I HAVE to get to the bottom of this!! 34 mm or 35 mm, the mid-size YM??

[JJ Irani]

Anyone?

What is the correct size of the MID-SIZE YM - 34 or 35 mm??

My booklet which came with the watch says 35 mm - but others dispute that with 34 mm.

So which is it? Jocke, Mike....or any of the other experts out there....HELP!!

JJ

[HoustonRider]

measure it.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

It's 35 mm.

As stated, the 2007 catalogue probably just had a typo.

[harvey]

yawns, this is the third thread ive read in three minutes about the same subject lol guess jj is bored! no sheep to shear?

[OYSTERMANN]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

It's 35 mm.

As stated, the 2007 catalogue probably just had a typo.

Bo, are you sure here?

My March 2008 catalogue states that it is 34mm, too.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by OYSTERMANN

Bo, are you sure here?

My March 2008 catalogue states that it is 34mm, too.

The Master Catalogue from Rolex clearly states 35 mm. I saw this catalogue at my AD's - not available to the general public.

JJ

[Baptistman]

look guys, we need to help JJ, after all a single MM will make all the difference to his flock at playtime

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by OYSTERMANN

Bo, are you sure here?

My March 2008 catalogue states that it is 34mm, too.

I just stated it's 35 mm to rest this case. Still, the catalogue I have says 34 mm.

1 mm is not a big deal, so let's just say it's 35 mm and rest the case.

[kcmo]

35mm

[redshirt1957]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

I just stated it's 35 mm to rest this case. Still, the catalogue I have says 34 mm.

1 mm is not a big deal, so let's just say it's 35 mm and rest the case.

Speak for yourself. At my age I need every mm.

[Green Sub]

The outer diameter of my platinum bezel is 1.340 inches.

That translates to 34.036 mm

The case is somewhat wider than the bezel, even at the most narrow part.

If you took the case, not counting the crown guard, I would say it's very close to 35 mm.

My dial caliper is SS with sharp edges and I'm not willing to touch the case without protection.

[OYSTERMANN]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

I just stated it's 35 mm to rest this case. Still, the catalogue I have says 34 mm.

1 mm is not a big deal, so let's just say it's 35 mm and rest the case.

Agreed, Bo.

[vukotab]

35mm.Definitely.And I always thought that it`s the same size as Tudor Mini-Sub,which is 36mm.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Okay, 1 mm. for JJ!

Master catalogue 2007/2008:
35.jpg


Price list 2007 (Oktober):
DSC00806.JPG
DSC00807.JPG

[JJ Irani]

Thanks, Bo......that's the Master Catalogue I was talking about.

Please don't think I was trying to be argumentative or something like that.....just that you had put a doubt in my mind with that Price List post and I wanted to clear up any doubts.

Thanks again - JJ

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by redshirt1957

Speak for yourself. At my age I need every mm.

[tudorman8276]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

It's 35 mm.

As stated, the 2007 catalogue probably just had a typo.

....nuh...ugh....Rolex does NOT make mistakes Sincerely, Stan.

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by eq2675

The outer diameter of my platinum bezel is 1.340 inches.

That translates to 34.036 mm

The case is somewhat wider than the bezel, even at the most narrow part.

If you took the case, not counting the crown guard, I would say it's very close to 35 mm.

My dial caliper is SS with sharp edges and I'm not willing to touch the case without protection.

Now see as a time served engineer, i apprieciate this post. It is technically over 34mm, as its .036 over. This means technically, it cannot be 34mm, however, it is also not 35 mm, unless you use the round up rule, the accepted rule for advertising material.

My opinion (not that that means much JJ) is that i is actually just a little over 34 and 1/3 mm, but for advertisment purposes it sits at 35 (bigger is better) the other photos of rolex material that state it being 34mm appear to be more technical orientated than merchandising orientated, therefor more accurate than the advertisement.

It is understood by the industry that Technical information and accuracy is understood by very few, where as many more accept the glossy avertising material.

Conclusion; actual diameter is inbetween 34 and 35, bigger is better, but accuratly dimantion just over 34 1/3rd.

Interpritation; advertisement just less than 1 ewe, with lamb at foot different than accurate dimension. (jj, for you my friend!)

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Thanks, Bo......that's the Master Catalogue I was talking about.

Please don't think I was trying to be argumentative or something like that.....just that you had put a doubt in my mind with that Price List post and I wanted to clear up any doubts.

Thanks again - JJ

Nah! I don't think posting TWO separate threads (this one and this one) about this topic seemed argumentative, at all!

All's fine, my friend!

[Andad]

Gee Bo, you are starting to sound like one of those BAD moderators.

I don't mean BBBBAD like as in BAD but more like bad moderators.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

Now see as a time served engineer, i apprieciate this post. It is technically over 34mm, as its .036 over. This means technically, it cannot be 34mm, however, it is also not 35 mm, unless you use the round up rule, the accepted rule for advertising material.

My opinion (not that that means much JJ) is that i is actually just a little over 34 and 1/3 mm, but for advertisment purposes it sits at 35 (bigger is better) the other photos of rolex material that state it being 34mm appear to be more technical orientated than merchandising orientated, therefor more accurate than the advertisement.

It is understood by the industry that Technical information and accuracy is understood by very few, where as many more accept the glossy avertising material.

Conclusion; actual diameter is inbetween 34 and 35, bigger is better, but accuratly dimantion just over 34 1/3rd.

Interpritation; advertisement just less than 1 ewe, with lamb at foot different than accurate dimension. (jj, for you my friend!)

Yes, I agree. Your maths IS better than your speling.

[Trurolexer]

35mm

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by directioneng

Yes, I agree. Your maths IS better than your speling.

Now see as a time served engineer, I appreciate this post. It is technically over 34mm, as its .036 over. This means technically, it cannot be 34mm, however, it is also not 35 mm, unless you use the round up rule, the accepted rule for advertising material.

My opinion (not that that means much JJ) is that I is actually just a little over 34 and 1/3 mm, but for advertisement purposes it sits at 35 (bigger is better) the other photos of Rolex material that state it being 34mm appear to be more technical orientated than merchandising orientated, therefore more accurate than the advertisement.

It is understood by the industry that Technical information and accuracy is understood by very few, where as many more accept the glossy advertising material.

Conclusion; actual diameter is in-between 34 and 35, bigger is better, but accurately dimension just over 34 1/3rd.



I should definitely avoid posting while heavily under the influence of drink!! My apologies’ to those who have noticed my spelling errors! We cant all be perfect, so I am doing my best to make up for those who are!

[dopeymuppet]

I think the mid-size should be discontinued making this irrelevant. The full size is the only way forward! JJ's platty is one of the prettiest things I've ever seen, wouldn't be the same in 34/35mm.

[Tools]

From the Rolex.com Site.

The 35mm Yachtmaster in solid gold

http://rolex.com/en/#/en/xml/collect...l=M168628-0012

[Andad]

SO IS THE 34mm YACHTMASTER.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by directioneng

SO IS THE 34mm YACHTMASTER.