Reply With QuoteGuys that do manual jobs would be more likely to have bigger wrists I would think.I reckon that watch forums will have a disproportionately high number of non manual type guys hence a smaller wrist size average.Originally Posted by Der Amf
This one will run and run. Not least because there can be no final answer. But I think there is another factor lurking within this debate....how 'obvious' a particular watch is. A 36mm watch that is showy, may make more of a mark, attract more attention, than a plainer 40mm watch.
An example, a yellow gold 36mm Day Date . Small but very obvious. A 39mm Explorer, will 'wear' as less obvious. A 44mm IWC Portugeiser seems noticeably less obvious than a 44mm panerei. And a 39mm Cellini seems larger than a 40mm Sea Dweller, which in turn appears smaller than a 40mm Sub. You can't separate size from overall design.
Guys that do manual jobs would be more likely to have bigger wrists I would think.I reckon that watch forums will have a disproportionately high number of non manual type guys hence a smaller wrist size average.
Absolute shot in the dark. The most manual thing I’ve done today is answer my phone.
Anyone want a conclusion to this thread, read post number 42.
While post #42 is well put do you not think that the wrist shot view simulates you looking at your own wrist when checking the time or do you think the characteristics of the phone camera lens distort what you actually see by eye ?
Not really. Body builders will tell you that wrist size is pretty much genetics. You can put a bit of fat on your wrists, but there are no muscles in it. Just tendons, and two thin bones (so the bone thickening that results even from lifelong exercise doesn't make much difference).
If anything overweight inactive people are likely to have the biggest wrists.
Regardless, I'm not sure wrist size has that much to do with watch size preference anyway. My wrist is just over 7.5", I'm 6'2" - 6'3" tall depending on the time of day, and weigh over 20 stone.
I'll wear bigger divers, because divers are meant to be chunky, and external bezels make dial size disproportionately small, but for most watches my preference is 36-38mm.
There's so many variables involved though. My PRS-29a is the perfect size at 36mm. So is my Seiko SRP773 at 45mm. My Sinn 556i might be a touch too big at 38mm.
Lug length has always been the decider for me.
34mm Rolex - okay but a little on the dainty side.
36mm Rolex - fine
40mm Rolex - fine.
44mm panerai - fine
42mm explorer ii - feels to big, same goes for the LLD which iirc is also a 42mm.
Last edited by verv; 4th September 2016 at 15:26.
Whereas for me, lug length doesn't seem to be an important factor - my wrists are flat and wide.
It all just goes to show any conversation about an "ideal" size for a given wrist size is pointless. It'll vary enormously depending on the wrist, the watch, and individual taste.
The supposedly definitive post 42 in this thread for instance - all of the watches pictured bar the 35mm look too big on that wrist for me, regardless of how far away the picture is taken from. And the 35mm looks too small.
There is no right answer.
That is true. In the 1950s and 1960s men tended to wear small slim watches that sat with lots of room around them on the wrist. Expander bracelets were also popular.
That 35mm watch is the one that my dad wore the most from the 1950s right into this century and his wrists were much bigger than mine. That style is still commonly seen on very elderly blokes. To some, that 1950s look might be the epitome of good taste and therefore anything much bigger will be too big for their taste, to others not.
I prefer bigger watches, so the 40mm looks a little small for my taste but there is no right or wrong answer for most watches. At the extremes, I suppose nearly all would say 65mm would be far too big and 30mm a bit small for blokes. In between is where personal taste comes in.
Mitch
If a guy has a very muscle-clad arm but happens to still have a narrow wrist, a chunky modern watch that would foolish on my slender arm will look fine. The elements of context are manifold.
Completely agree. Strap makes a huge difference and how balanced out the weidght is distributed.
Since the phone lens is very wide angle, the tendency is to take the photo from much closer to fill the frame, which accentuates the distorting effect of the wide angle lens. Clearly an accurate view would be a 50mm (full frame equivilant) lens from the same distance as your eye to your wrist. However, even this doesn't show how your watch looks to other people, who will generally be further away unless they're sitting right next to you. Phone snaps can be OK though, if you hold the phone further away and zoom in.
Using perspective to do your head in:
How does that work then?
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Regarding post #42
Hi Mitch. I seem to recall that you've posted this before on a similar thread some time ago?
Anyway, with the exception of the 35mm, all of the watches you've pictured have dials that take up most or all of the width of your wrist and in my opinion, this is what makes a watch look too large. The 40mm one has extremely short lugs so it would wear less huge than another watch with a 40mm dial with more usual size lugs if that makes sense? Regarding the 45mm and the 54mm, they both look absolutely huge (the black one is very tall plus the dial covers virtually all the wrist and the 54mm one is 54mm - enough said) but the fact that the edges of the lugs on the 54mm monster one appear to be at the edge of your wrists yet don't overhang them suggests that, as you state, you have an unusually flat wrist. My wrists are over 7 inches but the width of my wrist looking square on is the same (or even smaller!!!) than yours must be (mine measure 54mm). So your wrists are more like a 7+ inch wrist. I've seen a 44mm DSSD on a 6.5 inch wrist in the flesh with my own eyes with no possibility of the supposed 'false camera perspective' and it looked absolutely comedy large, as did both a 41mm IWC Portuguese and a 38mm Nomos Orion on my own wrists.
The disks in your spine expand during the night when there's no pressure on them and compress throughout the day. The difference between expanded and compressed disks can create a difference in height between morning and evening :-)
So it's a bit like cosc then, as long as your height is running between certain tolerances everyday youre alright?
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
That explains why my keks seem slightly too long at night time....particularly after a walk
Thou protest too strongly? Looks like I`ve touched a raw nerve.
The point I made is that people get drawn into believing hey have to wear a watch that, frankly, is too big for them. I`ve spoken to a few youngsters recently and they confirm what I`ve claimed. There's a perception that a watch has to be big otherwise it doesn`t look right. Nothing 'sad' about me claiming that, and certainly not delusional. I simply say it how I see it.
Paul
Hah! Yeah exactly.
Nah, you just need a belt.That explains why my keks seem slightly too long at night time....particularly after a walk
Although there is always height variation throughout the day (disc compression), it's not really as much as an inch. I was being facetious. Its more to do with whether I feel like rounding up or down.
I thought chaps traditionally rounded up.
From my own experience I completely agree with this. Before I got 'into' watches I used to think that the biggest I could possibly get away with was the best. I also wrongly thought that a thicker watch meant a better watch! I still remember looking at Omega Seamasters and thinking they were too thin. Ridiculous.
Now I'm quite happy wearing anything from 35mm to 42mm, but I prefer around 38-40mm. I do find that the lug to lug is a bigger consideration for me.
Posting Permissions
