my dilemma was this: i have always admired the design aesthetic, construction, reported high quality fit and finish and the value proposition of uts watches, but i always assumed the only one i could pull off size wise would be the 1000m. problem was i much preferred many details from the 2000m---date placement, date wheel color, he valve, thicker case, etc. it just seemed the goldilocks of the uts lineup to me. but the l2l intimidated me, so i quieted the urge. well, that was, until a few weeks ago when chris, commenting to todd, laid that little nugget: "Pay no attention to that lug to lug number."
this assurance conjured the optimistic leaning necessary for me to finally give the uts 2000m a test drive after many years of curiosity. i must say, after a week of every-other-day wear, i have no complaints about the size or wearability. despite its heft, thickness and diameter, it is very comfortable, even after wearing 48 hours straight. i put this down to balance. the case diameter increases proportionally to thickness through the model range. taken with the lug design, shape and angle, as well as the l2l length, it all works beautifully together to really stabilize this hunk of milled art firmly in place without any requirement of the strap being overly tight.
yes, it is at the size limit for me. the lugs "try" to hang over my wrist, but do not quite manage. i love the heft, and everything tactile is a joy to operate.
so, again, thanks chris, i'm glad i took this leap of faith. and btw, this may likely be your old one?
also, congrats to whomever snagged paul's 1000m. the blue dial is amazing and these punch way above their price point.
better pics forthcoming (if the sun ever shines in the upper midwest again)
