A small, but attractive gent's gold Omega ref. D6650 cal. 620

I have let a few nice karat gold Omega's slip by me because at 33mm or so I thought they were just a little small for my 8.5 inch wrist. Then I saw this little square number and I just really wanted to give it a new home. It runs very nicely and both the case and dial are in presentable condition. As a jeweler by training I appreciated the floating borders and the florentine graving. I have only worn it a couple of times, took me a minute to find a lizard strap that would actually fit me. I think because it is square it faces up a bit larger than the 27mm would suggest. I like the hand winding, and even though it is +- 10-15 seconds I will have it serviced soon. It will be a keeper

Specs:
Omega ref. D6650 manual wind cal. 620 14ky

Case shape : Square
Case width : 27.05mm w/o crown
Case length : 31.55mm
Case thickness : 5.60mm w/o crystal
Crown diameter : 3.65mm
Crown signed Y/N: Y, push/pull
Crystal width : 20.55mm in case
Crystal length : 20.90mm in case
Lug width : 17.55mm
Case material : 14K yellow gold
Crystal material: acrylic
Movement caliber: Omega 620
Movement jewels : 17 jewels
Movement adj Y/N: Y (2) positions
Chronometer Y/N : N
Complications : None

That's a beauty, I'd gladly wear it with a suit and tie!!! Whenever someone asks is it "Too small" I think, too small for what??? If you can read the dial it's not too small. I bought my wife a 31MM Datejust, the 26MM was almost unreadable. It looks great on her. I can't imagine that a 41MM would have worked, it would have looked like the watch was wearing her, not the other way around.

Re-read to reply today and "Too small", I think, too small for what??? encouraged me to take it out of the box and wear it today! Thanx for the encouragement!

It's hip to be square!

my sentiments exactly! I am always surprised at how much larger square watches wear compared to a similar width in a round watch

I actually just saw one of these recently at a local jeweler store by me. I also felt it looked too small and that comes from someone who has really small wrists. Maybe I should have tried it on. Also had a black dial but was 99% it had been refinished.

My wrists are 8.5 inch, certainly not small. It looks fine on me. There is just something about square and rectangular cases that neutralizes the thought that it is small. Perhaps because the band or strap is usually of a similar width. If the one you saw near you is under-priced, like 3-400 bucks, I think I would snag it. My opinion on (nice) re-painted dials is that it depends on whether I am collecting it, or want to wear it. If it is a wearer, then I don't care much. Another thing I keep in mind is that I have found many nice original dials on the bay for Omega, Longines, and Hamilton. A year or two later one could pop up that fits your watch. Then you have seriously upgraded at a bargain price, as the dials have no serial numbers. Appreciate your comments

Can we see a wrist shot sometime? I would agree that these smaller watches can be really slick (and perhaps better proportioned) even on larger wrists.

Sure, first time for everything. Also the first time I have clicked an autofocus lens to one of my cameras in quite awhile (smile).

That's sharp. Sure, it's a dress watch, but I bet it wears just fine in less-formal settings.

For me specifically it is a dress watch, because of the size of my wrists it looks best with a long sleeve shirt (the plaid shirt is actually a somewhat dressy Pendleton). I do think that it would look perfectly casual and even aloha shirts and shorts on a 7.5 inch or smaller wrist. It is a handsome design, and I would own it just for the visual appeal it has for me.

I think this one image illustrates very graphically how differently a square, rectangle case appears than a round. It certainly doesn't look like the Medana is 7mm smaller than the Seamaster. Both pieces are yummy, by the way

I ve seen people get married with 46mm 🤨
It s a perfect elegant tank. With a jacket u ll be on top 😉