ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Z-Sub · 31 December 2009, 02:54 PM

Sub would be my vote but both are about the same size, GMT just has a larger lugs that looks a bit wider

JimC · 31 December 2009, 03:46 PM

I'm sure both will work equally as nice. Pick the one you like and enjoy!

MikeJaye · 1 January 2010, 02:55 AM

I own both the GMTIIC and a LV and both are a perfect fit on my 6.25 wrists. Out of the two the GMTIIC is a tad more comfortable...but only by the smallest of margins...

petesjag · 1 January 2010, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeJaye

I own both the GMTIIC and a LV and both are a perfect fit on my 6.25 wrists. Out of the two the GMTIIC is a tad more comfortable...but only by the smallest of margins...[/IMG]

Great wrist shots there!!!
I thought I was the only one with such small wrists!!
pete

Esquire · 1 January 2010, 04:28 AM

If you like the look/function of the GMT-IIc, but the size of the Sub entices you, just get a GMT-II (without the c). It would be the best of both worlds!

Ageing Orphan · 1 January 2010, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spuds

((cough))girls watch ((cough))

Renoir · 1 January 2010, 05:41 AM

Both are great. My wife has a tiny wrist and she wears an LV Sub and it looks great on her wrist.

petesjag · 1 January 2010, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renoir

Both are great. My wife has a tiny wrist and she wears an LV Sub and it looks great on her wrist.

Are you implying that I have a girly wrist...lol...

pete

JBat · 1 January 2010, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brit78

I have a tiny wrist and the GMT with ceramic looks totally fine on me. It does sit slightly higher on the wrist than the Sub, but looks normal I think and does not really catch on the sleeves of my suit shirts.

Actually, I'd say it sits lower than the Sub. The caseback doesn't protrude as much as the diver, and I think it lays down better. That said, the Sub wears great too, and is lighter.

JBat · 1 January 2010, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petesjag

How much bigger? Is it just a bit or a lot???
pete

I have both, and really they are very similar. The IIc case is blockier, and wider at the lugs, but the watches are very similar in how they wear. I dig both.

Renoir · 1 January 2010, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petesjag

Are you implying that I have a girly wrist...lol...

pete

No way!!! Just saying that it doesn't wear as big as it seems....

spuds · 1 January 2010, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petesjag

Are you implying that I have a girly wrist...lol...

pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renoir

No way!!! Just saying that it doesn't wear as big as it seems....

don't bottle it man just tell him like it is!!!!!

petesjag · 1 January 2010, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renoir

No way!!! Just saying that it doesn't wear as big as it seems....

Its ok I can take it... I do by the way have a girly wrist... but im proud of her,,,

InTime · 30 November 2011, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petesjag

I was wondering... My wrist is 6.25.
I have worn the Sub LV and it felt an looked fine.... Will the GMT fit just as well? Does it wear much bigger/higher on the wrist due to the ceramic bezel??Have not seen one yet.. I have a DJ II which fits perfectly..
Thanks,
pete

should be able to handle the 42 w. ease

pacifichrono · 30 November 2011, 08:26 AM

Definitely a Sub.

thewatchguy93 · 30 November 2011, 08:31 AM

Midsize YM = Noooo way!!! not on a guy, sorry! just IMO...

I have owned the GMTIIc and flipped it for the Sub-c... However I would personally say, you simply cannot go wrong any way

-Dino

Cyberintercept · 30 November 2011, 09:43 AM

What did he end up getting? Thread is from 2009! lol

globalmedia33 · 30 November 2011, 12:15 PM

Here is my GMTIIc on a 6.25 wrist.

Oyster Junkie · 30 November 2011, 01:35 PM

I have small wrists (almost 7"?). My Sub-C LV is the most comfortable watch ever. I attribute that to the glide lock clasp.

timeisfathaoftruth · 30 November 2011, 02:40 PM

How about the 14060 sub?

Rags · 30 November 2011, 03:44 PM

I'd go with the Sub no GMT no Sub..Ahhh I can't decide get both.

threemonkeys · 30 November 2011, 05:26 PM

My wrists are 6.25" and I don't feel like my GMT IIc is too big. But they're both great watches.

NutNut · 30 November 2011, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvo300

I'd say the GMT IIC wears just a little larger. Either will look great. I have a 6.5 inch wrist.

GMT IIC

May I ask how you have the links set up in your watch? I just recently re-fitted mine to 4 links on the 6 o'clock side and 6 links + extension on the 12 o'clock side from a 5+5. I also have a 6.5" wrist and it fits much better with the current set up. Thanks.

DiamondJack · 30 November 2011, 08:58 PM

In my opinion, there is very little between the watches themselves and I have both the GMTIIc and a Sub C.

However, the biggest difference you will find with a small wrist (which I dont think has been mentioned as yet) is the size of the clasp. The Sub with the glidelock is at least a cm longer than the GMT's clasp.

With a small wrist, this will make a huge difference to how they wear and you will probably find the clasp on the Sub C takes up the whole reverse side of your wrist and can feel slightly out of balance depending how many links you need to remove.

The GMT on the other hand is a nice small clasp and will fit compforatble on the reverse of your wrist.

It doesn't take very long to remove links so ask your AD to fit it and you will see for yourself, particularly if you're actually going to buy one.......

Koee · 1 December 2011, 12:51 AM

either one is fine

TSW · 1 December 2011, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbat

both will work fine.

x1000

hrai · 1 December 2011, 10:31 AM

You really cant go wrong either.

FNFZ4 · 1 April 2012, 08:36 AM

here is mine

kxux · 1 April 2012, 08:53 AM

GMT IIc wears little bigger than SubC (LN or LV), but in my perception it is mainly because of the size of the lettering on the bezel. Sub has smaller type on the bezel so it looks little smaller, but otherwise they feel equally comfy.

I picked GMT because of its functions as the look and feel was similar when I tried them on (several times) at AD.

Dr. Robert · 1 April 2012, 09:04 AM

either one would look good.

31 December 2009, 02:54 PM	#31
Z-Sub 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: So Cal, USA Watch: Not a ONEWatch Man Posts: 7,383	Sub would be my vote but both are about the same size, GMT just has a larger lugs that looks a bit wider __________________ SS Submariner Date "Z" SS SeaDweller "D" SS Submariner "Random" TT Blue Submariner "P" SS GMT-Master ll "M", Pepsi Pam 311, 524, 297

31 December 2009, 03:46 PM	#32
JimC "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Jim Location: Anchorage, Alaska Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,188	I'm sure both will work equally as nice. Pick the one you like and enjoy! __________________ My collection, in order of acquisition: 16610 Sub (Z serial) 16710 GMT-Master II (Coke and Pepsi) (Z serial) 16570 Explorer II (White) (F serial) 116660 Deepsea (V serial) 79270 Tudor Tiger Chrono (red dial)

1 January 2010, 04:28 AM	#35
Esquire "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gator Country Watch: GMT-II Ceramic Posts: 266	If you like the look/function of the GMT-IIc, but the size of the Sub entices you, just get a GMT-II (without the c). It would be the best of both worlds! __________________ GMT-IIc, SMP, 312 Go Gators!

30 November 2011, 08:26 AM	#45
pacifichrono "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Tom Location: San Diego Watch: 1968 GMT 1675 Posts: 1,059	Definitely a Sub. __________________ Regards from Sunny San Diego..........Tom

30 November 2011, 08:31 AM	#46
thewatchguy93 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: thewatchguy Location: UK Watch: me buy gold.. Posts: 7,441	Midsize YM = Noooo way!!! not on a guy, sorry! just IMO... I have owned the GMTIIc and flipped it for the Sub-c... However I would personally say, you simply cannot go wrong any way -Dino __________________ Instagram.. @thewatchguy www.thewatchguyofficial.co.uk Got a GREEN Submariner 116610LV.. Visit the official thread here! http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=179580 Don't forget to visit the Rolex & Attire thread too! http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=215077

1 January 2010, 02:55 AM	#33
MikeJaye Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London Posts: 675	I own both the GMTIIC and a LV and both are a perfect fit on my 6.25 wrists. Out of the two the GMTIIC is a tad more comfortable...but only by the smallest of margins...

1 January 2010, 05:41 AM	#37
Renoir "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Renato Location: New York Posts: 2,396	Both are great. My wife has a tiny wrist and she wears an LV Sub and it looks great on her wrist.

30 November 2011, 09:43 AM	#47
Cyberintercept "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: Sean Location: Bay Area, CA Watch: Rolex, VC, Panerai Posts: 86	What did he end up getting? Thread is from 2009! lol

30 November 2011, 01:35 PM	#49
Oyster Junkie Banned Join Date: Oct 2011 Real Name: Barry Location: Yosemite Nat.Park Watch: Idiot Savant Posts: 731	I have small wrists (almost 7"?). My Sub-C LV is the most comfortable watch ever. I attribute that to the glide lock clasp.

30 November 2011, 02:40 PM	#50
timeisfathaoftruth "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Ed Location: New England Watch: Sub,Daytona,GMT,YM Posts: 997	How about the 14060 sub? __________________ Time and tide wait for no man...

30 November 2011, 03:44 PM	#51
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,196	I'd go with the Sub no GMT no Sub..Ahhh I can't decide get both. __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

30 November 2011, 05:26 PM	#52
threemonkeys "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Real Name: Craig Location: Seattle-ish, USA Watch: GMTIIc, AK, LVc Posts: 7,022	My wrists are 6.25" and I don't feel like my GMT IIc is too big. But they're both great watches.

30 November 2011, 08:58 PM	#54
DiamondJack "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: London Watch: Quite a few Posts: 4,315	In my opinion, there is very little between the watches themselves and I have both the GMTIIc and a Sub C. However, the biggest difference you will find with a small wrist (which I dont think has been mentioned as yet) is the size of the clasp. The Sub with the glidelock is at least a cm longer than the GMT's clasp. With a small wrist, this will make a huge difference to how they wear and you will probably find the clasp on the Sub C takes up the whole reverse side of your wrist and can feel slightly out of balance depending how many links you need to remove. The GMT on the other hand is a nice small clasp and will fit compforatble on the reverse of your wrist. It doesn't take very long to remove links so ask your AD to fit it and you will see for yourself, particularly if you're actually going to buy one.......

1 December 2011, 12:51 AM	#55
Koee Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Phuket Posts: 197	either one is fine

1 December 2011, 10:31 AM	#57
hrai "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: PA Watch: 116234 Posts: 39	You really cant go wrong either.

1 April 2012, 08:53 AM	#59
kxux 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Jan Location: PA Watch: GMT II Posts: 1,110	GMT IIc wears little bigger than SubC (LN or LV), but in my perception it is mainly because of the size of the lettering on the bezel. Sub has smaller type on the bezel so it looks little smaller, but otherwise they feel equally comfy. I picked GMT because of its functions as the look and feel was similar when I tried them on (several times) at AD.

1 April 2012, 09:04 AM	#60
Dr. Robert 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Bob Location: U.S.A. Watch: 1655 Posts: 64,018	either one would look good. __________________ Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)