closing tag is in template navbar
Time Factors Watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 54

Thread: Sea-Dweller 16600 v ND Sub sizes

  1. #1
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916

    Sea-Dweller 16600 v ND Sub sizes

    I have a 16600 which is pretty much my perfect watch. I say pretty much as it wears slightly too small for my tastes, and I just canít get round it.

    Before I sell it I was hoping to get some input from someone who owns or has owned both a 16600 and a 14060M or maxi case Submariner, and let me know if they wear larger. If that is the case I might be able to do a trade.


  2. #2
    Craftsman namzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    498

    Sea-Dweller 16600 v ND Sub sizes

    The maxi case submariner definitely wore larger for me.

    With the 14060m there was less in it, whilst it felt less substantial on the wrist due to hollow end links and thinner case, visually it was similar.

    Some photos on my 6.75Ē wrist:




    Last edited by namzo; 10th October 2021 at 19:12.

  3. #3
    Craftsman namzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    498
    Just to add if you wanted to stay with a pre-ceramic you could look to a 16610 as they wear larger (but thinner):


  4. #4
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,001
    14060 and 16610 are both thinner and the slightly larger dial width makes them appear larger (to my eye anyway)

    I much prefer them over the 16600, which I found a little top heavy, but still a stunning reference

  5. #5
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916
    Thank you for the replies and pictures, very helpful. As much as I love the pre ceramics I think a maxi dial could be the way forward for me for now. Iím trying to get down to a two watch rotation, but thatís a different story.

  6. #6
    Grand Master Dave+63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    13,398
    Quote Originally Posted by demonloop View Post
    14060 and 16610 are both thinner and the slightly larger dial width makes them appear larger (to my eye anyway)

    I much prefer them over the 16600, which I found a little top heavy, but still a stunning reference
    Whilst the dial on the 16600 appears smaller, it is identical to the 16710 and I believe the 16610 and 16040 too.

    It appears smaller due to the thickness of the sapphire and its chamfered edge.

  7. #7
    Iíve had all three and found a definite difference between them all.

    For me the 14060 wore the smallest, then the 16600 and the 16610 wore the biggest. None really were large enough for my tastes and the maxi dial wins hands down in that department.

    That said though, pre ceramic win in the looks department IMHO.

  8. #8
    Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    4,517
    Where are you in Surrey?

    Iím Reading area in Berks & have a 14060M if you wanted to compare; drop me a pm.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave+63 View Post
    Whilst the dial on the 16600 appears smaller, it is identical to the 16710 and I believe the 16610 and 16040 too.

    It appears smaller due to the thickness of the sapphire and its chamfered edge.
    Thatís very interesting ó Iím basing my views on perception alone, and Iíd have been convinced the 16600 dial was marginally smaller. The differences must be minute, but makes for a completely different look. My biggest dislike* of the 16600 was the height though.

    *picking fault where there is none ó great watch

    At the risk of repeating myself (for several years) though, the 16610LV with black bezel swap is the best watch ever!

    Hope to pick up an LV at some point before they cost the same as a small council house!

  10. #10
    Grand Master MartynJC (UK)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    8400-999, Lagoa, Portugal
    Posts
    10,516
    Blog Entries
    20
    Perhaps seek out a ceramic Seadweller SD4000 - here is one with a SubND ceramic maxi case. In retrospect I should have kept hold of these.


    "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly soĒ. HHGTTG


  11. #11
    Craftsman woodruffm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Surrey, Uk
    Posts
    257
    How strange, I have been having the exact same internal struggle with my 16600, as it often remains in the watch box in favour of my 14060. So towards the end of last week I said to myself either start wearing it or sell it and get something else.

    My 16600 is on my wrist now as I type this and I've had it on for the last 4 days in a bid to recapture the love, I'm over the initial feeling of bloody hell this thing is small, and I'm enjoying it. Of course it isn't small but visually whilst looking down from directly above it does look small, something which the 14060 doesn't for some reason.

    I wore a 114060 daily for 3 years and would often struggle when switching it out for the 16600 but in the end, I sold the ceramic sub and purchased the 14060, something which I certainly do not regret as it's my favourite watch. I much prefer the aluminium bezel aesthetic to ceramic otherwise I probably would have given the 116600 a try by now.

    Good luck with what you decide, but just wanted you to know that I've been and still am wrestling with the same conundrum.










  12. #12
    Craftsman woodruffm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Surrey, Uk
    Posts
    257
    I'm in Surrey too, well just about, if you're anywhere near Horley please let me know, I'd be happy for you to try my 14060.

  13. #13
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by Mj2k View Post
    Where are you in Surrey?

    Iím Reading area in Berks & have a 14060M if you wanted to compare; drop me a pm.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Thanks very much, I might take you up on that.

  14. #14
    Master murkeywaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Near the sea
    Posts
    5,627

    Sea-Dweller 16600 v ND Sub sizes

    I own both and like them equally, the 16600 def has that punch on the wrist and is so well engineered, contrary to what people have said I'm pretty sure the 16600 has a smidge smaller dial and slightly fatter bezel, on my just under 7" wrist I feel the size is a sweetspot.

    The 14060 does look like it has a bigger dial but as it doesnt have no date and only 2 lines of text, add in the slim case and this gives a nice, clean, smart look, almost like a sports dress watch if there was ever such thing, very light and with a low profile but still has a great wrist presence.

    I'm glad they are finding their price as they have always lagged behind some of their 5 digit siblings..

    Here's mine..



    Last edited by murkeywaters; 10th October 2021 at 21:15.

  15. #15
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by woodruffm View Post
    I'm in Surrey too, well just about, if you're anywhere near Horley please let me know, I'd be happy for you to try my 14060.
    Thanks as well. Iím on the Surrey/Berks border.

    Also some really helpful stuff and pictures from everyone, thank you.

  16. #16
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,007
    Blog Entries
    1
    I would suggest looking at the current 124060, some dealers now have stock for viewing but itís noticably larger on the wrist both in look and feel than the 114060.

    The wider bracelet and clasp are the main bits, but with the 124 you get the same slim lug shape as the sea dweller.

  17. #17
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    203
    Thats interesting that the 124 has a larger appearance than the 114. I liked the fact that the 124 has thinner lugs and looks more in proportion to my mind that the predecessor.
    I went into London a few weeks ago to try one but needed to have booked an appointment. I was slightly put off by the attendant at the door saying that unless you had a purchase history the chances of buying one retail were practically zero.

    I too have a 16600 have thought about the same question many times though the SD still remains.

    Please let us know what you decide in the end.

  18. #18
    Craftsman namzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    498
    All these lovely photos of the 5 digit watches are making me feel sick to the stomach for moving mine on prematurely.

    Guess thatís just part and parcel of this hobby, you always feel the desire for another reference without realising what you already have is close to perfection.

    For me the 14060m and 16600 have left a huge void in my collection.

    Unfortunately to replace them will cost me a lot more than what I sold them for (no that long ago).

  19. #19
    Grand Master GraniteQuarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    27,461
    The first Rolex I bought was a 16600 new in 2007, iirc £2,800 from a grey dealer. Sold about a year later for around £2,500.

    Yes, it still brings a tear to my eye

  20. #20
    Master murkeywaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Near the sea
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by namzo View Post
    All these lovely photos of the 5 digit watches are making me feel sick to the stomach for moving mine on prematurely.

    Guess that’s just part and parcel of this hobby, you always feel the desire for another reference without realising what you already have is close to perfection.

    For me the 14060m and 16600 have left a huge void in my collection.

    Unfortunately to replace them will cost me a lot more than what I sold them for (no that long ago).
    I think there will be a lot of regrets, bigger watch trends of a fews years back moved a lot of 5 digit Rolex on, thing is most owners didn't realise that a watch looks more than just its size, especially to someone else, to understand what I mean wear your watch, take a step back and look in the mirror, the majority of watches in the 36mm-42mm range will look fine on most wrists, big watches on all but 8"+ wrists often look too big.

    Before I owned a Rolex I didn't know how good the finishing was on these watches, Rolex know how to make a watch standout regardless of size, add in they are not making 5 digit anymore and the only way I'm going is buying more when the time is right..

  21. #21
    Craftsman namzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by murkeywaters View Post
    I think there will be a lot of regrets, bigger watch trends of a fews years back moved a lot of watches on, thing is most owners didn't realise that a watch looks more than just its size, especially to someone else, to understand what I mean wear your watch, take a step back and look in the mirror, the majority of watches in the 36mm-42mm range will look fine on most wrists, big watches on all but 8"+ wrists often look too big.

    Before I owned a Rolex I didn't know how good the finishing was on these watches, Rolex know how to make a watch standout regardless of size, add in they are not making 5 digit anymore and the only way I'm going is buying more when the time is right..
    Agreed, off to look at what 14060m examples are for saleÖ..

  22. #22
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,007
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxsash View Post
    Thats interesting that the 124 has a larger appearance than the 114. I liked the fact that the 124 has thinner lugs and looks more in proportion to my mind that the predecessor.
    I went into London a few weeks ago to try one but needed to have booked an appointment. I was slightly put off by the attendant at the door saying that unless you had a purchase history the chances of buying one retail were practically zero.

    I too have a 16600 have thought about the same question many times though the SD still remains.

    Please let us know what you decide in the end.
    124 definitely larger on the wrist and you can see it here compared. I have small wrists and tend to wear the 114 more.


  23. #23
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by pete-r View Post
    I would suggest looking at the current 124060, some dealers now have stock for viewing but itís noticably larger on the wrist both in look and feel than the 114060.

    The wider bracelet and clasp are the main bits, but with the 124 you get the same slim lug shape as the sea dweller.
    The 124 would be ideal but Iím led to believe they are quite scarce so the 114 would be a good compromise. Thanks for the info though!

  24. #24
    Journeyman AmosMoses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    103
    I've tried a maxi case sub and a 16600, the 16600 was my pick. I have tiny little 6.5" wrists and although I can get away with a maxi case sub I just cant get on with the aesthetic, to my eye they look squared off and clunky.

  25. #25
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,007
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost Chilli View Post
    The 124 would be ideal but Iím led to believe they are quite scarce so the 114 would be a good compromise. Thanks for the info though!
    Where do you plan to buy the new watch? The 114 is no longer available so assume youíre looking at used or grey?

    Just for a price comparison, watchfinder are listing a 114 from 2020 for £11765 and a 124 from 2021 for £12320. Sky high prices but my point is thereís not much between them if itís the one you want, unless you want a cheaper early 114 but then you are comparing new to maybe 7 years old.

    You may even be lucky and find a 124 in an AD at retail.

  26. #26
    I owned a 16600 for several years as my only watch. I have also owned a couple of 14060Ms and 16610s (LN + LV) and the 116610LN. I sold the SD because I also felt that the dial was too small and I am sure that (back in the day) the measurements of the various dials backed this up (with the 16610 having the largest dial of the three). Overall, of the five digit subs I think the 14060M is the best of the bunch in terms of design and comfort on the wrist. The current and previous ceramic offerings are a very different ball game. Personally I have found the 114060 to be the most comfortable and it is slightly less "shouty" than the other versions (and certainly a lot more subdued than the GMT range). You might also want to have a look at a late model 5513 or even a 1680. I have owned both and the 1680 is really my favourite of the whole lot. The acrylic crystal gives it a great wrist presence and the old-style printed dial is a delight. Best bet is just to try a few on and then take it from there (I am sure there must be a grey dealer close to you who would be happy to let you look at a few examples). Good luck with your decision.

  27. #27
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by pete-r View Post
    Where do you plan to buy the new watch? The 114 is no longer available so assume youíre looking at used or grey?

    Just for a price comparison, watchfinder are listing a 114 from 2020 for £11765 and a 124 from 2021 for £12320. Sky high prices but my point is thereís not much between them if itís the one you want, unless you want a cheaper early 114 but then you are comparing new to maybe 7 years old.

    You may even be lucky and find a 124 in an AD at retail.
    I may stick my 16600 up for trade on here and see where it goes. Iíd by happy with an older 114 but if not ultimately I think Iíll just sell it (and probably immediately regret it!)

    Out of your examples above I would definitely stretch for the 124, but think those prices are higher than I could justify. Iím going to go on the list at my AD. Iíve also thought about a SD43 but think that it would probably be too big!

  28. #28
    Grand Master wileeeeeey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    11,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost Chilli View Post
    I may stick my 16600 up for trade on here and see where it goes. Iíd by happy with an older 114 but if not ultimately I think Iíll just sell it (and probably immediately regret it!)

    Out of your examples above I would definitely stretch for the 124, but think those prices are higher than I could justify. Iím going to go on the list at my AD. Iíve also thought about a SD43 but think that it would probably be too big!
    The SD43 isn't actually that big but the caseback does protrude more than you'd expect.

    I much prefer my 124060 over my sd43 for what it's worth.

  29. #29
    Master JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost Chilli View Post
    I have a 16600 which is pretty much my perfect watch. I say pretty much as it wears slightly too small for my tastes, and I just canít get round it.

    Before I sell it I was hoping to get some input from someone who owns or has owned both a 16600 and a 14060M or maxi case Submariner, and let me know if they wear larger. If that is the case I might be able to do a trade.

    Sub 16610 definitely wears bigger on a larger wrist. SD is "narrow" and high and Sub 16610 wears "flat and wide".

    Both 14060 and 16610 have 1mm smaller dial which really makes the difference. I explained it here in my blog in detail.

    https://luxurywatches635.wordpress.c...-rolex-to-get/

  30. #30
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by wileeeeeey View Post
    The SD43 isn't actually that big but the caseback does protrude more than you'd expect.

    I much prefer my 124060 over my sd43 for what it's worth.
    Good to know.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    Sub 16610 definitely wears bigger on a larger wrist. SD is "narrow" and high and Sub 16610 wears "flat and wide".

    Both 14060 and 16610 have 1mm smaller dial which really makes the difference. I explained it here in my blog in detail.

    https://luxurywatches635.wordpress.c...-rolex-to-get/
    Great, Iíll have a read

  31. #31
    Grand Master wileeeeeey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    11,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost Chilli View Post
    Good to know.
    If you're bored I have the 114060, 124060 and SD43 if you ever want to compare sizes. I'm J26 on M25 but often in Central.

  32. #32
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North
    Posts
    16,589
    Blog Entries
    2
    Have 14060m and visually it does wear a bit bigger than the 16600 which *to me* looks less wide because its taller, bit of an optical illusion.
    The ceramics wear a lot bigger than any of the 5 digit sub refs, so if you want to bulk up they're the way to go, but imo, what you gain in size you lose in looks.

  33. #33
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    180
    I think it wears well on you and personally would be concerned of sellers remorse. To my mind the 16600 is the best of the Submariner type watches since the truly vintage models. A great watch perfectly executed.

  34. #34
    Grand Master wileeeeeey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    11,385
    Quote Originally Posted by verv View Post
    Have 14060m and visually it does wear a bit bigger than the 16600 which *to me* looks less wide because its taller, bit of an optical illusion.
    The ceramics wear a lot bigger than any of the 5 digit sub refs, so if you want to bulk up they're the way to go, but imo, what you gain in size you lose in looks.
    Can't disagree with any of this.

    What do you think re size for the 14060m Vs 16610?

    Would you say the LV is the largest wearing 5 digit or something else?

    Neither the 16600 or 116600 worked out for me in the end. I think the height making them seem smaller was a big reason.

  35. #35
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by wileeeeeey View Post
    If you're bored I have the 114060, 124060 and SD43 if you ever want to compare sizes. I'm J26 on M25 but often in Central.
    That is very kind of you and something I may take you up on.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    I think it wears well on you and personally would be concerned of sellers remorse. To my mind the 16600 is the best of the Submariner type watches since the truly vintage models. A great watch perfectly executed.
    Thanks, that is always a risk as Iíve always thought it would be Ďthe one.í

  36. #36
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost Chilli View Post
    Iíve also thought about a SD43 but think that it would probably be too big!
    I really wouldn't rule it out. I have small wrists, and while it's one of my biggest watches it's probably the most comfortable, because of the way the bracelet balances the watch-head, and excellent micro-adjustment.

  37. #37
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North
    Posts
    16,589
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by wileeeeeey View Post
    Can't disagree with any of this.

    What do you think re size for the 14060m Vs 16610?

    Would you say the LV is the largest wearing 5 digit or something else?

    Neither the 16600 or 116600 worked out for me in the end. I think the height making them seem smaller was a big reason.
    I think the 16610 is a bit "chunkier" than the 14060m but don't remember there being much between them width wise.
    I sold the 16610 and the M remains (actually its been with me longer than all others)

    I don't think there's a huge amount of difference between LV and LN but I could see why the lighter bezel creates an illusion of being bigger combined with the maxi markers.

    Im the same with 40mm SD's, love them in theory, but they feel small.

  38. #38
    Grand Master wileeeeeey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    11,385
    Quote Originally Posted by verv View Post
    I think the 16610 is a bit "chunkier" than the 14060m but don't remember there being much between them width wise.
    I sold the 16610 and the M remains (actually its been with me longer than all others)

    I don't think there's a huge amount of difference between LV and LN but I could see why the lighter bezel creates an illusion of being bigger combined with the maxi markers.

    Im the same with 40mm SD's, love them in theory, but they feel small.
    Was wondering if the maxi dial on the LV made a difference but doesn't based off that.

    The 14060M will probably next on the list then to buy, regret, then sell. Just like every Tudor I've ever owned!

  39. #39
    Master murkeywaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Near the sea
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost Chilli View Post
    I have a 16600 which is pretty much my perfect watch. I say pretty much as it wears slightly too small for my tastes, and I just canít get round it.

    Before I sell it I was hoping to get some input from someone who owns or has owned both a 16600 and a 14060M or maxi case Submariner, and let me know if they wear larger. If that is the case I might be able to do a trade.

    Looking again at this picture I would say the 16600 size is spot on for your wrist, its nice to see the end link and the first link when looking down at the watch, once the lug to lug measurement gets bigger and the lugs are inline with the edge of your wrist then thats a sign its too big.

    Below, this is too big in my eyes..

    Last edited by murkeywaters; 11th October 2021 at 20:13.

  40. #40
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-P View Post
    I really wouldn't rule it out. I have small wrists, and while it's one of my biggest watches it's probably the most comfortable, because of the way the bracelet balances the watch-head, and excellent micro-adjustment.
    I think I need to try it. I think this would be the easiest to get.
    Quote Originally Posted by murkeywaters View Post
    Looking again at this picture I would say the 16600 size is spot on for your wrist, its nice to see the end link and the first link when looking down at the watch, once the lug to lug measurement gets bigger and the lugs are inline with the edge of your wrist then thats a sign its too big.

    Below, this is too big in my eyes..

    Thanks, it is all relative. I absolutely love the watch but doubt Iíll get over the size issue.

  41. #41
    Master JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by verv View Post
    I think the 16610 is a bit "chunkier" than the 14060m but don't remember there being much between them width wise.
    I sold the 16610 and the M remains (actually its been with me longer than all others)
    16610 definitely wears larger because the dial is 1mm wider and because of the cyclops.

    I've owned them all. 16600, 16610 (which I both still own) and 14060. I absolutely love them all but the date version is the best watch for bigger wrists.

    It definitely wears wider and flatter than the 16600.





    The ceramic wears very large, almost like a Breitling. It's very bulky. I like the watch a lot but there's no way I'd ever chose it over the 16610.


  42. #42
    Master Murdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by verv View Post
    what you gain in size you lose in looks.
    As my girlfriend keeps reminding me

  43. #43
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North
    Posts
    16,589
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Murdoc View Post
    As my girlfriend keeps reminding me

  44. #44
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    203
    I tried on a new ND sub today and was very impressed with the size on the wrist. I normally wear an SD - 16600 and have smallish wrists. The increased bracelet size is apparent but I could live with that considering the very nice proportions of the watch face on.










    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  45. #45
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    203
    As an another alternative the BLNR is really nice though more expensive. The blue on the bezel is amazing. It was great to try them on today.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  46. #46
    Grand Master wileeeeeey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    11,385
    Nice watches but the 16600 is the pick for me.

    The GMT will wear a touch smaller than the new Sub.

  47. #47
    Craftsman woodruffm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Surrey, Uk
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxsash View Post
    I tried on a new ND sub today and was very impressed with the size on the wrist. I normally wear an SD - 16600 and have smallish wrists. The increased bracelet size is apparent but I could live with that considering the very nice proportions of the watch face on.










    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Gorgeous watches, but I have to say that your 16600 looks the mutt's nuts on your wrist.

    This thread has got me all fired up this week, I was all in for moving on the 16600, as I seem to prefer the 14060 and want to reduce the redundancy in my small collection, but now I've pulled the trigger on something on Chrono24 today I'm not sure that I can actually bring myself to sell it.

    The Mrs is going to kill me....

  48. #48
    Master murkeywaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Near the sea
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxsash View Post
    I tried on a new ND sub today and was very impressed with the size on the wrist. I normally wear an SD - 16600 and have smallish wrists. The increased bracelet size is apparent but I could live with that considering the very nice proportions of the watch face on.


    Your 16600 looks fab on your wrist, we tried to convince the OP his looked great as well but he sold it this week on SC, hopefully he gets something he really bonds with and dont regret that sale..

  49. #49
    Craftsman namzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by wileeeeeey View Post
    Nice watches but the 16600 is the pick for me.

    The GMT will wear a touch smaller than the new Sub.
    Completely agree with wileeeeeey.

    The 16600 is the best fit to my eye.

  50. #50
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by murkeywaters View Post
    Your 16600 looks fab on your wrist, we tried to convince the OP his looked great as well but he sold it this week on SC, hopefully he gets something he really bonds with and dont regret that sale..
    There is no logic in all of this! They are with out doubt amazing watches and aesthetically my favourite. Iím 6í3 and ultimately it was a smidgen too small unfortunately.

    Iíve hopefully sourced a ND 114 from the forum. My AD thinks a 124 wonít happen anytime soon so Iíve also gone on the list for a SD43.

    Thanks for all the helpful input and offers to try watches. Amazing.

    We shall see!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information