What are the signs of bigger watches "going out of style"?

Yeah the age old big vs. small debate. Flame on.

What do you think it's the main reason that small watches have gone out of style? Rolex two-tone 36mm DateJust was probably their best seller for decades. Now they're dirt cheap in the preowned market (if you can ever call Rolex "cheap"). That styling doesn't "speak" to our generation.

Look at the vintage Seamasters. If it's a small dress watch it costs a few hundred pounds/Euros... but if it's one of those bulkier ones, you can add one digit more to the asking price. Look at Air-King and Precision prices. They're the cheapest pre-owned Rolexes you can buy. Vintage ExpI's are the exception to the rule (for whatever reason). All 40mm 5-digits are increasing rapidly... except for 16570... because it wears much smaller than the others (that's my guess).

Gold is out of fashion too and it has been like that since the early 2000's. I appreciate gold watches and love them... but I feel uncomfortable wearing them, especially with casual clothing.

Are the small watches unwearable because a lot of men these days go to the gym and generally have thicker wrists than men of yesterday?

Let's take the old Zenith Flyback Rainbow for example. The old model is gorgeous but a bit too small for me... but the new one is just plain overboard (imho). I'm a 6'3 man with thick wrists but I'd never consider wearing that one.

Since 2005 everybody has said that the bigger watch trend is going out of style. Is it really? What are the signs of that? Even manufacturers like Zenith make XXL watches now.

https://storage.googleapis.com/pubza...ge.3930673.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPE

Gold is out of fashion too and it has been like that since the early 2000's.

---

Have you looked at a display of fashion watches in the last five years? Gold all over the place.

Interesting post. I don’t think that big watches are going out of style, more the manufacturers are recognising that everyone is different, and some prefer larger and some smaller. Perhaps initially watches got bigger and left a gap with fewer smaller watches available (I have no evidence of this). I think now they are making large and small to cater for mutiple tastes and where we are seeing downsizing, it is as much about getting the proportions right as going smaller again.

Today I put on a watch that I bought new in 2003 and it felt tiny - not something I would wear today, and took it off again quickly. Most of my collection is 42mm or larger with a few exceptions, and I am very happy with that.

Some people said that "Rolex had to do what they had to do" when the 6-digit came out. They didn't increase the size but they made the cases more "Breitlingsque".

I think it was a mistake as they ruined the classic, beautiful lines. To me it was like Porsche going from 993 to 996 and those "Boxter" headlamps.

I only like the new "Polar" Explorer II which was the only model (to me) that really needed a small size increase.

Yeah I love the 4- and 5-digits. And a lot of WIS do. But we're definitely in the minority. I have a feeling increasing the lug size hasn't affected Rolex sales at all (considering the constant shortage). Au contrary I think it was a huge commercial success.

I'm sure Daytona is next one to receive larger case.

Is Omega selling many two-tone men's Constellations? I don't think so. But they did back in the eighties and nineties.

Or is it just that the _styling_ is outdated on both DJ and Connie? Maybe it's not the size... maybe they just look too "eighties"?

Watches are getting smaller and golder.

Ryan Thingy. Even GQ, which isn’t exactly fashion forward, has written up the trend https://www.gq.com/gallery/best-smal...hes-under-38mm.

Don’t agree sorry. 36mm Datejust is IMO perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foxyadam

Don’t agree sorry. 36mm Datejust is IMO perfect.

---

I think it's very nice too. But my point was that the _market_ doesn't think so (if the asking prices are any kind of indicator).

PS: This is absolutely beautiful. One of my friend's DJ. Smooth bezel and Oyster bracelet doesn't really make it the most traditional DJ but it sure looks great.

https://i.imgur.com/HDfon3z.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPE

I think it's very nice too. But my point was that the _market_ doesn't think so (if the asking prices are any kind of indicator).

PS: This is absolutely beautiful. One of my friend's DJ. Smooth bezel and Oyster bracelet doesn't really make it the most traditional DJ but it sure looks great.

https://i.imgur.com/HDfon3z.jpg

---

That looks beautiful

I would say that smaller watches are becoming more popular in my opinion especially amongst 18-35 year olds. I often see bi-metal and steel dj’s or vintage pieces from omega and longines on the wrists of Millennials. Might just be because of accessibility or the likes of GQ, Hodinkee and Theo&Harris singing the praises of smaller, slimmer watches. Just my opinion and observation of course!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foxyadam

That looks beautiful

---

That looks 'tiny'!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foxyadam

That looks beautiful

---

No, it is too small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nealywheelie

That looks 'tiny'!

---

You're talking about his watch right?

Actually 36mm DJ hits the spot for me

Yes, the watch in question. It's lovely, but at 36mm, tiny, IMHO.


Sent from my Lenovo A1010a20 using Tapatalk

The latest IWC spitfire pilot editions have pulled back by about 1mm.

I have only one watch over 40mm (Speedy) and as I get older and my taste matures I find myself avoiding larger watches and I believe 38mm is the perfect size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nealywheelie

That looks 'tiny'!

---

Agreed, looks like a ladies watch.

I think it all depends on the watch. I wouldn't wear an oversized Breitling or a 45.5mm Planet Ocean

However, my JLC is really easy at 46.3mm and being Titanium, extremely comfortable too.

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t...ist%20Shot.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPE

https://storage.googleapis.com/pubza...ge.3930673.jpg

---

The difference in size between those two is staggering! Never thought they’d be so far apart. Makes me like the older model even more!
And it’s interesting to note from the sub dials placement that the movement remains the same size, or similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by estoban7

Agreed, looks like a ladies watch.

---

Don’t be silly.


If you’re slim, with 6.75” wrists like me, a 36mm watch is a good size.......and I’m not a bloody lady!!

What’s really daft is the fashion for wearing big watches when you’ve got skinny wrists, a 42 mm watch looks daft on me, but I’m old and wise enough to accept that.

Humans don’t come in one shape and size...........so why whould watches be targetted at those with fatter wrists? The answer us simple.......Fashion! Folks are brainwashed into thinking they have to wear a certain size of watch even if something smaller would suit them better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walkerwek1958

Don’t be silly.


If you’re slim, with 6.75” wrists like me, a 36mm watch is a good size.......and I’m not a bloody lady!!

What’s really daft is the fashion for wearing big watches when you’ve got skinny wrists, a 42 mm watch looks daft on me, but I’m old and wise enough to accept that.

Humans don’t come in one shape and size...........so why whould watches be targetted at those with fatter wrists? The answer us simple.......Fashion! Folks are brainwashed into thinking they have to wear a certain size of watch even if something smaller would suit them better.

---

I was talking about the watch in the photo. I have no idea about your wrist size, Madam.

It depends on the watch, i have big wrists, slightly over 8 inches, and wear watches from 32mm (vintage) to 44mm. anything bigger feels ridiculous. dress watches look better under 40mm and thinnish in my opinion and i prefer my older version explorer ii which is 39mm. the main problem i have is getting the right kind of strap for vintage or dress watches in a decent length!
35mm:
https://i.imgur.com/OlbV7yq.jpg
32mm:
https://i.imgur.com/fAW38av.jpg
42mm:
https://i.imgur.com/Nl5SySS.jpg
38mm:
https://i.imgur.com/sO8f31p.jpg

36mm is perhaps suitable to those with the wrists of a skinny teenager, it looks wrong to me otherwise.

So many things play into how a watch wears, and looks, that case size becomes a poor benchmark on its own. A lugless titanium case like that on the Seiko 1000m Tuna wears incredibly well but has a diameter of 48mm.

Personally, I hope that fashion dictates watch size less over time and that there are the full range of options available.

http://www.wellnet.com.au/pics/Seiko...-01-09%203.jpg

There were some really garishly large watches a decade or so ago and these seem to be fizzling out, I think it's just a return to a normal / reasonable size.

A lot is down to personal preference, for me, regardless of "trend", anything between 38-42 is just about right depending on how it sits / wears / feels / looks.

On a slightly different note, for me gold just doesn't work colour wise, but strangley brass / bronze does. Nor does PVD. Its got to be stainless (or brass / bronze).

40mm is the perfect size and always will be .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tipster

40mm is the perfect size and always will be .

---

Depends on the bezel and case shape.

Explorer II 16570 is 40mm in theory but it wears MUCH smaller than SUB/GMT/SD because of the smooth bezel.

Daytona is 40mm and as much as I respect the watch it wears very small. Those long pushers even increase the effect.

But I agree that traditional Sub/GMT/SD 40mm is perfect size. But 40mm is a small diameter for a chronograph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bedlam

36mm is perhaps suitable to those with the wrists of a skinny teenager, it looks wrong to me otherwise.

So many things play into how a watch wears, and looks, that case size becomes a poor benchmark on its own. A lugless titanium case like that on the Seiko 1000m Tuna wears incredibly well but has a diameter of 48mm.

Personally, I hope that fashion dictates watch size less over time and that there are the full range of options available.

http://www.wellnet.com.au/pics/Seiko...-01-09%203.jpg

---

I’m 6ft 2” and 18stone m, so a long way from a skinny teenager, as much as I wish I was. This is a 36mm DJ and I think looks perfect?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...329c07cad5.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree, it looks perfect. It's not about the diameter, but the overall fit and proportions of the watch. As mentioned above re the Tuna, lug length make a bug difference, as does the purpose of the watch. Watch faces don't need to fill your whole wrist up, especially not more formal ones.

I see case sizes are definitely shrinking back to wearable 38-40mm.

Discussions about what is large or small watch reminds me late 90's, early 2000's when anything above 38mm was qualified as oversized, even Speedmaster. Now Speedmaster is largely regarded as small sized chronograph :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Normunds

I see case sizes are definitely shrinking back to wearable 38-40mm.

Discussions about what is large or small watch reminds me late 90's, early 2000's when anything above 38mm was qualified as oversized, even Speedmaster. Now Speedmaster is largely regarded as small sized chronograph :)

---

I think that it’s impossible to talk in absolutes re case size. I have an 18cm or 7 1/8” wrist and the Moonwatch looks ridiculous on me due to the L2L being too long for the shape of my wrist.

Generally speaking, for me L2L is a more important measurement than case size.



Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mindforge

Agree, it looks perfect. It's not about the diameter, but the overall fit and proportions of the watch. As mentioned above re the Tuna, lug length make a bug difference, as does the purpose of the watch. Watch faces don't need to fill your whole wrist up, especially not more formal ones.

---

Yes, that does look perfect. I'm sure many men who buy big watches are under the mistaken belief that it looks 'manlier' but the opposite is more often true. Bigger watches tend to make small wrists look smaller whereas a smaller watch can help a small wrist appear bigger.

A watch's lug to lug is more important than its diameter and a wrist's width is more important than its circumference. Going one step further, wrist type is also important: I have a 6 3/4 in wrist but it's also 'slim' in the sense that it's pretty much skin and bone. As a result, thick watches just don't look good on it. Fleshier wrists can take thicker watches, as can hairier ones, as they both give the illusion of greater depth.

Lug to lug dimension certainly has an influence, some of the 34 mm vintage watches are surprisingly ‘long’.

It’s ironic that people try to squeeze into clothes that are too small when they put weight on, yet the opposite seems to apply with watches.

Imagine a situation where slim sizes of jeans were seen as unfashionable; despite the fact that 32” waist fits nicely the new ‘look’ would be 36” waist jeans with a big belt wrapped around to hold them up.....thin folks would walk around looking like clowns whilst the the larger people would say everything’s fine!

Whilst window shopping yesterday came across an oris prodiver, at a mere 51mm. It was quite thick too.
I can't see how that would work in a day to day situation.
Sizes need to vary as everyone is different but at what point is it too much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPE

Depends on the bezel and case shape.

Explorer II 16570 is 40mm in theory but it wears MUCH smaller than SUB/GMT/SD because of the smooth bezel.

Daytona is 40mm and as much as I respect the watch it wears very small. Those long pushers even increase the effect.

But I agree that traditional Sub/GMT/SD 40mm is perfect size. But 40mm is a small diameter for a chronograph.

---

To me how a watch “wears” is a combination of case and dial size, lug to lug, proportions of lugs in relation to the case, thickness and in some instances the colour of the dial. The case size alone is a poor proxy for how a watch will likely wear.

My take is that the 16570 does not wear smaller than a comparable Submariner/GMT. It would even say that the white dial on the Polar 16570 makes it look larger than the other two.

I think that I have previously read that a Daytona isn’t actually a 40mm case, but fractionally under 39mm. The lug to lug is also less than Exp2/Sub/GMT. No surprise that it is generally regarded as wearing smaller.

We seem to tread this ground repeatedly, but the truth seems to be that it's not as simple as Xmm is the perfect size.

Watches with bezels look smaller on the wrist than those without and, obviously, a big watch on a small wrist is very much a case of preference, some do end up looking like comedy watches, but some like that style.

Watches with long lugs look bigger than those with shorter lugs, too.

Personally, as I get older, I value a nice clear dial and a bigger one is easier to read, but that can't account for the general swing to bigger watches.

Maybe a part of it is that, to many, even wearing a watch is a 'statement', so people want the watch they wear to be more prominent?

M

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I have big wrists and can get away with big watches, my collection consists of mainly 42mm watches with a few outliers up to 48 and down to 36. I'm really hopeful that manufacturers realize that one size fits all doesn;t really work and provide different sizes of the same or similar design. Brietling, Tudor and others seem to realize this and I applaud and support them with my custom.
Sometimes though a watch has to be big or small due to use or tradition, a fleiger has to be big and easily readable with a glance or it's not fit for purpose, similarly a 46mm Rolex Datejust would be a travesty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lughugger

Generally speaking, for me L2L is a more important measurement than case size.

Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

---

Tend to agree.

A good fit (I think) depends on:

• wrist profile - the measures wrist width. Mine is a fairly flat wrist
• watch lug-lug across watch - if that exceeds the wrist width - too large
• Lug shape - some are carefully designed to curve down - some are straight and tend to stick out
• Weight / depth of case - if a heavy watch combined with thickness this can make the watch uncomfortable
• bezel / watch face size - watches with little or no bezel appear much larger than one with a large bezel (I always think the Zenith Portuguese look so much larger than say a Flyback for same diameter)
• an adjustable bracelet!

The diameter of a watch does not always give a great indicator of fit. There are many factors.

Back to the original thoughts. There does seem to be a general move to offer different sizes I guess more aligned to the Chinese markets. Breitling’s new offerings come in a range of sizes instead of ‘huge’. OMEGA offer ranges, even Rolex has sizes. So it is up to the customer to choose what they want / like. Interestingly Patek has been ‘upsizing ‘ with the latest Aquanaut version - but maybe their R&D cycles are quite long. In any case they still offer 39mm Calatrava as standard case sizes.

Materials? Contrary to our bubble view - gold still sells. The higher end are in precious metals, gold platinum etc. (Above the mass produced Rolex, LVMH, Swatch productions). Can’t see that changing.


That’s what I think anyway.

Martyn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowman

We seem to tread this ground repeatedly

---

Yes. We've also seen Rolex Submariners and Omega Speedmaster repeatedly but we never get tired of them.

My idea was to discuss WHY the small watches went out of style... and _why_ they were desirable in the old days but not anymore.

I think the main reason is that most men go to the gym now and they are a lot more muscled than in the old days. Wrists are bigger, men are bigger (and sometimes fatter too haha).

You're not going to increase your wrist size by going to the gym. You might marginally increase forearm size which might help the wrist appear larger, or even more slender by comparison! Of course your wrist will swell if you get fatter....

Going to the gym has very marginal effects on wrist size, unlike excess body fat which definitely has an effect.

On average, humans are probably becoming slightly bigger in developed countries, but this is insignificant over the timeframe we’re considering.

That leaves us with the most likely reason, which is fashion, coupled with a perception that wearing a big watch is ‘manly’. The two are interlinked.

What’s interesting is the way Rolex resisted this trend until fairly recently (circa 2010), but they swayed with the wind eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPE

Yes. We've also seen Rolex Submariners and Omega Speedmaster repeatedly but we never get tired of them.

---

Speak for yourself, but that wasn't the point I was making... :winkskull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPE

My idea was to discuss WHY the small watches went out of style... and _why_ they were desirable in the old days but not anymore.

I think the main reason is that most men go to the gym now and they are a lot more muscled than in the old days. Wrists are bigger, men are bigger (and sometimes fatter too haha).

---

Indeed - I think I addressed that.

I don't think it's to do with wrists growing enormously due to gym use.

In fact, as Walkerwek says, I don't think going to the gym has any significant effect on wrist size at all (poor diet might!)

It's mostly just fashion and maybe, as I mentioned, that because wearing a watch is no longer a functional thing, but a 'statement' of sorts, so people want the watch more visible.

M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mindforge

You're not going to increase your wrist size by going to the gym. You might marginally increase forearm size which might help the wrist appear larger, or even more slender by comparison! Of course your wrist will swell if you get fatter....

---

The extra weight doesn't have to be fat. If your body mass increases the wrist size increases too. Bodybuilders have huge wrists with 8% bodyfat. Of course they're using steroids, growth hormone and all that... but the forearm growth "spills over" to the wrist area too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPE

My idea was to discuss WHY the small watches went out of style... and _why_ they were desirable in the old days but not anymore.

---

They didn’t. I bought a 36mm watch last week!


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

What’s happening I think is that brands have gradually realised that 42mm and above watches actually don’t fit all of their customers. They fit many of them, perhaps most of them, but there’s a significant minority who simply need smaller sizes, regardless of fashion. There are also more than a few who don’t feel comfortable with, ‘look at my big blingy watch’ as a fashion statement, or simply prefer vintage. Brands are gradually catching up with this, and offering a range of sizes, or gently slightly slimming down watches that overshot the mark. But it’s tricky to get it right as you can’t simply redevelop all the movements to fit new sizes.

The majority of men are of average-sized wrist themselves but also personally oblivious as to how silly they look sporting watches that are too large for them - either too large for their wrist, or just too large to remain in keeping with the general style they're going for.

36-38mm can work fine for the majority in reality, and often looks more elegant and in-proportion, depending upon wearing circumstances. If you cultivate a smart attire, suit etc., but have an over-sized dive watch dangling out of your cuff, then you just look like an off-duty boxer, footballer or 'Made In Chelsea' cast member who's trying too hard to show off a status symbol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walkerwek1958

What’s interesting is the way Rolex resisted this trend until fairly recently (circa 2010), but they swayed with the wind eventually.

---

But, they've cleverly strangled supply so that they don't have loads of huge pieces kicking around window displays. Just the odd DSSD now and then...

Going to the gym will potentially make your wrist size smaller. You are more likely to lose fat than significantly increase your muscle density in this area. [emoji6]

If you want bigger wrists my advice is: Don't lift weights, eat more doughnuts instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer

The majority of men are of average-sized wrist themselves but also personally oblivious as to how silly they look sporting watches that are too large for them - either too large for their wrist, or just too large to remain in keeping with the general style they're going for.

36-38mm can work fine for the majority in reality, and often looks more elegant and in-proportion, depending upon wearing circumstances. If you cultivate a smart attire, suit etc., but have an over-sized dive watch dangling out of your cuff, then you just look like an off-duty boxer, footballer or 'Made In Chelsea' cast member who's trying too hard to show off a status symbol.

---

WHAT????!! Are you suggesting that Breitling Super Avenger isn't for everyone?

That's pure hate speech, plain and simple. :D

https://i.imgur.com/jDo3Kc4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowman

Speak for yourself, but that wasn't the point I was making... :winkskull:



Indeed - I think I addressed that.

I don't think it's to do with wrists growing enormously due to gym use.

In fact, as Walkerwek says, I don't think going to the gym has any significant effect on wrist size at all (poor diet might!)

It's mostly just fashion and maybe, as I mentioned, that because wearing a watch is no longer a functional thing, but a 'statement' of sorts, so people want the watch more visible.

M

---

I suspect your final point is on the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derivative

The difference in size between those two is staggering! Never thought they’d be so far apart. Makes me like the older model even more!
And it’s interesting to note from the sub dials placement that the movement remains the same size, or similar.

---

It would have been perfect if they had just increased the size to 42mm and kept everything from the old styling intact.

At 39mm it was a little too small.

Yes the new model is just stupid looking and grossly oversized.

OP, if the idea was to discuss ‘why small watches went out of fashion’, they clearly haven’t entirely and fashion is heading away from oversized watches. But there were a few factors that fuelled a trend towards larger sizes. Firstly, in the past small watches were fashionable because they were a sign of watchmaking accomplishment, miniaturising what used to need pocket watch sizes. The same was true of ultra-thin movements, they were exclusive, expensive, and highly regarded. This meant watches were perhaps smaller than they needed to be at the time, and many of the mechanical movements that are still relied on today were designed at this point.

But after the war, better diets and vitamins meant increasingly bigger people, certainly in Central Europe where most of the watches were made. This meant some natural increase in size was sensible. Then in the 60s body builder Sean Connery's diving watch created a trend towards manly tool watches. The decadent, let it all hang out 70s followed as Genta's integrated bracelets and chunky bezels created a trend for outsized (for their time) luxury sports watches - though their thinness still suggested refinement.

Following that there was the emergence of new global markets to consider, and a nouveau riche clientele who wanted everyone to know about their expensive new watch. A shift in perception occurred, where it became less important how the watch looked to the owner from 30cm away when reading the time, and more important how it looked to everyone else in the room, or possibly street, or possibly from orbit. An arms race followed, where larger watches in the cabinet at the dealer just looked more impressive, and more justifiably expensive, even if it turned out they weren’t made for actual humans.

Gradually a shameless super-rich emerged, and their children grew up to be the #Rich Kids of Instagram. By this time it was getting hard to deny that something had gone badly wrong, and the words ‘ostentatious’ and ‘vulgar’ started to form in even the most enthusiastic watch wearer’s minds. How come the vintage watches of old looked so much more appealing than the ones in the windows with five figure price tags? Then the financial crisis came along to pull the rug out from under the whole decadent luxury orgy, followed by the genius idea of leaving the EU. Now the luxurious dreams peddled by watch brands seem strangely out of step with the times, in the UK at least. Not so much a pleasantly self-indulgent fantasy as a painful reminder of how times change. Consequently those who are doing well may feel less inclined buy an oversized watch that shouts about it.

Great thread. Keep the posts coming.

This was sold for 75 pounds in an online auction just recently.

Zenith. A premium brand.

Nothing can be more 80's style than this.

80's is despised now... the clothes, the big hair, 80's watches. But on the other hand many kids listen to the 80's music.

Things and fashion can change of course but I don't believe this style is becoming fashionable in watches anytime soon. TT 36mm DateJust and Constellation are very much "watches from the eighties".

https://i.imgur.com/R1jgyVH.jpg