Reply With QuoteNot my images.
Long shot, anyone who hasn't got fat wrists and owns both care to share wrist shots?
Or anyone who owns just the 36mm care to share a wrist shot?
Not my images.
Thanks, 36mm it is
36mm looks great, but not many popping up second hand.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
No, they are rareOriginally Posted by McBeardy
Took me ages to find one - people seem very reluctant to let them go once in their possession.
Best of luck with your hunt.
Last edited by ENES; 15th February 2022 at 13:52.
If you let yourself go a bit and need a bigger watch I'm here for you, 39mm for your 36
36 looks perfect on that wrist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
36mm or 39mm, all time classic Omegas right there
I think I need a railmaster…
Spending the last 15 years only wearing big bezelled dive watches, anything under 40mm seemed odd/alien/nonsensical. Had the opportunity to try on (and subsequenly buy) the 39mm OP. It was a revelation. Any watch that is "all face" doesn't need to be big. I recently tried a 36mm OP, and actually found that to be a more natural, obvious size.
Point is, don't let the numbers dictate you, try them on. I'm now looking at 36MM Tudor Day Dates!
My wrist size is 17.25" So not small
Very kind offer - I’ll keep that in mind in case my slender wrist balloons!😉
Nice looking watches but I just cant help thinking Trainspotter when I hear RailMaster...
Yeah mine is 39mm, which is perfect for obesity 7" wrists like mine
The 36mm original Aqua Terra and Railmaster was a nice size, I`ve owned a couple of ATs and they always seemed to wear bigger than 36mm. On my 6.75" wrist the 39mm versions looked too big, the 36mm worked much better. Really regret selling my blue-dialled 36mm AT, I won't buy another because prices are now way more than I`d be happy paying. I also have a strict rule of only owning watches I can service myself so that rules the co-axial Omega movements out.
The 36mm Railmaster is an excellent watch, unfortunately they didn't sell in big numbers so they're hard to find and consequently they command strong money when they do turn up for sale.
Turn the clock back to early 2008, I had chance to buy a 12 month old one for £1100 but turned it down in favour of a 2003 Rolex Explorer 114270 with fresh Rolex service, box & papers, all for a negotiated price of £1750.
I think they’d both work for meNot my images.
To be fair, not a bad decision. I’d probably still do the same now.
39 for guys. Or may be even 49 mm.
I prefer the '1957' version...
I think the 36mm looks much nicer and would be my choice.
I really like the 1957 reissue athsetics but absolutely love the 36mm size of the previous model......it would be the smaller for myself.
I like them all tbh.
Do you mean 17.25cm? Or 7.25"? Because a 17.25" wrist is pretty enormous. :)
I think the 39mm RM is perfect in size. Imo the watch does not wear big at all and certainly for me "smaller" than the 39 mm Explorer. I had one for sale recently in SC which had very little interest and subsequently withdrew it.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
I much prefer the 36mm version but then I have puny 6.75” wrists and the biggest watch I can comfortably wear is a Speedy Pro!
these do look great, i much prefer the arabic numerals here to the tacky sci fi font on the explorer
The Trilogy reissue is actually 38mm and has less dial real estate than the modern versions so in fact wears much more like the 36mm than you might expect. It works out a bit more expensive but is probably the nicest of the 3 IMO. The curved sapphire crystal is particularly charming. I am ignoring the 41mm and 49mm versions since those are massive and a bit silly.
Last edited by Padders; 19th February 2022 at 12:15.
Posting Permissions
