This may seem a naive question,but I am fairly new to watches and I was wondering is the big increase in watch sizes over the years mainly down to fashion or is there technological reasons behind it.I have got 8 inch wrists and can handle a large watch but prefer around 40/42 mm.My neighbour is a small slim guy probably got a 6 inch wrist but wears a huge fashion monstrosity at least 52 mm.
Just fashion I think.
Many larger watches have small movements inside and big spacers. Also, big watches with complications often have the complications noticeably scrunched into the centre of the dial where the movement is.
It seems to me that fashions go in cycles. With phones, they got smaller and smaller for years. Now the need for screen space is driving them to be slightly larger with each iteration.
The only technological influence I can think of is the tech associated with mobile phones and computers which means that wearing a watch is no longer necessary for most to keep track of time during the course of a day. Having lost some of the functional aspect its become more of a fashion item and bigger is more noticeable.
It's purely a fashion thing. Although not necessarily taste. 36mm is still about the right size IMO!
N
Here we go...
What's up?Originally Posted by Umbongo
Technological reasons in as much as some divers are made bigger & thicker to obtain ridiculous depth ratings which no one really needs. In saying that I love how the larger divers look & I probably wouldn't wear anything under 43mm. Realistically the depth rating means nothing to me as I don't dive (although I can appreciate the engineering involved) & I would still wear them for the aesthetics even if they only had a depth rating of 50m.
Last edited by roondog; 29th January 2015 at 23:54.
Fashion .... daft!
As in "whats wrong?" ? Nothing.
But its very likely that this will go where its gone the last ten or fifteen times.
My opinion on this subject is no secret - wear what your wrist allows - but it wont be long before somebody wades in either aggressively or defensively...
Usually both...
^^^ Ok, I see.
My neighbour is a small slim guy probably got a 6 inch wrist but wears a huge fashion monstrosity at least 52 mm.[/QUOTE]
Guys who wear huge monstrosity are trying to make up for the small things.
ismaaeel
Last edited by speedish; 30th January 2015 at 00:23.
+1.....for once I`m saying f***all on this topic, it's been done to death many times!
Paul
Paul
I can see your point but as a new poster at one time these questions were new to me as well. If you bring an older thread up and reply to it the forum police will usually attack with a heavy hand. So damned either way.
John
39-42 is my sweet spot though depends on the watch. Some wear bigger than they actually are and vice versa
Im guessing that all Paul's doing is to register his lack of intention to join the debate this time. Nobody's suggesting that newcomers cant express an opinion - probably better for the forum though, that the rest of us refrain from posting identical-opinion-to-last-time #237... not that we will... ;)
Case size is relative to personal taste. It also comes down to wrist size, L2L of the case in relation to the width of the wrist...I wear 40-44mm watches primarily.
Personally I'd say each to their own, wear what you like. I think that the extremes (as they are seen at this moment in time) of under 35mm or over 50mm either make you look like you're wearing your nana's watch or a clown watch but who am I to judge either?
I do feel that age can effect it as well. With an older gentleman I'm almost expecting them to wear a smaller watch in much the same way they'd be more likely to be wearing shoes than huarache's. The opposite would suit a young, fashion forward sort of guy.
I didn't recognise this as a general watch size debate thread. Might help if responders focused on the only question that was asked (re technology).
Fashion
I have an 8 inch wrist and most of my watches are 40mm or less, but for the last few weeks I have been wearing my sterile Radiomir homage and have found myself feeling that this is a real 'man's watch' (or should I say a homage to a 'man's watch').
For once,I agree with you.
Agree it's all down to personal taste at the end of the day. Wear what you want, and why shouldn't you.
I agree things like this seem to be cyclical, smaller one year, larger the next to seemingly tie in with fashion, albeit I accept that some things are made bigger to deal with the task they are designed for like the DSSD.
Actually, you could say it's both fashion and technology, as fashion has provoked the likes of IWC and Omega to make large movements that require a big case, so now they're kind of stuck with it. But it's also fair to say it's not merely fashion - people are a lot taller than they used to be, and probably even more so in Switzerland and Germany.
Omega's movements aren't that large, it's fashion that dictates the size for their watches. Display backs cause the thickness.
I don't know for sure about IWC, but I suspect the same.
Have a look at the coaxial 9300 moment - the subdials are placed very wide and as a result the watches kind of have to be 44mm+, even 45.5mm for the PO 600m co-axial chrono.
Equally IWCs 52000 family are large movements requiring a large case - though the Portuguese was always a large watch, they were built to match them. But with a few complications they also push the case up to 44mm.
Other Omega or IWC movements may not be that large, but here they are definitely forced to make large watches if they want to get some payback for the huge investment of creating these oversized movements. We know that the same job can be done by something much smaller and thinner, and was done in the 60s. But now they've specially made large movements that will look good through the display back of a large case, so they can't just decide to make the watches smaller again without using something else.
Rolex's 4030 is 13 ligne and Omega's 9300 is 14 ligne - that's only a 2.3mm difference, so in theory Omega could put it in a 42mm case.
I agree. I've a few smaller, but don't wear them often, same with the few larger I have.
As you say, though, some watches look big for their size and vice-versa.
If you like it, wear it, I say... It is mostly fashion though...
Does it matter what the cognoscenti think? We'll be back to what whether you can wear a diver with a suit next...
M.
You can see why they don't though - look at the subdials. If they made it much smaller the dial would start to seem out of proportion. It's been designed with a 44mm+ case in mind as far as I can see.
And that's one of the smaller models, it looks more in proportion at 44.5mm.
Of course they do have smaller movements, the AT midsize is modestly sized, but I hope you can see what I mean - with some of their movements (and IWC's too) they are locked in to a fairly hefty watch.
Of course you can.We'll be back to what whether you can wear a diver with a suit next...
And flip flops with a dinner jacket really maketh the man as well...
Fashion changes each season. Trends last longer. Watch size is a trend, not a fashion.
For years I spent hours finding the right watches that were large enough, now I spend time finding watches that are small enough - but my taste in watch size has not changed much at all.
Gray
According to another Forum I frequent, that's the sure sign of a PADI Dive Master!
M.
Yeah, I guess the distance between "the centre of the time hands and the centre of subdial hands" is restrictive. I hadn't appreciated that and it explains why I think the 9300 Speedy looks odd!
I agree, it's very wide eyed! It's an issue for me as they've gone and designed a whole range of watches I can't wear, from the movement up... :-(
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
