I was trying to determine the optimum size for a new W10 today. I took a photograph of the watch and sized it to 200 pixels wide, I then added 8.57% to the size of the picture to scale it to 38mm and then added 14.28% to the size of the original to scale it to 40mm. The three pictures were then stitched together to get an idea of size. Obviously these are not life-size but you can get an idea.
The lug tip to lug tip measurement on the original 35mm watch is 46mm and on a 40mm watch it would be 52mm if all proportions were maintained.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Well, I'm a fan of smaller watches (and would prefer a reissue of the original) so given a free choice I'd go with the order they are in your pic, overjoyed with the 35mm (or 36mm) with 18mm lugs, happy with the 38mm again with 18mm lugs, but would probably not go with the 40mm, though I've no doubt that I'm in the minority.
Well done, Eddie. Looks really good. :love4:
Edit: Wouldn't change a thing, but please can we have a nice chunky crown (love 'em)?
If only one size would be available - 38mm would be my choice.
Looks great,
M
For me the sweet spot is right around 38mm but I expect 40mm would be the general preference. I actually wouldn't mind 40mm if it weren't for the lug length in this case. When scaling the dimensions to that size the lugs just look too long (almost delicate) to me and the gap between the bar and the case too wide. The proportion of lug length to case size isn't the best balance IMO but at the smaller case size I think you get away with it. It actually may be functionally correct at that size so that you can easily feed the strap through it. It just doesn't seem to scale well to the larger case size. I really like the concept though.
Rick
Can you do a 44mm version?
Joking ;)
40mm looks nice, I find it strange wearing much less than that these days but have managed to get over the 44mm craze :)
The Quad 10 in my collection is 40mm and it wears pretty well imho. I actually think it depends on the dial size ;-)
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
38 mm please
38mm works for me
I think 38mm is the appropriate size for this style of watch. I recently sold mine... :(
Here's a Smiths just above a PRS!
38mm preserves the proportions of the original, 40mm begins to lose them.
Too much acreage of black dial space and you lose the cohesiveness of the design, as I believe is demonstrated by the Quad 10.
I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 38mm, but would have reservations about the 40mm.
+1Originally Posted by SplitSecond
35 or 38 mm IMO and keep it as thin as is sensible.
40mm is just a bit too big i think.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
38mm for me too
38mm would be for me but can someone explain how different this would be to my PRS-53?
I know I am in the minority here but I think the 40mm would be the best for me but I could live with the 38mm at a push.
35!
because the dial = almost all watch, it would be absolutely enough, watch would look like bigger than it would be
very similar PRS-53, because of its "long ears", is IMO too big with its 37mm, the same could be with smith.
Smith 35mm would be perfect
40 would be far too many
It's difficult to keep the proportions, which is very important for the overall appearance. The original lug spacing was 17mm which gives 18.45mm at 38mm and 19.42mm at 40mm. I'd prefer to go to 20mm but I'm not sure what this would do to the 38mm.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
39mm would get you 19mm lugs, which (I think) would work with 20mm Natos. These are fixed lugs right? so the options are open ended (which can be found in 19mm) or Natos. Maybe you could even source and offer an open ended 19mm pilots style. :?:
Eddie - Absolutely agree that proportions are crucial, but who's going to notice 0.225mm on each side of 18mm lugs with a 38mm case? 19mm restricts choice of straps and 20mm would definitely be too wide.
superwis, thats who :lol:
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
This one is 39mm with 20mm lugs - Oris says it's a 40mm case but the calipers say 39.4. Thin, too, at 11mm (3-4mm of which is the acrylic):
There is also a 36mm version with 18mm lugs; on that basis, 39mm suggests 19mm lugs but both the PRS-5 and PRS-10 have lugs slightly further apart than usual for convenience.
The watch doesn't have to be an exact number of mms across. How about 38.5mm? 38mm fans can call it 38, 40mm fans can call it 39 :).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Fixed bars restrict your choice of straps anyway. So, if Eddie sourced straps for a specific size, (as long as it was close to a nato size) then he could make them any size. No?Eddie - Absolutely agree that proportions are crucial, but who's going to notice 0.225mm on each side of 18mm lugs with a 38mm case? 19mm restricts choice of straps and 20mm would definitely be too wide.
Personally, I think 18mm would just look too narrow on this watch. The 39/38.5 w/ 20mm lugs would be fine with me. Eddie's concern with proportion is important, but getting it exact isn't. As close as possible, but wearable should do the trick.
I'd guess that the 38 mm will be the most popular of the three, but that could be influenced by the fact that it's the middle one in the picture i.e. one is "too small" and the other "too large". If there were more pictures of different sizes and not in order then perhaps the choice would be more down to true preference?
My two pennies worth - go against the modern flow, and remain true to the original. 35mm
(Though I suspect you've already made your own mind up Eddie.)
I think 38-39mm with 20mm lugs would be the best compromise. Which is where we ended up with the Speedbird 111 wasn't it? The lug-to-lug may have to be reduced a little over the 'classic' case proportions I suspect.
35mm is smaller than the PRS6 isn't it? That was a lovely watch, but I did find it too small for my 7 3/4" wrist. I have worn the 40mm Oris and the Quad 10. The Quad wears bigger than the Oris in my opinion, but both are a bit too large for their style, if you see what I mean.
20mm lugs is a must in my book. 18mm is just too narrow and going half way with 19mm is plain irritating, like the CWC chronographs - nothing quite fits.
Not more than 38mm. 52mm lug to lug in the 40mm version is simply to much.
I'd favour 38mm, but if you go larger then I would still buy one. However with the larger sizes, I'd be more tempted to go with larger hands, i.e. like the tapered hands on the '53 and like the hands that were put on this W10 long ago (ignore the seconds):
Of course, but why go through all that malarkey?
Personally, I think 18mm is the perfect size for this watch. To maintain proportions for an 18mm strap gives a case size of 37.06mm, same as the '53. 20mm lugs would mean a case size of 41.18mm.
So, I vote for either maintaining the original size and offer a genuine re-issue - or same size case as the '53. :D
The Speedbird PRS-1 is 37.5mm with 18mm lugs, which many thought were too narrow.Of course, but why go through all that malarkey?
Personally, I think 18mm is the perfect size for this watch. To maintain proportions for an 18mm strap gives a case size of 37.06mm, same as the '53. 20mm lugs would mean a case size of 41.18mm.
So, I vote for either maintaining the original size and offer a genuine re-issue - or same size case as the '53. :D
I've added a 39mm version to the lineup and at a screen resolution of 1680 x 1050, the watches are displayed actual size.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
I think your policy of modernising and improving on the original watches whilst still retaining the look, lines and overall feel of the original, is the key here. I don't think the diameter of the watch is the issue, on the practical side, the only real choice you have for lug size is 18 or 20. You then need to scale up or down the case diameter to retain the look and lines of the original. It depends whether you are trying to homage the original or make a modern day version. If you tell us your thoughts on this we can help more?
Dave.
37.5mm seems to be the best size for keeping proportion and having a common sized lug width (18mm).
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
That sounds perfect. Look forward to hearing more.
So basically a PRS3 with different text. :|
Since you own the brand now, this is a reissue, not an homage. AND, for those who want the original size, the originals can still be had (there was one on WUS last month for $545 USD).
The old PRS-3 is 39mm with 20mm lugs and a very different case shape with a bezel. Apart from these minor differences yes, I suppose you could say it's almost identical. :wink:So basically a PRS3 with different text. :|
Since you own the brand now, this is a reissue, not an homage. AND, for those who want the original size, the originals can still be had (there was one on WUS last month for $545 USD).
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
For me 40 mm is OK !
Ciao
Engi
At 37/38mm similar to the PRS53, a lower profile - closer to the Smiths - would be nice. I like my PRS53 a lot, but it does stand rather proud under a shirt cuff. Here's a comparison between the two.
If you say so, Eddie, and it's your call, of course. I don't own an original, but if it's 35/17 then to maintain proportions for 18mm is 37.06 as posted above.
Win or lose, I'm gonna keep bashing away here... :D
The old PRS-3 is 39mm with 20mm lugs and a very different case shape with a bezel. Apart from these minor differences yes, I suppose you could say it's almost identical. :wink:So basically a PRS3 with different text. :|
Since you own the brand now, this is a reissue, not an homage. AND, for those who want the original size, the originals can still be had (there was one on WUS last month for $545 USD).
Eddie
Errrr... it appears I'm a bit short, can anyone spot me a 5'er? :lol:
Lovely. I don't have a monitor resolution anything like that, but I'm still slightly surprised that the 39 and 40mm should look so different (it's only a 2.5% increase side-to-side, or 5% by area).I've added a 39mm version to the lineup and at a screen resolution of 1680 x 1050, the watches are displayed actual size.
Either 39 or 40mm would be an attractive option - makes a great alternative to that Oris BC, which is now no longer available with an acrylic crystal, as it goes. And a great name, too. I often drive past the location of the old Smiths factory in Cricklewood and reminisce, even if I never worked there.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
The 40mm does look a touch too large, not to mention that the lug-to-lug would be too long for me. I certainly find that lug-to-lug length is a bigger problem for wearability than case diameter, personally.
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
Personally, I really can't get on with 18mm straps; they just look too thin (tapered straps especially). 20mm straps never quite worked in the 19mm lugs of my old PRS-5, so if I was desinging this watch, I'd start with 20mm lugs and work from there.
If it's possible to make this in 39mm / 20mm with sensible lug/lug dimension, then that would be the one for me.
Now, where's the date window going? :wink:
Is it mandatory to scale the lug-to-lug length with the rest of the case? Or can it be "shortened" a mm or two? One reason that the lugs and spring bars are located where they are on the 35mm original is to allow a strap of certain thickness to fit without fouling the case. So can't the gap between the case edge and springbar of both 35 and 39mm versions remain similar?
Sounds like 39mm is the upper end of desirability. The PRS-53 is already 37mm, and the Speedbird's 39mm size is very popular. And it would allow the use of 20mm lugs without distorting the aesthetics. And if the thinking is that the original 35mm is too small for many tastes, then why not grow it by 4mm, not 2mm?
Longines used to do two Heritage Conquests, one 35mm, the other 40mm. The 35mm has now been deleted, leaving the much more expensive 40mm version to help Longines up the price chain:
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Of course I could always do them in 36mm with 18mm lugs and 39/40mm with 20mm lugs, it just means two lots of tooling costs.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Well, I'd willingly pay the increased costs for a 36mm/18mm if it means the difference between 'F*** me, that's stunning!' and 'Great job, Eddie' but wishing it were smaller...
If you stick to the smaller size, will this be in effect a replacement for the PRS-53? Or if not, do you see a 36mm Smiths and the current 37mm PRS-53 happily co-existing? Only there is a fair degree of overlap.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
The PRS-53 is finished, all the cases have been used.If you stick to the smaller size, will this be in effect a replacement for the PRS-53? Or if not, do you see a 36mm Smiths and the current 37mm PRS-53 happily co-existing? Only there is a fair degree of overlap.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
oh boy, I'd love a 35mm!
yesterday I polished my dad's rolex acrylic crystal and measured the watch.
it was a 32mm and my dad ain't small.
though he probably was smaller 30 years ago when he bought it.
anyway, small is beautiful!
I've been bouncing these ideas around [what passes for] my brain for a while and I have no idea where I am on this one.
* I am not a vintage military watch aficionado but nonetheless a Smiths re-issue does appeal to me.
* I have a PRS53 (love it) and I will not likely buy a watch that is very similar.
* Were Smiths W10's and regimental NATO's concurrent? If so, 18mm lugs would be preferable to match the available supply of regimental NATOs and satisfy the "realism" market.
* What would Smiths have been making if they had access to more modern techniques and materials, if not modern technology? Would it have been bigger? (and access to the £millions given to DeLorean, if you believe the stories http://www.broadarrow.net/smiths.htm)
* As this has no bezel anything more than 38mm may not look 'right' on my 170mm wrists.
I'll keep thinking but I'm not sure it'll do anyone any good.
What's the engine on this one?......I'd be partial to a quartz and 40mm. Thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
