I've ever seen.
Yes. The Ref 16600 Sea Dweller is thicker than a Sub of the same era, but the dial is actually very slightly smaller.
16610 is fine for me - plenty big enough (understated as ever)
I love the 40mm size, but then again I have quite small wrists. Not a fan of the big tool watch movement.
40mm is the right size for a Rolex? 44mm and 46mm is good for a Panerai? 42mm and 45.5 for a Omega?
What is the right size? The answer is what ever suits you! It's an instrument of your choice.
Wearing a Panerai Radiomir in 46mm feels right. Then again an Omega Planet Ocean has to be 45.5mm for me, a Rolex Sub Ceramic at 40mm.
Some things are too big and others too small, surely it's about proportion with style and taste.
Ismaaeel
Last edited by speedish; 22nd May 2013 at 22:56.
I can't imagine a sub being bigger. It's a perfect size as it is.
No, it's not too small. It is the perfect size
Cheers
Carl
Very subjective - I have large wrists (never got the tape measure out though?!) and a 16610 looks fine on my wrists. Not big or small, I think the proportions are great. However, only yesterday I saw a guy wearing a Sub with a T-shirt and it looked tiny on his wrist. He probably wasn't any 'bigger' than me, but he was very overweight in comparison (let's say I'm 6'2'' and 16 stone, he must have been about the same height and over 20 stone)
I'm not small, but I have quite a few friends who dwarf me - lots of Rugby mates - but we're talking physically fit blokes with 19-20 inch necks, a 44mm Panerai looks a bit small on some of them!
I agree a 40mm watch suits most people, I don't think the lug and bracelet design of the new subs helps though. I'm not on the fence with the new submariners at all, I think they are really awful - and the DSSD is a new low. And before anyone asks, yes I've tried them on!
I also had a 40mm Sub date and it looked small but i got used to it but what i couldn't get used to was the poor quality bracelet.
Having tried the new ceramic sub it also looks a little small but what an improvement with the bracelet.
The problem thesedays is that people are getting conditioned to thinking that a watch HAS to fill the wrist. It doesn`t, it never did in the past, it's just a modern fad with the ever-increasing watch sizes. Anything over 42mm starts to look a bit silly, even on a big wrist.
Paul
It's not just the diameter, it's the depth (thickness) of some watch designs that make them stand off the wrist, which looks unnatural IMO.
It's just a style guys, making a statement with your watch/tattoo/hair etc is part of modern culture and I doubt it's a passing fad.
It's all personal choice and opinion :)
I was just going to post this.
Also, in the past people liked PAMs and IWC Big Pilots because they were big, tall, and different from everything else. I'm not sure how these models became the references by which all other watches are judged. You see this on the forums all the time:
Poster 1: "The Rolex DSSD is too big and tall"
Poster 2: "No it's not, I wear a 900mm PAM and it looks great! The DSSD is actually kind of small you're just old fashioned"
14060M perfect size.
It is very subjective.
I dont think bracelet tapers to 12mm at any point tho.
Personally, would prefer if it was 42mm but at 40mm, it is not prohibitively small. In general, I prefer 42-44 mm. So, I can see yur point.
For me the new style Sub certainly has wrist presence due to the thickness and heft, but i found the dial to appear on the small side due to the relatively thick bezel. Agree with others, the 14060M is perfectly proportioned.
The case size is very wearable for most wrists, I'm surprised about the bracelet tapering down to 12mm at one point Never noticed ill look more closely at my mates watch !
This this and this. I think people are getting carried away with the current size trend...
Posting Permissions
