16600 thickness

[dimag333]

Trying to decide between a 16600 and a 79090. Worried about thickness on 16600. Anyone post side shot between 16600 and 104060 or possibly a DJ41?

[7enderbender]

The 16600 is slightly thicker. Pictures won’t tell if it works for you or not as a lot is determined by your wrist shape.

[dimag333]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

The 16600 is slightly thicker. Pictures won’t tell if it works for you or not as a lot is determined by your wrist shape.

I have owned 20+ 6 digits, never a 5 digit SD, curious on profile

[padi56]

Originally Posted by dimag333

Trying to decide between a 16600 and a 79090. Worried about thickness on 16600. Anyone post side shot between 16600 and 104060 or possibly a DJ41?

[dimag333]

maybe I will get the tudor lol

[garyk]

Similar




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dimag333]

Originally Posted by garyk

Similar




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

yep thats a no go!

[ghostface]

Originally Posted by dimag333

yep thats a no go!

that's not a 16600. that picture looks like the supercase, which is much thicker. I have a 16600 and it is much thinner than this picture.

[Ketler]

The 16600 is 14.5mm Thick...

[ROlesorusLEX]

Originally Posted by dimag333

I have owned 20+ 6 digits, never a 5 digit SD, curious on profile

Here's the actual thickness. Much less than a 6 digit. Stands proudly on the wrist, but by no means top heavy or clunky. The finest Rolex sports watch ever made.

Sent from my NE2215 using Tapatalk

[JP.]

I have both 16610 and 16600. Love them both.

BUT contrary what others say, SD wears smaller on a bigger wrist.

The reason?

The dial is 1mm smaller and it doesn't have the cyclops. The thick case makes it "high and narrow", whereas the 16610 is "flat and wide".

If you have smaller wrist, 16600 is perfect. I prefer the looks over the 16610 but I prefer the 16610 on my wrist, personally. Sits much better.

[ROlesorusLEX]

For what it's worth, as a follow up to the thickness pictures I sent, here's how my watch sits on my wrist.

Where I wear my watch, just above the ulnar styloid prominence, my wrist is 7.5"

Sent from my NE2215 using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by JP.

I have both 16610 and 16600. Love them both.

BUT contrary what others say, SD wears smaller on a bigger wrist.

The reason?

The dial is 1mm smaller and it doesn't have the cyclops. The thick case makes it "high and narrow", whereas the 16610 is "flat and wide".

If you have smaller wrist, 16600 is perfect. I prefer the looks over the 16610 but I prefer the 16610 on my wrist, personally. Sits much better.

Very well said Juho, that was my exact experience as well

[JP.]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Very well said Juho, that was my exact experience as well

Have a good summer my friend!!

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by JP.

Have a good summer my friend!!

You as well

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Miker86]

Have owned both the 16610 and 16600 and still have the 16600. Not too thick as it sits nicely on the wrist imo.

[dimag333]

great info, yeah that first pic put me for a loop! Now I gotta decided if I can deal with the fixed end link, though it will live on leather most times if I jump

[Gerry62]

16600 and its kit. Good choice

[Kowaco]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gt0279a]

The beauty of the 16600 is the caseback sinks into your wrist so it does not appear as tall. Add to that the thickness is distributed between the smaller diameter crystal / bezel / midcase with sloping sides and caseback.

Much different than say the Tudor Black Bay with those slab sides.

[Andad]

Not sure if this helps but:

14060 - 16600 - 114060 - 16610 - DJ41.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by ghostface

that's not a 16600. that picture looks like the supercase, which is much thicker. I have a 16600 and it is much thinner than this picture.

Sorry, mine is DSSD Deep Blue JC. I knew it had some sixes in the number and thought that was what was being discussed. I love the case on it but different strokes for different folks

[hutch300]

I like both watches a lot but the 16600 is a tank that holds up to daily use so well and its about a perfect 5 digit rolex. I'd go with that for sure over the Tudor.

[KatGirl]

16600 is a better looking watch.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gerry62]

the thickness of the sapphire crystal.

[ROlesorusLEX]

Originally Posted by Gerry62

the thickness of the sapphire crystal.

Now that is a great picture. Could be Rolex wall art at an AD.

Sent from my NE2215 using Tapatalk

[dimag333]

this is the one I am looking at, any comments? Kirill is a reputable seller I have dealt with

https://lunaroyster.com/product/2001...ler-ref-16600/

[Gerry62]

Ser K last SD16600 with holes lugs. Handsome! Although I have had over 30 Submariner Daytona Date Justs over time..... 16600 is my absolute favorite.
Too bad it lacks kit and official guarantee

[Ketler]

Originally Posted by Gerry62

Ser K last SD16600 with holes lugs. Handsome! Although I have had over 30 Submariner Daytona Date Justs over time..... 16600 is my absolute favorite.
Too bad it lacks kit and official guarantee

Actually the Y series was the last with Lug Holes...

Also the last to come with the "Anchor"...

I have in truth seen two very early F series watches with lug holes ...

[dimag333]

Originally Posted by Gerry62

Ser K last SD16600 with holes lugs. Handsome! Although I have had over 30 Submariner Daytona Date Justs over time..... 16600 is my absolute favorite.
Too bad it lacks kit and official guarantee

I'm somewhere in the 30s my self between all references and never had a SD. Not worried about the kit as you can't wear A box and papers ;)