IWC

Photo: iwcdaily on IG ...  

no date, blue dial is simply gorgeous.

The 43 mm is nice but not my cup of tea. This is my BP photographed while on the ski lift this winter. ...  

The blue dial / blue leather with rivets version is superb.

And how you wear it.

...the dial layout of the 46mm is way more attractive to me.

...but my heart belongs to the 46.2

But I think there are very few wrists out there where the 46mm wouldn’t look too big. I know these watches are meant to be big, but 43mm is plenty for most, IMHO. I have a 42mm IW371709 which is perfect for my 7” wrist. Both are great looking. Cheers. ... 

I like the simplicity of the dial. I like that now we can see the movement. The original model remains so nice! But I’d put the 43 on my buying list! Tibo ...  

My wrist is just over 6.5” and more rounded than flat. I can pull off a Panerai Submersible 42mm (PAM 959). Any larger, then meh. My PAM 959 is 13.3mm case thickness and 51.5mm lug-to-lug. The IWC BP43 is 13.6mm case thickness. What is the lug-to-lug meas... 

My apologies for replying just now. My wrist is 7 inches and not so round. I can’t tell you about the lug to lug of the 43mm. But for the 5002 it is 5.8~5.9’’. I have one and this is how it sits on my wrist. I believe the 43 would work on your wrist. I sa...  

I’ve read that the lug-to-lug measurement is 52.5- 53mm. That could be pushing it for me. I want to try it on before pulling the trigger through one of my grey market sources.

For my preference it will always be the 43. Chiselled down to the core. Simple, elegant, exuding history and nostalgia, with a touch of flamboyant adventure, and a size just perfect (for me at least).

and the automatic on dial--why? Seems very 'beginner' type thing.... the buyer of this watch needs no reminder of the obvious... BUT... I sense the 43 with updated hands and date at 6... may take it all in the future... very wise of IWC... looking forward...