GMT IIc vs SubC for comfort

[LesserBlackDog]

I’ve got tiny 6” wrists. I’ve previously owned a GMT Master IIc LN. Nice watch but it was never “the one” because it seemed too big and heavy for everyday wear. I had to wear it loose enough that the crown dug into the top of my hand. It was also just too shiny for me, with the PCLs and cyclops, which is why there is some part of me that thinks the SubC could be better. Eventually I flipped it. For reference the modern Rolex I own, which feels perfectly fitted to my wrist, is the new 34mm OP.

Now, probably from spending too much time here and on WUS, I am feeling an irresistible and irrational urge to acquire a SubC (no date). My originalrational plan was to flip my Polar Explorer 16570, which I’m just not loving anymore, and pick up a BB58. But the irrational version of that plan is to say sack it, sell the Explo, pick up a shiny new SubC.

What I’d like to do is confirm my rational deduction that the SubC would be no better, and in fact worse, than the GMT from a comfort/wearability perspective and that it would be stupid and irrational to pick one up when I already know it’s not going to work for me.

Can anyone comment on how these two compare on the wrist?

[dwjez14]

I feel like my sub is more comfortable to wear than my gmt

[envuks]

I feel the extra height on the subs due to the caseback makes them less comfortable than the GMTs for me. This is just my personal taste.

[brandrea]

A lot depends on your wrist shape. The case back of the GMT is flatter than the Sub, so for me it wears more comfortable

[riverrat]

I hate to make matters confusing but I slightly prefer my GMT to my Sub. That being said I would have zero problems going to one watch if it were the sub, it still wears nice to me. I think its all individual preference though because all of us like different things.

[ExPADIdiver]

The Sub offers more micro adjust in the bracelet, however, the Crown of the Sub digs in my wrist more than the GMT. I never knew why, maybe the micro difference in case design.

[405]

My subc is definitely more comfortable than my blnr. On my 6.75" wrist anyway. I also prefer the slimmer feel of the sub and you can tell the sub is lighter on the wrist.

[Banks]

Originally Posted by 405

My subc is definitely more comfortable than my blnr. On my 6.75" wrist anyway. I also prefer the slimmer feel of the sub and you can tell the sub is lighter on the wrist.

Owing both, I have the opposite experience. My BLNR is more comfortable to me due to trimmer lugs and less thick case back. Just shows it is quite subjective between people though.

[405]

Yes, wrist size and shape makes a big difference. Only way to know is try them on (if you can).

[Stevec14]

I think the sub wears slightly taller and I’ve always preferred the gmt. Have you tried a 5 digit? Might be better for your size and shape perhaps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tony1T]

My GMT II feels fine but admittedly I don't wear it all day . Whatever you decide I would keep your Explorer.

[Mutlumur]

My wrist is 6.7 inch I spent days on this matter before deciding between them and ended up Sub ND.. after wearing 2 weeks now can confirm that it is just great fit

[macrowatch]

Keep in mind the clasp for the super is much larger because of the glidelock making the GMT clasp more comfortable for smaller wrists.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by LesserBlackDog

What I’d like to do is confirm my rational deduction that the SubC would be no better, and in fact worse, than the GMT from a comfort/wearability perspective and that it would be stupid and irrational to pick one up when I already know it’s not going to work for me.

If you found the GMTc to be too uncomfortable to keep, I don't think you're going to find the SubC to be sufficiently more comfortable to warrant purchasing it. They're very similar watches in shape, dimensions and weight. Individual experiences may vary as to which is more comfortable, but we're talking degrees of difference here, not orders of magnitude.

[yannis]

116710 is certainly more comfortable and feels lighter. I am not saying it is better but it does feel comfier.

[1WatchDawg]

The 5 digits wear smaller, but the limited adjust-ability of the bracelets makes it very hard to get a good fit without having to remove a permanent link or two. the OP34 seems a great fit for you as would a DJ36. Good luck!!

[DocHolliday]

I’ll echo what was said above. I own both and they wear very similar. I might give the edge to the gmt in comfort but overall size is very similar. I would check out the 5 digits some more and def don’t sell that exp II


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Amochosto]

The wear pretty much the same on my 7 3/4 wrist, I was going to suggest a 16570 which wears a bit smaller, but I saw the last bit of your post saying had one and wanted to flip so no dice I guess.

I don’t have a BB58, but my 41mm Black Bay bracelet has very limited adjustability so keep that in mind too. Maybe get one with a leather or nato?

[RJRJRJ]

I have both, and if you didn't like the GMT, you won't like the Sub. GMT is thinner and more comfortable, although I personally find both to be comfortable.

[MHB]

I had a SubC that I wore for a year. I found it overkill in many respects on my 7" wrist. Felt like the watch wore me.

I've tried on the GMT and it does feel better, as if it sits flatter on my wrist.

I opted for the Explorer in the end. It is more comfortable than either the sub or gmt.

[nikesupremedunk]

Gmt by a mile. I’d rather have the flatter back of the gmt than the glide lock in terms of comfort. Sub back is noticeably thicker and doesn’t wear as well as the gmt IMO.

[rebel_1]

GMTIIC if you get a good fit with the clasp. The SubC clasp, while way more adjustable, is not as comfortable as the GMTIIC clasp if you are lucky enough to get a good fit.

[Nikrnic]

I agree with most here that the Gmtll is slightly more comfy than the SubC being it feels less top heavy plus it's shorter clasp. Not bothersome for my 7" flat wrist.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[LesserBlackDog]

Thanks for the feedback and for walking me back from the edge of the cliff, fellas. I found a video comparison on YouTube and side by side, the Sub seems to look bigger due to the less busy dial/bezel and the longer clasp is a huge concern, as that has been an issue for me on some previous watches.

I’m back to thinking about the BB58 or, alternatively, an OP39 in rhodium or blue as a fun, “sporty” alternative to the OP34 as an everyday watch. I’ve tried the OP39 and it’s not a bad size on me, especially as more of a weekend watch.

Third alternative, maybe grab an OP34 in white to wear on a strap??

Honestly the thing that bugs me most about the Explorer II is that mine has no functional lume so it doesn’t feel like a super functional weekend watch.

[LesserBlackDog]

And since threads are useless without pics, here are some wrist shots for reference.

My old GMT:



A TT Sub I tried on a couple months back:



OP39 that convinced me to order my black dial OP34:



And my new baby, the OP34 :)

[Terrakot]

Why OP 34, not 36? I’d prefer double hour indexes on 3,6,9

[PLNYC]

I find the gmt more comfy than sub because of the difference in height for the caseback. Sub bracelet on gmt = most comfortable

[904VT]

Originally Posted by ExPADIdiver

The Sub offers more micro adjust in the bracelet, however, the Crown of the Sub digs in my wrist more than the GMT. I never knew why, maybe the micro difference in case design.

I think it's largely due to the case back being thicker, since it can cause the crown to angle towards the wrist rather than staying flat and flush. Especially can happen if your watch isn't worn overly tight on the wrist.

[Reddy_Kilowatt]

Originally Posted by LesserBlackDog

I’ve got tiny 6” wrists. I’ve previously owned a GMT Master IIc LN. Nice watch but it was never “the one” because it seemed too big and heavy for everyday wear. I had to wear it loose enough that the crown dug into the top of my hand. It was also just too shiny for me, with the PCLs and cyclops, which is why there is some part of me that thinks the SubC could be better. Eventually I flipped it. For reference the modern Rolex I own, which feels perfectly fitted to my wrist, is the new 34mm OP.

Now, probably from spending too much time here and on WUS, I am feeling an irresistible and irrational urge to acquire a SubC (no date). My originalrational plan was to flip my Polar Explorer 16570, which I’m just not loving anymore, and pick up a BB58. But the irrational version of that plan is to say sack it, sell the Explo, pick up a shiny new SubC.

What I’d like to do is confirm my rational deduction that the SubC would be no better, and in fact worse, than the GMT from a comfort/wearability perspective and that it would be stupid and irrational to pick one up when I already know it’s not going to work for me.

Can anyone comment on how these two compare on the wrist?

I can't imagine how either is going to work for you. There are other nice GMT and diver watches that aren't so bulky.

[1WatchDawg]

Did you ever try an OP36, might just be the right number. I have a 7.75" wrist and it works well as does my 16610.