closing tag is in template navbar
Time Factors Watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 74

Thread: Trying to say 3mm makes a genuine difference is absurd to be brutally honest

  1. #1
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gloucestershushtershire
    Posts
    3,092

    Trying to say 3mm makes a genuine difference is absurd to be brutally honest

    (sorry Burnsey )

    What is easy to forget is that the area of a watch is a function of the radius squared and small changes start to have a disproportionately large impact.

    How 'big' a watch wears has to do with other factors as well, bezel thickness, dial colour etc etc... If however you look at a basic circular watch then you get this;

    Diameter Area Percentage
    32 804 -21%
    34 908 -11%
    36 1018 0%
    39 1195 17%
    40 1257 23%
    42 1386 36%
    43 1452 43%
    45 1591 56%
    50 1964 93%

    So going up from a 36mm to a 39mm actually increases the wrist real estate by 17% which is significant (if the consensus is that it isn't significant, then can someone negotiate a raise with my boss please?)
    Last edited by Beaunidle; 2nd September 2016 at 19:04.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Fringe
    Posts
    17,013
    I'm not going to compete on the maths, but the 36-39mm example of 17% is to the overall mass and on a watch, that's pretty small overall.

    Theere are many enthusiasts here use 36mm as their ideal size and that's fine, but there are others amongst us think that is too small for the current era.

    There was a time it seemed when the market was flooded with 44mm beasts and rightfully many of us saw a massive difference, but sizes seem to have fallen to an average 39-42mm, which I consider wears perfectly for the average 7.5cm wrist.

    Thats all before we start discussing depth, dial size, bezel versus no bezel, materials etc. Your equation is only a small factor in the overall scheme of things.
    Last edited by burnsey66; 2nd September 2016 at 18:56.

  3. #3
    Master Man of Kent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Garden of England
    Posts
    1,199
    There's something wrong with the way the figures are displayed. Please check.

  4. #4
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gloucestershushtershire
    Posts
    3,092
    As it happens Burnsey 40mm is my sweet spot as well.

  5. #5
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gloucestershushtershire
    Posts
    3,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Man of Kent View Post
    There's something wrong with the way the figures are displayed. Please check.
    Sorry, formatted it in my post, but when saved it collapses. Still I thought it was still legible. First column is watch diameter in mm, second figure is the area in mm2 and the third figure is percentage difference from the area of the 'base diameter' of 36mm.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Fringe
    Posts
    17,013
    One watch I lusted after for some time was a JLC Master Compressor.

    It was a big, hefty bugger, but the OEM leather was that flimsy, it wobbled around on the wrist and made in uncomfortable, although the straps themselves were just devine. On a bracelet, it was too much overall for me, so along with many, it was flipped.

    Often it's all about the whole package. I feel the same with non tapering straps and bracelets - just can't wear them.

    My earlier point, which has ben picked up on is simply the statement of a 36mm watch being the perfect size is flawed for a variety of reasons.

  7. #7
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    oxford
    Posts
    288
    I'd have to agree... Lug shape, curve and width also make a big difference to the feel and wear of a watch... Size matters, a bit.

  8. #8
    Grand Master Der Amf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaunidle View Post

    Diameter Area Percentage
    32 ........... 804 ......... -21%
    34 .......... 908 ......... -11%
    36 ......... 1018 ......... 0%
    39 ......... 1195 ......... 17%
    40 ......... 1257 ......... 23%
    42 ......... 1386 ......... 36%
    43 .........1452 ......... 43%
    45 ......... 1591 ......... 56%
    50 ......... 1964 ......... 93%
    Last edited by Der Amf; 2nd September 2016 at 20:16.

  9. #9
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,447
    Quote Originally Posted by burnsey66 View Post
    I'm not going to compete on the maths, but the 36-39mm example of 17% is to the overall mass and on a watch, that's pretty small overall.

    Theere are many enthusiasts here use 36mm as their ideal size and that's fine, but there are others amongst us think that is too small for the current era.
    To me there's a huge difference between 36mm and 39mm - and it looks like you agree enough to think that 36 is too small. Put the 36mm and 39mm Oyster Perpetuals or Explorers next to each other and the difference is clear. Perhaps it means more to those of us with slim wrists, as the difference seems greater and a mm here or there becomes critical - enough to make 39mm slightly too much, and to cause me to sell an otherwise lovely 39.2mm Omega AT, and take the 114300 Oyster Perpetual and 39mm Explorer off the list.

    Perhaps because the area is proportional to the square of the radius and increases quickly as you go up, a 38.5mm AT wears noticeably differently to a 39.2mm AT, while a 37mm GS quartz is not obviously much bigger than a 36mm DJ. A 36 to 39 jump is a little frustrating - a bit like having trousers that only come in too small or too big. Those with average wrists don't know how lucky you are!
    Last edited by Itsguy; 2nd September 2016 at 20:21.

  10. #10
    Grand Master Wallasey Runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Merry Old England
    Posts
    11,733
    I have 7" wrists and think 40mm is the right size for me. I have had a few in the 37mm to 39mm and they seemed small, whereas anything over 42mm does tend to feel big. 40mm to 42mm max. is probably my zone.

    Height of the watch can also make a big difference, some of the Omega Speedmasters are really tall. My departed Snoopy is twice the height of my Aquanaut (16mm compared to about 8mm), width wise the Omega was 42mm and the PP 40mm so not a lot in it, yet one watch felt big and clunky compared to the other.
    Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 2nd September 2016 at 20:28.

  11. #11
    Grand Master Der Amf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,111
    I wear watches from 34mm to 42mm

    34 Small
    35 Not so small
    36 Nimble
    37 Neutral
    38 Bit of presence
    39 Yeah we know we're wearing this
    40 Ooh chunky
    41 Blimey
    42 Must we? Really? Oh, nice dial, ok.

    So, meaningful difference in 3mm, at all stages

  12. #12
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    750
    Current circular watches:

    Nomos Ludwig - 35mm
    Omega SMP mid - 36mm
    PRS18Q - 39mm
    Vostok 120 - 40mm
    Seiko monster - 40mm

    My last flip was an Omega AT 39mm, it always felt too big on my wrists, though looking at the above it should have been perfect.

    The Nomos feels just right but the Omega SMP feels a bit on the small side.

    So many other factors affect a watch, lug to lug dimensions, lug drop, case shape. If it's all dial and no bezel it wears a lot bigger.

    The plan, keep flipping.

  13. #13
    The watch makes a lot of difference. The thickness and bezel size matter, as do the shape and size of the lugs. For example, I've got a Strela and a Kemmner Turtle that are both 42mm. The Turtle seems much bigger, even though on paper they are identical. Oddly, I had the 38mm version of the Strela before and it actually seemed big for 38, which is usually about as small as I'd want to go except maybe in a very formal dress watch.

    I've recently started wearing my Kemmner Octopus again. I was contemplating selling it, but I'm realising again how much I like it. What made the difference is that I switched from the metal bracelet (which tends to cut in to the wrist because the watch is so heavy) to the rubber, which I now think looks better anyway. It's 45mm and it has definite "wrist presence" but it doesn't look clownish. It seems to hit the same "just right" sweet spot usually occupied by 40-42mm watches, although it is noticeably weightier (it's more that it's taller than the fact that it's wider).

    The largest watch I own is a Steinhart LSE, at 47mm. I can just about carry that off, but I had to put it on a plain black Toshi because its own straps are rather bulky and just serve to emphasise how huge it is. The plain black helps to play it down so it doesn't look completely silly.

    OTOH, I had a Kemmner Flieger for a while and I found that it wore larger than the LSE, even though it was "only" 45mm. Technically the same size as the Octopus, but it seemed much, much bigger. Probably something to do with the profile being very rectangular rather than having Rolex-style curved-down lugs.

    If you want to get really mathematical, the total volume probably has a lot to do with it, which is of course the area multiplied by the height, except that watches aren't simple geometric shapes like cylinders or cuboids, so these formulae don't work. They are approximations and not particularly close ones. Even calculating the mass precisely doesn't take account of optical illusions which can make some shapes seem larger or smaller to the eye. The bezel plays a big role in this, as was already mentioned.

    In many ways it makes sense to take advantage of the quadratic relationship between area and diameter noted in the OP because if you can maximise the diameter without extending too close to the edges of the wrist, you end up with a much larger (and hence clearer, more distinct) face, which gives the watch it's presence without necessarily making it look "big". If at the same time you can keep the case relatively thin, the lugs short, and the edges rounded, the overall mass is kept down as well avoiding the sense that it is too bulky, which is ultimately where larger watches run into problems.

    Personally, I find that the difference between a 36mm and a 39mm watch is far greater than the difference between a 38mm and a 42mm, even though the latter is actually the larger proportionate increase. I don't think this has anything to do with the relationship between the diameter and area so much as it has to do with which watches are actually those sizes. A 36mm watch is generally going to be a vintage dress watch of some sort, whereas most watches 38mm+ are going to be something more modern and hence, bulkier in general, which seems to evens out the differences more.

  14. #14
    Master MartynJC (UK)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Surrey, UK. Odixere or somewhere in-between
    Posts
    9,150
    Blog Entries
    19
    I think the base diameter is a little simple - take the case of

    40mm Seadweller
    39mm Explorer

    to my eyes the SeaDweller appears smaller than the Explorer?


  15. #15
    Grand Master Wallasey Runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Merry Old England
    Posts
    11,733
    Quote Originally Posted by MartynJC (UK) View Post
    I think the base diameter is a little simple - take the case of

    40mm Seadweller
    39mm Explorer

    to my eyes the SeaDweller appears smaller than the Explorer?
    I would agree with this - the bezel on the SD makes the dial look smaller. It may well be, I don't know, haven't measured it - but the Explorer is billed as the smaller watch and actually looks bigger.

  16. #16
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner View Post
    I would agree with this - the bezel on the SD makes the dial look smaller. It may well be, I don't know, haven't measured it - but the Explorer is billed as the smaller watch and actually looks bigger.
    I guess this would be due to the SD bezel size. So the case might be bigger than the explorer but the dial is smaller due to the bigger bezel taking up more real estate.


    Mark Williams on IPhone Taptalk

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner View Post
    I have 7" wrists and think 40mm is the right size for me.......

    imho the lug to lug length is crucial and you need to consider this with other factors such as % of surface area is bezel width versus dial face etc. You can have two identical 40mm watches but one has longer lugs and will wear 'different' to the shorter lug watch.

    When we quote wrist size, we are measuring the circumference of the wrist, but it is the profile and shape of the wrist that matters most.

    you can have two different wrists that are both 7" but have different profiles and shape.
    i.e. one wrist is flat and the profile is more elongated and the other wrist is more rounded and less elongated.

    Both wrists in the above example are 7" but the more elongated profile will be actually wider wrist i.e. bigger diameter and this makes a difference when we consider how 'proportioned' a watch wears on your wrist.
    Last edited by UKWatchGuy; 3rd September 2016 at 07:20.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Fringe
    Posts
    17,013
    This thread started on the back of a comment I made, as one regular member insists (or used to - hes reformed now) 36mm is the only size of watch we all should wear.

    Basically, any watch we want to wear is the right size.

    We all have different tastes - cars, clothing, even wives and lets face it, they come in all shapes and sizes and I wouldnt call yours too big - and live!

  19. #19
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glasgow Scotland
    Posts
    144
    I don't think measuring area, volume etc is what it is about. The 36mm explorer is a lovely watch however I prefer my 39. End of argument that's it I prefer the 39 so I wouldn't buy the 36 coz the 39 looks very different. Not decrying the 36mm btw coz it's a great watch too. Just get what you prefer the look of!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Master mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,409
    Am I the only person who thinks the title of this thread is misleading? As far as I can tell OP you are saying (and I agree, by the way) that actually 3mm in diameter can make a huge difference to the (theoretical) size of a watch.

    I say theoretical because in practice what matters more is how it wears, and the comments that have been made here about lugs, bezels etc on the watch also make a big difference. I would add case contours to that list. Equally, many members endlessly quote their wrist diameter in posts, yet the shape of the wrist makes a huge difference as to the available real estate for a watch to occupy.

    Oh, and I think the OP's table is flawed because it starts from the assumption that 36mm is a theoretical norm - I think it should be around 39mm nowadays.

    I actually have no idea what my wrist diameter is, but I do know that I have steadily unloaded all the watches I owned with a diameter of less than 42mm, as the size I'm comfortable with is invariably between 43mm and 46mm. This is about comfort, presence and personal preference , and certainly has nothing to do with trends or fashion (I'm 61 years old and really couldn't care less what anyone else thinks!).

    When I was considering the purchase of a Breitling Aerospace Avantage (42mm), a TZer told me I'd love it because "it doesn't feel as if you're wearing a watch at all". He was right. Where he was wrong is that he thought that was a good thing - I hated how insubstantial it felt and it's now gone!

    Similarly I used to wear an Omega Speedmaster Pro Gemini 4 as my 'best blue watch' (I have a big thing about colours!), but even though I genuinely loved the watch I eventually came to the reluctant conclusion that it felt too small. It's place as best blue watch has now been taken by a 46mm Navitimer World, which feels perfect on me and sits lower than either of my 45mm Avengers.

    Perhaps the title of this thread should have been "watch diameter is just a number"!

    Simon

  21. #21
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Suffolk
    Posts
    2,991
    I used to be happy with 39/40mm, generally Rolex, Omega, but over the years my 'tastes' have changed. My 'smallest' watch is a Tutima Grand Classic @ 43mm, and 'biggest' being a Breitling Chronospace & Ball Aviator coming in at 46mm. Although I am a big fan of Rolex sport models, my mental perception when looking at one on the wrist is, too small/dainty now. On my 7-1/4'' wrist my 43mm plus pieces all look fine to me and, using the bathroom mirror test, they all show strap/bracelet either side of the lugs. It is absolutely right as has been said above, the crucial aspects are lug-to-lug distance, case/bezel thickness, lug shape, and even case back. I'm wearing my Chronospace as I type and it looks perfect to my eyes and my favourite watch. This is my limit though, I've tried 47/48mm & yes they look huge.
    Here's a couple or three wristshots, Breitling SO 44

    Ball Aviator

    Tutima Grand Classic

    Apologies for the blurry Tutima.

  22. #22
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    3,383
    Quote Originally Posted by burnsey66 View Post
    This thread started on the back of a comment I made, as one regular member insists (or used to - hes reformed now) 36mm is the only size of watch we all should wear.
    In my defence, this isn't really true though is it!

    The vast majority of my comments on this subject have actually been reactions to people who have wrists of a similar size to mine (7.17inches is the average wrist size which is around the same size as mine) or smaller who claim that 36mm is too small. When I hear this it is literally like someone trying to tell you that black is white and I always feel compelled to voice my disagreement since I genuinely believe my every day 36mm Explorer to be the perfect size for me. It's really that simple and I just can't get my head around how anyone can consider 36mm too small. I guess if you have pencil wrists and are used to wearing U-Boats all the time then I guess 36mm cases will feel small, but in the words of Nice Guy Eddie, "that don't necessarily make it ****ing so!!!".

    The other related topics that I have regularly made contributions to is when someone posts a picture of a watch that is clearly too big for them and they ask the membership for their opinion on how it looks. What am I meant to do when someone with wrists smaller than mine asks if they can get away with a DSSD??? No pal, you can't. It looks utterly ridiculous since you ask. There is nothing subjective about telling someone that a watch is too big for them when the edges of the lugs are overhanging the edge of their wrists. If anything I think it's our duty to point out if something looks daft. When she found out I was into watches, an ex girlfriend of mine said that it was refreshing to see someone wearing an appropriately sized watch. She told me that her and her office mates regularly laughed at the various businessmen who came through their office wearing daft sized watches (she actually used the phrase 'clown sized').

    I'm not all about small watches though. I personally found the 34mm oyster cased Rolex range (pre-comedy Airking, Precision Date etc) too small for my wrists but I'm sure they would be perfect for sub 7 inch wrists. As others have said, there are other factors that come into play when one considers the size of a watch. I can go up to 40mm on a watch but only if it has a divers bezel. I have a Helson Shark Diver 40 but I have to confess that it's starting to feel too big for me and it may be finding it's way to SC soon. All dial designs with a slim bezel will always feel larger. Take the Nomos Orion. Everyone seems to go for the 38mm version but it wears absolutely huge. The 35mm is more suitable for the majority of wrists imo.

  23. #23
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    9,739
    Diameter means very little to me. Lug to lug is what I look for. A watch that's wide is fine, but a long length of the lugs is where they start to overhang your wrist etc.

    AP are the perfect example; their 37mm models only just fit my wrist correctly, but one of my Seikos has integrated lugs and at 46mm or so, wears well enough that I'm very happy with it. The length is what makes this difference.

  24. #24
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,181
    In my opinion the sizes should only be used as a guideline. For example the Speedmaster is 42mm and the Navitimer is 41.5mm yet the Navitimer looks noticeably larger.

    Nothing beats actually trying a watch on.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Aylesbury
    Posts
    2,222
    Still think general hand / finger length has a bit to do with it as well. I've got slim wrists but long fingers and can seem to get away with a 45mm however I have vintage dress watches at 35mm that I will wear. The lug is also important. Some watches are just not a comfortable fit whatever the size

  26. #26
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,410
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by burnsey66 View Post
    One watch I lusted after for some time was a JLC Master Compressor.

    It was a big, hefty bugger, but the OEM leather was that flimsy, it wobbled around on the wrist and made in uncomfortable, although the straps themselves were just devine. On a bracelet, it was too much overall for me, so along with many, it was flipped.
    .
    Same here.... I bought the MC memovox, absolutely fantastic watch, but bracelet or strap, it was almost unwearable on my wrist.
    My mate was interested in buying it, and tried it for a week, before giving it back, saying "no thanks"

    I'm not the biggest of chaps, and for me the sweet spot is 38 to 40mm.... Although I'm a sucker for square watches, which wear big....

  27. #27
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    19,183
    I think there's a modern perception that the watch HAS to fill the wrist otherwise it's too small. There's also a belief that you have to wear the largest watch you can 'get away with'.

    It's like the chicken and the egg; which came first, the larger watches or the perception in folks's minds? Turn the clock back 15 years or less, most manufacturers were making significantly smaller watches, and no one complained or felt the need for anything bigger. Frankly, a lot of the modern stuff is too big for many people yet they persist in trying to convince themselves that the watch looks OK. The thickness of modern watches doesn`t help either, but that seems to be 'the look' thesedays.

    Anyone with a smaller wrist will find vintage watches, or stuff from 15-20 years ago, far more satisfactory sizewise.....whether they're prepared to admit it to themselves is another matter.

    Paul

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    I think there's a modern perception that the watch HAS to fill the wrist otherwise it's too small. There's also a belief that you have to wear the largest watch you can 'get away with'.

    It's like the chicken and the egg; which came first, the larger watches or the perception in folks's minds? Turn the clock back 15 years or less, most manufacturers were making significantly smaller watches, and no one complained or felt the need for anything bigger. Frankly, a lot of the modern stuff is too big for many people yet they persist in trying to convince themselves that the watch looks OK. The thickness of modern watches doesn`t help either, but that seems to be 'the look' thesedays.

    Anyone with a smaller wrist will find vintage watches, or stuff from 15-20 years ago, far more satisfactory sizewise.....whether they're prepared to admit it to themselves is another matter.

    Paul
    What a brilliant post! Not. More like unadulterated sad,rubbish.
    So, you think you know what people should like and what they really need?
    How delusional!
    Don't like big watches, fine.
    Don't try to decide for others. That's churlish.
    There are plenty of watches in different size to suit all tastes.
    42mm for me is ideal.
    Some times a little bigger will do, sometimes a little smaller as well.
    Someone likes 34 mm- more power to them.
    A 47 mm watch on a 6 inch wrists would look ridiculous IMO. BUT, if that is what makes them, happy- nothing wrong.
    It is not a question of willing to admit anything.

  29. #29
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner View Post
    Height of the watch can also make a big difference, some of the Omega Speedmasters are really tall. My departed Snoopy is twice the height of my Aquanaut (16mm compared to about 8mm), width wise the Omega was 42mm and the PP 40mm so not a lot in it, yet one watch felt big and clunky compared to the other.
    Indeed. I'm always amazed by how marginal height/thickness is to discussion of watch fit - many manufactures don't even specify thickness on websites / catalogues and you end up googling and hoping some reviewer / enthusiast has taken a Vernier to it. In a similar vein to the above, I find an Aerospace fine on my modest wrists, but my 'smaller' Seamaster (like most modern Omegas) is really just too top-heavy for me to wear comfortably (esp given the vexatiously unadjustable bracelet).

  30. #30
    Grand Master Wallasey Runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Merry Old England
    Posts
    11,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-P View Post
    Indeed. I'm always amazed by how marginal height/thickness is to discussion of watch fit - many manufactures don't even specify thickness on websites / catalogues and you end up googling and hoping some reviewer / enthusiast has taken a Vernier to it. In a similar vein to the above, I find an Aerospace fine on my modest wrists, but my 'smaller' Seamaster (like most modern Omegas) is really just too top-heavy for me to wear comfortably (esp given the vexatiously unadjustable bracelet).
    Thank you for that, width and lug to lug seem to be dominating this discussion. I was considering the new Speedmaster Co-axial Moonphase due out next month, but it is 18mm high - that is really tall by any standards and how many times have we seen people passing opinions on the Rolex DSSD such as top heavy and a great big lump of a watch.

    I am becoming more attracted to slimmer watches. Now if I had a spare 16.5k stuffed down the back of the couch I think this would be the fellow:

    http://www.watches.co.uk/audemars-pi...-thin/AP-1614P

  31. #31
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Up north
    Posts
    689
    The main thing you see in all the posts on this thread is that every person makes a subjective judgement on every watch. So we really don't need to say someone is wrong or is talking rubbish because that is projecting your views onto others.
    So if you love a watch and the way it looks on you then enjoy. Anyone else can think you are wrong but it is not a fact, either way.

    Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

  32. #32
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gloucestershushtershire
    Posts
    3,092
    Quote Originally Posted by ged View Post
    The main thing you see in all the posts on this thread is that every person makes a subjective judgement on every watch. So we really don't need to say someone is wrong or is talking rubbish because that is projecting your views onto others.
    So if you love a watch and the way it looks on you then enjoy. Anyone else can think you are wrong but it is not a fact, either way.

    Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk
    I don't believe I was subjective at all. I personally like all dial watches, and 40mm is my personal sweet spot. The only point I was making is that if you take two identical watch designs it is amazing how quickly a couple of mm increases the wrist acreage.

  33. #33
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Up north
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaunidle View Post
    I don't believe I was subjective at all. I personally like all dial watches, and 40mm is my personal sweet spot. The only point I was making is that if you take two identical watch designs it is amazing how quickly a couple of mm increases the wrist acreage.
    But others on the thread have been. You personally like 40mm and as others have said that one measurement doesn't give the whole story. The point I was trying to make but wasn't very effective, is the biggest variable is the person themselves and none of us can categorically say anyone else is wrong. We can believe it but we can't claim it to be a truth.

    Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

  34. #34
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gloucestershushtershire
    Posts
    3,092
    Quote Originally Posted by ged View Post
    But others on the thread have been. You personally like 40mm and as others have said that one measurement doesn't give the whole story. The point I was trying to make but wasn't very effective, is the biggest variable is the person themselves and none of us can categorically say anyone else is wrong. We can believe it but we can't claim it to be a truth.

    Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk
    And you will find no argument from me.

    Anyone can wear whatever floats their boat, I am not setting myself as any form of arbiter of taste. My 90's Colt (which at the time felt massive) now seems dainty. Tastes change and fashions change - I am certainly not being judgmental.

    Wear what you like!

  35. #35
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    2,479
    So many subjective factors that there is no one rule as such. I do wish some manufacturers would make 38-40mm versions of their larger watches but historically I'm aware the majority of vintage are smaller so don't begrudge those preferring larger watches a few years of production. I suspect it will reverse at some point although maybe not if the average wrist (and body to which it is attached) continues to grow!

  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by ged View Post
    But others on the thread have been. You personally like 40mm and as others have said that one measurement doesn't give the whole story. The point I was trying to make but wasn't very effective, is the biggest variable is the person themselves and none of us can categorically say anyone else is wrong. We can believe it but we can't claim it to be a truth.

    Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk
    Agree 100%.
    Some may still 'not be willing to admit it':-)

  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    I think there's a modern perception that the watch HAS to fill the wrist otherwise it's too small. There's also a belief that you have to wear the largest watch you can 'get away with'.
    I think this is the root of the "too big" vs "too small" argument. Really, wrist sizes haven't changed but fashions have. The same person with a typical sized wrist can get away with a 36mm or a 45mm watch, but they are very different looks. A simple round dress watch at 36mm can look good with a suit, but it's a very formal look. Nowadays "formal" fashions are a lot more casual than in the past, so a 40mm+ watch with a suit wouldn't seem at all out of place in a business setting. With jeans, 45mm+ can still look fine on the same person, but it might be inappropriate at a funeral.

  38. #38
    Along with changes in fashion, perhaps as a society we are now more relaxed about expressing our identities than when 36mm understated elegance was the accepted definition of good taste.

    Watches mean different things to different men. If in this thread we substituted the word "watch" with "man-jewellery" I expect many here might feel embarrassed to be debating the point.

  39. #39
    Master Wooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hermannstadt
    Posts
    3,331
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    I think there's a modern perception that the watch HAS to fill the wrist otherwise it's too small. There's also a belief that you have to wear the largest watch you can 'get away with'.

    It's like the chicken and the egg; which came first, the larger watches or the perception in folks's minds? Turn the clock back 15 years or less, most manufacturers were making significantly smaller watches, and no one complained or felt the need for anything bigger. Frankly, a lot of the modern stuff is too big for many people yet they persist in trying to convince themselves that the watch looks OK. The thickness of modern watches doesn`t help either, but that seems to be 'the look' thesedays.

    Anyone with a smaller wrist will find vintage watches, or stuff from 15-20 years ago, far more satisfactory sizewise.....whether they're prepared to admit it to themselves is another matter.

    Paul
    I agree. It's ever more obvious when considering that more often than not it's the same old calibre, leading to amusing positioning of the date window.

  40. #40
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,447
    To give it an alternative mathematical slant, the difference between a 36mm and 39mm watch is equivilant to the difference between 32" and 34.7" trousers - or 34" and 36.8" if you prefer. So the best part of 3" on your waistline. A genuine difference? I'd say so!

  41. #41
    Craftsman leahorsfall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Derby England
    Posts
    419

    Trying to say 3mm makes a genuine difference is absurd to be brutally honest

    I like 39-40mm watches
    I recently bought and sold a 46mm navitimer in a matter of 6 months because it was too big and likewise find the 36mm DJ too small whereas a 40nm case seems perfect!!

    I do think, of course that it's all very subjective. I've seen pictures on here of people with much less than 7" wrists wearing 46 and 47mm watches that look daft imo......

    Whether a persons wrist is round or flat makes a huge difference to how the lugs overhang and I think sometimes this has more impact on the look of how the watch sits than case size.

    Like I say, my sweet spot is most probably 39mm-41mm....
    On occasion I've looked at a 36 or a 47 and admired the look of it only to try it on and know I'll be flipping it in no time!!
    Last edited by leahorsfall; 4th September 2016 at 13:47.

  42. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by beechcustom View Post

    The other related topics that I have regularly made contributions to is when someone posts a picture of a watch that is clearly too big for them and they ask the membership for their opinion on how it looks. What am I meant to do when someone with wrists smaller than mine asks if they can get away with a DSSD??? No pal, you can't. It looks utterly ridiculous since you ask. There is nothing subjective about telling someone that a watch is too big for them when the edges of the lugs are overhanging the edge of their wrists. If anything I think it's our duty to point out if something looks daft.

    Take the Nomos Orion. Everyone seems to go for the 38mm version but it wears absolutely huge. The 35mm is more suitable for the majority of wrists imo.

    I think our perception of size taken from the usual 'wrist shot' is all wrong. The perspective is way out and makes it look way bigger than it would be from normal viewing.

    i took some pictures of various watches of differing sizes from further away. The pictures are still closer than you would normally get to another persons wrist but are not the out of perspective 'wrist shots'. The watches are not the 'usual suspects' so that there is no pre-programmed reaction to size.

    Now I have slim 6'.25" wrists at the end of thin arms. Having said that they are flat so I can wear bigger watches than the circumference would suggest.

    I don't know what size watch you would suggest would be suitable for me but I reckon it would be less than 40mm.

    So here is a 40mm watch.







    If I did go for a sub 40mm watch here is one at 35mm.






    Is one just right and the other wrong. Well they both look smallish to me.


    Here is a 45mm watch which you would presumably guess would look 'clown size' in your words.










    Personally I don't think so there is plenty of bracelet wrap around the wrist.


    The same watch taken from a false perspective 'wrist shot'








    Now here is a true monster, it is 54mm and is shiny and blingy to boot.











    Well it is very big and noticeable, absolutely no doubt about it, but is it ludicrous and ridiculous? I don't see it myself.


    So there are many factors to be taken account of in deciding whether a watch is too big for a person, however. a 'wrist shot' will never be one of them.




    Mitch

  43. #43
    This thread has devolved from a discussion of how 3 mm can or cannot make a difference into an argument of big vs small watches. Par for the course. One mystery for me as always is - Why do people who prefer larger watches not so judgemental or opinionated as opposed to those who wear smaller ones who are so defensive and insecure?

  44. #44
    Master MarkO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    21.7738 N, 72.2719 W
    Posts
    3,323
    Let me throw this in to the debate - the amount of things on the dial influence how big the watch looks.

    I have a Nomos Tangente which is often described as wearing bigger because of the lug length - I agree with this but it also has lots of open space on the face.

    Now look at a 40mm diver - the eye separates the bezel and the face , so the overall size can appear smaller as the 40mm area is broken up.

    Looking at the pictures of the newly purchased Yachtmaster 2 on another thread - there is no denying this is a big watch if you have seen one in person but the space is used and occupied .

    I tried on a Jaquet Droz once which had so much open space on the dial it looked like a dinner plate



    But is nominally the same diameter as my Bremont


  45. #45
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,447
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    This thread has devolved from a discussion of how 3 mm can or cannot make a difference into an argument of big vs small watches. Par for the course. One mystery for me as always is - Why do people who prefer larger watches not so judgemental or opinionated as opposed to those who wear smaller ones who are so defensive and insecure?
    You say people who prefer smaller watches are 'insecure' and that they are being judgemental!? Having said that, wear what you like!

  46. #46
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    345
    I have tiny wrists, like a females. I am genuinely curious to see if I could get away with a 34mm watch. But what brands make watches in this size? Doesn't seem to be much and I was thinking maybe a vintage Vacheron. I think it would be cool if role offered a sub or gmt at 37mm like the yacht master. Would be nice to give people an option.

  47. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by burnsey66 View Post
    I'm not going to compete on the maths, but the 36-39mm example of 17% is to the overall mass and on a watch, that's pretty small overall.

    Theere are many enthusiasts here use 36mm as their ideal size and that's fine, but there are others amongst us think that is too small for the current era.

    There was a time it seemed when the market was flooded with 44mm beasts and rightfully many of us saw a massive difference, but sizes seem to have fallen to an average 39-42mm, which I consider wears perfectly for the average 7.5cm wrist.

    Thats all before we start discussing depth, dial size, bezel versus no bezel, materials etc. Your equation is only a small factor in the overall scheme of things.
    There's no way 7.5" is the average wrist size.

    There was a thread on here where loads of people posted theirs. Dont know if the data was ever collated, but I'd have been very surprised if the average was much over 7". And that's allowing for the tendency for people to "round up".

  48. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    This thread has devolved from a discussion of how 3 mm can or cannot make a difference into an argument of big vs small watches. Par for the course. One mystery for me as always is - Why do people who prefer larger watches not so judgemental or opinionated as opposed to those who wear smaller ones who are so defensive and insecure?
    And there was me trying to be all 'live and let live'.

    Rajen, you big Tart!!

  49. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Fringe
    Posts
    17,013
    Quote Originally Posted by seikokiller View Post
    There's no way 7.5" is the average wrist size.

    There was a thread on here where loads of people posted theirs. Dont know if the data was ever collated, but I'd have been very surprised if the average was much over 7". And that's allowing for the tendency for people to "round up".
    Without the data to back your suggestion up, Ill stick to my own opinion, that 7.5 is the average wrist.

    Ive probably had over 300 incoming watches during my time here and never had to adjust more than a handful of bracelets - Im 7.5.

  50. #50
    Grand Master Der Amf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,111
    On WUS there was a long running wrist size poll. The average came out at 6.75"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information