Comments:
1675 vs 16710 vs 126710 thickness
They all measure around the same thickness but the 1675 always looks thinner and 16710 more in the middle. Is that just perception? Maybe it’s because the case of 1675 is thinner but the extra domed crystal creates the same “reported” thickness even though the case is thinner?
Ultimately my question is: what’s the rank order of which GMT model wears the thinnest
Ultimately my question is: what’s the rank order of which GMT model wears the thinnest
The thinnest may well be this one:
And the plexy of the 6542 / 1675 is not hyper domed, it is " chimney ", as you can see here on this 6542.
PS: The 1675, 16700 / 16710 and the 116710 have the same size ( 40 mm ) but the latest seems bigger due to its bigger lugs. And I think the 126710 is bigger, too.
I see
It’s a lugs difference that creates the variability (because, to your point, the total thickness measured is the same for each)
What’s the ranking of lug height from low to high? Or are 1675 and 16700 similar and then after that they get bigger?
Thanks again!
What’s the ranking of lug height from low to high? Or are 1675 and 16700 similar and then after that they get bigger?
Thanks again!