closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 101 to 110 of 110

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

  1. #101
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Agree 100% with the above post, the argument that watch sizes have increased to match the average increase in wrist size simply doesn’t hold water, it’s flawed. However, there’s a higher proportion of overweight people thesedays, so more folks will have fat wrists rather than anatomically larger wrists.

    I’d like to see a return to slimmer watches, I really dislike thick watches that stand on the wrist like a hockey puck. My current favourite is a 38mm Zenith El Primero dating from around 1999, fits me nicely and it’s very slim for a chronograph. That’s one advantage the Zenith cal 400 movement has compared to other chronos, it was designed to be as slim as practicable. This is evident when taking it apart, it was clearly part of the design brief to keep the movement slim. Same philosophy applies to the ETA 2892, and the early 70s Omega cal 1010, these movements were designed to be slim in order to minimise the bulk of the watches. Somewhere along the way this got turned on its head, not only did watches become bigger, they also became thicker, a complete design U turn.

  2. #102
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by bedlam View Post
    Sure, lets take fashion cues from the past...cos they are from older times they must know stuff!

    No fair using a counterexample from outside of the civilized world!

    Sent from my SM-G950U using TZ-UK mobile app

  3. #103
    Craftsman Dean Learner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by JamieTheBarber View Post
    Couldn’t agree more!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I’d like to disagree...


    ...purely so they get cheaper and I can buy one

  4. #104
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    62
    It is dubious if the wrists have gotten bigger due to change in bone structure.
    It is also dubious if the popularity of bigger sized watches is actually a fashion trend. It is a paradigm shift that has occurred over the years. So, people who have been waiting for it to end and spelling
    its doom for several years can stop holding their breath and actually exhale. They will probably always be there. However smaller watches have made a bit of a comeback which is a welcome development.
    If one considers the sheer numbers, vast amount of big watches are churned out and sold by microbrands.
    So, it is not always about an ostentatious display of wealth.
    Personally, 40-42mm is ideal for me with occasional foray into slightly larger watches. It doesn't have to be the same for everyone else. Diversity in watch sizes is good. A small watch is not a ladies watch and at the same time one can be fond of larger watches without being a footballer or a rap artist or trying to overcompensate for something or trying to show off.
    Last edited by Watchfun1; 24th January 2019 at 10:24.

  5. #105
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    You cannot tell how a watch looks with these type of wrist shots, the perspective is massively out.


    45mm watch on 6.25" wrist.








    Dinner plate right?


    Perhaps not.









    And that is still bigger than it would appear at normal human interaction distances.




    Mitch
    Your point is well made, though it’s hard to define ‘normal human interaction distances‘. Perhaps across a dinner table in many circumstances, but in others you will be sitting next to someone and they will see your watch much as you do. For this reason I’d suggest the right sized watch looks reasonable at all distances, though the distance it’s at when you’re looking at it yourself is the closest it will ever get to anyone and the largest it will ever look. For this reason I’d agree with the previous post that there has been a paradigm shift. We’ve begun to judge the size of a watch in a mirror instead of directly on our own wrist, how it looks to others and not to ourselves, and that’s reasonable as our subjective view turns out to one extreme. But that’s not the only factor, and fashions also play their part. You only have to look at flares and 70s collars to realise that sizes don’t always have a logical explanation. In watches, as the shift to slightly larger sizes happened, there was some oscillation around a happy medium that works for most people. 42mm was proposed as that size but may not be. In practice only a range of sizes will keep everyone happy.

  6. #106
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,514
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    I’d like to see a return to slimmer watches, I really dislike thick watches that stand on the wrist like a hockey puck.
    I agree. It's at least as important as width to me. And therefore rules out many modern Omegas. The reason I like my Aerospace is that despite the large dial - which helps with readability - it's flat and therefore sits on the wrist. I love my SD43 in lots of ways but the 'height' on the wrist makes it a bit uncomfortable at the end of a long day.

  7. #107
    I have to admit I think a Rolex Sub or Daytona looks great on even a slender woman’s wrist. My wife wears a 40mm men’s diver and often remarks how ‘old lady’ a tiny ladies watch looks (my wife is nearing her mid-50’s). I have to wonder how they can actually read the time on one tbh! And I don’t think actually being able to tell the time on a watch has much to do with fashion!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #108
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,780
    Quote Originally Posted by lughugger View Post
    They didn’t. I bought a 36mm watch last week!


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
    I bought my 114270 Explorer a few months ago and I vividly remember the sharp intake of breath when I handed over my 14060m in trade.

    When I joined this forum some 9 years ago, I had an SMP 2254. From there, I scaled up to a PO 45.5 and a Chrono Avenger. Never felt they were too big but after owning my Explorer for these last few months, I'm beginning to think they perhaps were and maybe just fit a fashionable aesthetic that was prevalent at the time.

    I love my Explorer, really satisfied with the size and perfect simplicity. I should also add that a brand new 214270 I purchased early last year from a dealer's window (I know !!!) was moved on swiftly as at 39mm it was just too damn big, all bezel and glass.

    How times have changed for me.

  9. #109
    Master bedlam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia (GMT +8)
    Posts
    1,177
    A point about what watch sizes people preferred to wear in the past is that, for example in Hemingway's day, there was not the same choice available. If you had offered Ernest 40mm and 42mm case options he might well have jumped at one of them over a 36mm. We won't ever know, but him wearing a small watch doesn't make the case that those are more correct choices, or even that those are the choices those people would make if they were in our situation.

  10. #110
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by bedlam View Post
    A point about what watch sizes people preferred to wear in the past is that, for example in Hemingway's day, there was not the same choice available. If you had offered Ernest 40mm and 42mm case options he might well have jumped at one of them over a 36mm. We won't ever know, but him wearing a small watch doesn't make the case that those are more correct choices, or even that those are the choices those people would make if they were in our situation.
    Sure, we can't know. My point with the Hemingway picture was not that small watches are more correct. It's that no objective, correct size for a man's wristwatch exists, and that you don't have to wear a big watch to be masculine. What *seems* correct is based on what you're used to seeing, and what you're used to wearing.

    For years, I wore smaller wristwatches, a 36mm (PRS-6), and a 35mm (IWC 853). I perfectly happy with them. But it didn't last. Both met tragic ends. A broken man, I started wearing a Fitbit.

    When I recovered and started buying watches again, I started with a 42mm (Speedy Pro), then another 42 (PRS-30), then a 43 (Gavox Avidiver). On the verge of buying a PRS-29, I tried on the corpse of my 36mm PRS-6. Low and behold, now it was way too small. So now I'm working my way down with a 39mm Speedbird. Lord and Eddie Platts willing, I'll be ready when the 36mm white dial Everest is available.

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