Do these watches sit too high?

Posts
4
Likes
1
Hi all,

I'm about to take the leap into proper watches, and whilst I might get giddy on the purchase front in the future, for now I'm after an all rounder that'll see me out for decades to come.

I was about to pull the plug on a 41mm aqua terra, blue dial on steel, but really like the extra look of either the blue speedy '57 or the aqua terra GMT chronograph. The only thing putting me off the 2 more expensive watches is the height they sit.

I tried on a speedy '57 and once I pulled the bracelet tight it sat nicely on my wrist, but I wondered if any owners of the deeper models out there had any suggestions on how they are day to day - I expect to wear this watch the majority of my time.

Case diameter wise I'm fine with that aspect, and I have 7.5" wrists so not too small.

Whichever watch i do get it'll need to be able to take the odd minor knock - nothing major but I sometimes get the odd small bump at work

cheers

Mike
 
Posts
2,675
Likes
7,487
What is the height of the 3 watches you mention?

I have 2 watches around 12.5 to 12.7mm height and I've never found them to be too high off the wrist.
 
Posts
4
Likes
1
Ive found it difficult to get the precise measurement, but the AT appears to be at 13mm and the speedy and the GTM chronograph are just over 16mm
 
Posts
667
Likes
1,215
The height of the AT chrono was never a problem for me, but it wore broadly - and somewhat heavy on my 6.5" wrist.
 
Posts
2,675
Likes
7,487
Ive found it difficult to get the precise measurement, but the AT appears to be at 13mm and the speedy and the GTM chronograph are just over 16mm
I did a quick search on Omega website and couldn't find the height for the Speedy '57...

16mm sounds quite high and yet the thickness or height alone might not be what you should worry about.

I took 3 of my watches that are all 42mm wide and yet different types of watches: a Diver, a GMT and a chrono. My gut feel would suggest the diver was the thickest, the GMT in the middle and the chrono the thinnest. However, when I measure them I find a very different story.

Seiko Sea Urchin: 12.7mm
Rolex Explorer II: 12.5mm
Omega Speedy Pro: 14.4mm

I've never thought of my Speedy's as too high off my wrist, so another 2mm might not be such a big deal. Of course, always true that YMMV...

 
Posts
10,323
Likes
16,160
Of the 3 mentioned by the OP then yes, to me the latter 2 do sit too high. I personally can't get on with anything much above 15mm deep so for me a 9300 movement Speedmaster or one of the multitudinous Chrono divers wouldn't suit. Some of those can approach 20mm and look and feel like boat anchors on the wrist. One thing to bear in mind is that some Omegas such as the Speedy Pro and SM300 LE have a pronounced dome to the crystal and wear thinner than the bare measurement suggests. The 7750 and 9300 chronos though just feel unecessarily fat to me. I have no love at all though for chrono divers, the compromises needed to make them watertight are too great. The 33X3 was a nice thin movement but that rather fell out of favour.
 
Posts
4
Likes
1
Thanks for the replies, I think I'll play it safe on this one and get the AT - don't expect to be unhappy with that!