|  Featuring | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |  | Fossil | | Home » » | | | | | | | Product Details: | | | Product Length:
| 3.62 inches | | Product Width:
| 3.39 inches | | Product Height:
| 2.44 inches | | Product Weight:
| 0.71 pounds | | Package Length:
| 3.62 inches | | Package Width:
| 3.39 inches | | Package Height:
| 2.44 inches | | Package Weight:
| 0.71 pounds | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 7 reviews |
| | | Watch Information: | | | Crystal Material:
| Mineral | | Clasp:
| fold-over-clasp-with-safety | | Case Diameter:
| 43 millimeters | | Case Thickness:
| 11 millimeters | | Case Material:
| stainless-steel | | Band Material:
| stainless-steel | | Dial Color:
| Black | | Movement:
| analog-quartz | | Water Resistance Depth:
| 50 meters |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 7 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 3 found the following review helpful:
Fossil watchMay 13, 2009
By Georgiy Levchuk
This watch is big (a positive) and heavy (a negative). The links adjustment did not work out for my small wrist, so it is a bit loose. But otherwise the watch looks well made and great looking. I just wish it was not as heavy.
2 of 3 found the following review helpful:
 substantial watchFeb 05, 2007
By Michael A. Cordova
Very handsome timepiece. Wide face, clean lines, and HEAVY. I'd recommend this one for anyone who wants to be noticed, but still maintain a distintcly masculine image.
 Great Idea, Stylish Design, Epic Fail on MechanicsMay 29, 2010
By J. McClain
I agree with all other statements about this watches visual appearance; However, the fact this watch HAS NO ILLUMINATION CAPABILITY is what earns it an EPIC FAIL on function. Totally worthless as anything other than a big, expensive piece of jewelry. The inability to see what time it is unless you are indoors under lights or outside with bright sunlight makes this device totally impractical and useless as a watch. In fact, it should not even be called a watch. Call it a bracelet with minimal time-keeping capability. It's other "feature" is the ability to suck $60-$80 from your wallet depending on where/who you get it from while STILL *not* enabling you to see what time it is on your watch.
 ruggedOct 07, 2009
By Timothy Eagan
Rugged iiking nwtch, but difficult to see hands and especialy the digital clock, No light, Disappointed as I was hopeing to be able to wear this watch without wearing my glasses. However, rugged looking and stylish. Definitely a casual watch. Very rugged looking.
perfect male looking watchAug 14, 2009
By S. Hullur
I was little biased and not happy with the product, when I saw the picture, but believe its truly a male watch !! this rocks
See all 7 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|
