Case thickness Sub vs ROO - fit under sleeve?

[ra77man]

Hey guys,

Common opinion on the forum regarding the Diver and ROO Chrono 42mm is that (while some rock them with a suit on) they don't fit under a shirt sleeve or a cuff. I typically wear my submariner C / BLNR formally and they fit fine under a shirt sleeve.

I checked the thickness of the cases online and the sub is between 13mm - 14mm (depending on the models) while the Diver and ROO Chrono 42 are 14.1 and 14.2 respectively. There's essentially only 1 mm difference in thickness between the rolex and AP models. If this is the case then how are folks able to fit submariners under sleeves and fail at doing so with Diver/ROO? Is there another dimension that I'm missing?

Cheers!

[V25V]

Originally Posted by ra77man

Hey guys,

Common opinion on the forum regarding the Diver and ROO Chrono 42mm is that (while some rock them with a suit on) they don't fit under a shirt sleeve or a cuff. I typically wear my submariner C / BLNR formally and they fit fine under a shirt sleeve.

I checked the thickness of the cases online and the sub is between 13mm - 14mm (depending on the models) while the Diver and ROO Chrono 42 are 14.1 and 14.2 respectively. There's essentially only 1 mm difference in thickness between the rolex and AP models. If this is the case then how are folks able to fit submariners under sleeves and fail at doing so with Diver/ROO? Is there another dimension that I'm missing?

Cheers!

I get my shirts made with fairly tight cuffs. I can get a sub under it but no chance I would get either of my ROO's under. I think you would need a pretty loose cuff for it so slide under with ease or you may have to pull the cuff over at best.

[Burlington]

Most likely the total circumferential measurement including the rubber strap which is likely thicker and definitely has more friction than the SS bracelet. The actual watch case thickness will have less bearing.

It will depend of course on how large your cuffs are, and how tight you have it strapped, but mine doesn’t fit under my French cuffs with cufflinks on.

Next time I get some new shirts I will have the right cuff made slightly larger to accommodate.

[mnl]

My guess would be that you have to consider not only case thickness but also the height of the edges of the top and bottom of the case. So looking from the side, the Rolex might look like a semicircle with the maximum height in the middle (easy to go under the shirt) but the ROO would be more of a rectangle, so tougher to make it fit underneath.

[ra77man]

Originally Posted by Burlington

Most likely the total circumferential measurement including the rubber strap which is likely thicker and definitely has more friction than the SS bracelet. The actual watch case thickness will have less bearing.

I wear my watches tight but I think you've explained it well. I wasn't considering the circumference factoring in as well as the friction of the rubber compared to ss.

Originally Posted by mnl

My guess would be that you have to consider not only case thickness but also the height of the edges of the top and bottom of the case. So looking from the side, the Rolex might look like a semicircle with the maximum height in the middle (easy to go under the shirt) but the ROO would be more of a rectangle, so tougher to make it fit underneath.

Yup, that would also make sense. Essentially we're comparing a rounded-edge domed watch to a sharp-edged flat watch. The height wouldn't be as much an issue as the circumference and the protrusions.

[Burlington]

Additionally the two rubber keepers for the tail end of the strap - all adds extra total thickness to the wrist. I wouldn’t be surprised if when all added up, it equates to a significant difference between the two.