Sea Dweller 116600 on a 6.75" wrist?

[JohnFM]

I love the proportions, dial, and overall look of the new SD4000 but am wondering if it will look a little large on my 6.75" wrist. If anyone out there has a similarly sized wrist and can post pictures, that would be great.

Also, for anyone who has worn the 116600 for extended periods, how's the weight and balance compared to five digit models such as the 16600 or 11610?

Thanks.
John

[mastersub]

I don't think you will have to worry about it appearing large. From head on, it actually looks smaller than the Submariner due to it's slimmer lug taper. It will be slightly thicker though, which might be a problem if you need it to slip under a shirt cuff.

[AK1984]

Its not very well balanced, it def sits high due to bubble back and is very top heavy.
I have wrists same size as yours and had to let her go


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Speed]

Originally Posted by JohnFM

I love the proportions, dial, and overall look of the new SD4000 but am wondering if it will look a little large on my 6.75" wrist. If anyone out there has a similarly sized wrist and can post pictures, that would be great.

Also, for anyone who has worn the 116600 for extended periods, how's the weight and balance compared to five digit models such as the 16600 or 11610?

Thanks.
John

I had a 16600 no holes cause F serial. I have a 6.5" wrist. I didn't mind that it was a bit "top heavy" it's a dive watch after all. I have a Sub, so I made the "sophie's choice" and let the dweller go. My Subbie has lug holes and feels more like the model I want to own.

That said, unlimited funds etc...I would love to acquire a lug-holed 16600.

[Chad M]

I find it wears smaller than my 114060 did. Lug-lug dimension is shorter on the SD.

While is is thicker and a bit heavier I don't find it to be an issue. I wear mine 23h45min per day. I only take it off to shower, that is a testament as to how comfortable I find the SD.

[Gasoil4ever]

It will be perfect

[elkaholic]

On your 6.75in wrist it will be perfect. My wrist is 6.75-7in and the SDc is one of the only divers I've ever tried on and knew instantly it was a perfect fit in terms of proportions to my arm/wrist. The other would be the 16610.

It wears nicer and more proportional than the 114060 I used to have, by far.

[busytimmy]

It is heavy, but not top heavy. However, the caseback bubble allows it to sit very comfortably on my wrist and I honestly do find the 116600 more comfortable on my wrist than my GMT BLNR



Additionally, the SD4k is more comfortable on my wrist than my SubC (now gone) and pretty much any other watch I've tried. Yes, there is some heft, but the thing is so well designed you can wear the watch pretty much 24/7 (as I do on weekends and holidays) and not get bothered by the weight.

[darwin95]

Another 6.75 wrist here. For most, size wouldn't matter as much as thickness. I had to let mine go due to the thickness. But I loved everything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Agentorange]

I found that it's all relative. I wore a Panerai for 2 years before my interest in Rolex began. The first watch I tried on was the SD4K and I hated the fact that it looked too small. 6.5" wrist btw.

After I settled on the 116710 and wore that for a few months, I tried the SD4K and boom, it looked perfect to me. Needless to say I ended up with the SD4K and then soon after flipped my 116710LN for a Pepsi 16710. I used to think the 16710 wore WAY to small. My eyes were obviously used to the PAM after wearing it for so long.

I think a 6.75 wrist is perfect for the SD4K...but you have to like the extra thickness...of course I do.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DCheeta]

It will not be a problem. It's a really comfortable watch once you get the fit dialed in with the glidelock (and the diver extension removed).

My wrist s somewhere between 6.5 - 6.75".