GMT Ceramic bezels too…. Wide?

[TheVTCGuy]

First, I need to give credit to HarryFlashman. Sir, I am using the picture you posted in another thread, I hope you don’t mind but it is the best one I have seen that displays what I am referring to.

I owned a new Ceramic Pepsi a couple years ago, and got rid of it after a few months; I just never liked the way it looked. Now, those of you that have or are seeking to purchase one they are great watches I just found it to be … Top Heavy. IMHO, the extra big numbers on the bezel really stand out, and make the bezel look too wide/big/prominent for a 40mm watch. If you look at the picture below, I think you will see what I am talking about. On the old (aluminum) bezels, the more subtle numbers (again IMHO) make the whole watch appear more proportionate, a cleaner-more balanced look for the 40mm size. I now have the 126610, and find the proportions absolutely perfect. It appears to lie “flatter” and on my wrist and aesthetically is the best size to bezel width ratio.

Does anyone agree with me? Or see what I am referring to? Or do I need more therapy?

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Or do I need more therapy?

No. Just wear what you like.

I have the TT CHNR. It is admittedly the only GMT Master I have ever owned, but I do like the proportions of the bezel/dial/case on this model.

[brandrea]

Different strokes Paul.

I remember when the ceramic GMT was launched in LN configuration. At that time many said the exact same thing. I believe some referred to the bezel numerals as "garish" or too bold. Ceramic in general has been a love / hate relationship.

As for the case, I disagree. I know you own a Sub 41 as do I. I find that the caeeback of the 6 digit GMT wears flatter and is less "top heavy" than the Submariner which protrudes more.

I guess in the end YMMV but I find the 6 digit GMT to be pretext darn near perfect

Edit: maybe you need to try it on a jubilee which wears extremely comfortable on my 7" flat wrist

20200116_143922.jpg20191231_200531.jpg

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Different strokes Paul.

I remember when the ceramic GMT was launched in LN configuration. At that time many said the exact same thing. I believe some referred to the bezel numerals as "garish" or too bold. Ceramic in general has been a love / hate relationship.

As for the case, I disagree. I know you own a Sub 41 as do I. I find that the caeeback of the 6 digit GMT wears flatter and is less "top heavy" than the Submariner which protrudes more.

No Brian, you’re just wrong again

[PepsiBezel]

I think your issue is with the font/typeface used for the bezel numerals more than it is with the bezel being “too wide.” I don’t think there is much of a bezel size difference between the GMT and Sub.

The 126710 and 116710 use a much more bold and sort-of-serif style font than used on the Submariner.

On the Submariner, the Cerachrom is the main focus of the bezel, with the numerals secondary. On the GMT the numerals are the main focus with the Cerachrom secondary.

There is certainly nothing wrong with preferring Cerachrom! But I think there is an argument that the bolder numerals help with legibility.

AF4D5699-2FBF-4F7A-A50E-A8C5868FCC06.jpeg

757BE62D-50C1-4729-8F20-5FCDC01D4607.jpeg

[TheVTCGuy]

Thank you very much for posting these picks And you may very well be right, it’s the font more then the bezel width that makes it look disproportionate (to me).

[Thuilln]

To me most 6 digit Rolex models look wrong.
Maxi-everything for a bold in-your-face style.
Not my cup of tea.

[JRell]

The ceramic bezels are why I like Rolex. The older bezels look antique to me, outdated.

[ThornappleWatch]

I don't know the numbers, but I prefer the middle watch in post #5 over the left one....

[S.Explorer]

I like the boldness of the 6-digit GMT bezel, one of the reasons I chose it over the Submariner. Has a more luxury feel (as opposed to tool watch).

On the Submariner, strangely I prefer the 14060M (non-maxi w/aluminium bezel) style.

[rmlovett1]

I see your point, and agree that it’s just different. I think it’s just a personal choice as to which aesthetic you prefer. Both fit their case proportions fluidly IMO. The bolder look of the 6 digit case coincides with its bezel numeral size, and same, more subtle numbers, for the 5 digit.

[ap1]

I just see blurple and cranberry

[Vipes]

I think the bezel width is fine. I initially avoided the ceramic GMTs cause I thought the numbers were too big. Now, I'm use to it and it doesn't bother me since everything else is big (maxi case, bigger markers/hands, etc.)

[t65tampa]

I see what the OP has noticed, but I don't personally mind. The ceramic bezel is a neat feature of the watch, so it doesn't bother me that it's a bit more prominent or broad than in the 5 digit watches.

[Jmbarrack]

I totally agree. The wide bezel and oversized everything of the 6 digit references just makes them feel bloated... They're not for me.

The 1675 has a wide bezel, maxi markers and looks proportional. Those are your sweetspot.

[Chester01]

It’s too wide, too shiny, and too pastel.

[Robf52]

I see the difference in the fonts and see your point. The newer, more prominent font doesn't bother me and think the ceramic bezel size is fine.

[somthingnew]

I like the ceramic bezel for its functionality. But I bought a GMT when the six digits were introduced and purposely chose a five digit for the exact reason you stated. My favorite ceramic bezel is the Daytona. I think the font that looks like the older model helps.

[Strad]

I think the larger indices on the maxi dial warrant a larger font on the ceramic bezel.

[kieselguhr]

I disagree Paul and find that they got the modern proportions just right.

Where others see wider as a negative aesthetic, I find it to be more functional as it is highly visible. Aesthetics wise, the modern maxi cased sports Rolex would have too much dead space with smaller/thinner numbers on the bezel.



With regard to being top heavy. I wear my watches with a snug fit and have never experienced the “top heavy” complaint that accompanies watches like the Milgauss, SeaDweller, BlackBay, and now the GMT.

Get the 5 digit if you prefer classic proportions. Get the 6 digit if you like modern proportions.

[HideMyWalletPlease]

I love the new ones. Great modern update on a classic. It looks different but you can easily see the lineage.

[kegan]

The modern bezel certainly fits the modern case and dial. For me the modern GMT is “too” everything. It’s a simple matter of preference. If I could swap straight across a 5 digit for a six I wouldn’t.

[douglasf13]

Yeah, I don't really have eyes for much of anything after the 5-digit series of watches, outside of maybe some of the simpler models like the OP.

[HL65]

No can’t say I do Paul.

[1665fan]

16710 is the OG and best!!

[Stan Cooper]

Personally, I'm a fan of the font on the Cerachrom insert, but not the ceramic material. I find the font legibility an improvement over the aluminum insert font. The "ceramic" insert is aftermarket. This is the same 16710 in both photos.

[OrangeSport]

Originally Posted by ThornappleWatch

I don't know the numbers, but I prefer the middle watch in post #5 over the left one....

That's because you are smart..

[Jster]

The design aesthetics of the pre ceramic GMT’s are much finer than the latest version.

I agree that the bezel is too wide on the ceramic version. The case is too wide as well. The numerals on the bezel are too large. The red and blue colorway can’t match the vibrancy of the older models.

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by HarryFlashman

I think your issue is with the font/typeface used for the bezel numerals more than it is with the bezel being “too wide.” I don’t think there is much of a bezel size difference between the GMT and Sub.

The 126710 and 116710 use a much more bold and sort-of-serif style font than used on the Submariner.

On the Submariner, the Cerachrom is the main focus of the bezel, with the numerals secondary. On the GMT the numerals are the main focus with the Cerachrom secondary.

There is certainly nothing wrong with preferring Cerachrom! But I think there is an argument that the bolder numerals help with legibility.

Attachment 1244144

Attachment 1244145

I agree with this.

[B2 Stealth]

My fading pilot eyes appreciate the larger font!