closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 64

Thread: Sensibly Proportioned Watch Thread

  1. #1

    Sensibly Proportioned Watch Thread

    OK, as a little follow-on to my recent 'sensibly sized field watch' thread, a little research has convinced me of the need for a comprehensive Sensibly Proportioned Watch thread. The reason? Such watches are becoming very, very rare indeed.

    To start with a little background and a rant, I haven't taken much interest in watches for the past decade or so, although I used to keep up with things. Even then, the shift towards stupidly large watches was well under way, and even I wore an Orange Monster for a short while! Now I find myself in the market for a military/vintage-style/dive watch that ISN'T HUGE, I'm pretty much drawing a blank everywhere, and I'm quite happy to get my hand in my pocket for the right one.

    It's a shame because there're some really nice designs out there. For example, Certina interest me - my Polish grandfather wore one for decades, after buying it in Egypt at the end of the war, and I recently bought one of their ladies' watches for my girlfriend; it's too big really but again, they all are. Looking at the gents' watches, some of them are really really nice, but the smallest of them are 40mm diameter!

    I like G10/field watches, so this from Citizen caught my eye:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw3vRq5-_Ow

    Great design now that Citizen have replaced that funny arrow shaped hand with a sword; it's phenomenal value, I'm sure the build and finish are excellent. But look when the guy puts it on his wrist! He looks like a little schoolboy who's been allowed out with his dad's watch on!

    Similarly this:

    https://www.certina.com/gb/watch/ds-...C0364071605000

    Absolutely gorgeous, droolsome design, but a silly 43mm diameter. If they'd just stuck to the dimensions of the original, it'd be one of the best vintage-style dive watches available!

    Not all that long ago, a Seiko skx007 was one of the larger dive watches (I still wouldn't mind one although the time keeping never was great and they're expensive now). This from Citizen today is actually pretty svelte in the grand scheme of things:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Citizen-Div...%2C153&sr=8-11

    Gorgeous and just over £200; at 38 or even 39mm diameter it'd be one of the finest dive watches around, but no, it's so big it's not really practical.

    Even 'dress' watches:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSH6VUZjHpA

    I really like the design of the DS-1 Powermatic 80 range, but look at the size of the damn thing! It'd probably look OK strapped around my thigh...!

    I've always like G-Shocks, but the size of some of the recent analogues is simply beyond belief. Even if you've got wrists like a powerlifter you'd still look daft. Let's say I'm starting to understand why I'm now on my third 5600, and I can remember when they seemed a bit chunky.

    The bad news continues. All the properly proportioned watches I can find - and there aren't many - seem to have some weird flaw, whether it's just a crazy price or some design faux pas. I really like the Hamilton Khaki 38mm, but they seem to have neglected to put an anti-reflective coating on the crystal, so all you'll see when you consult the watch is a reflection of yourself. The CWC G10 is nice, but is now £200 for what's clearly a £50 watch. I like Eddie's PRS-10 sapphire, but what's with the funny font at 4 o'clock? The PRS-29A looks very nice, as does the Everest 36mm, although it needs putting on a NATO strap and I'm not sure about the Minolta calibre. The Rolex Explorer itself has gone from a perfect 36mm to a slightly daft 39mm.

    Apart from the above, I'm pretty much drawing a blank. Has anyone got anything to add in the 36-38mm diameter range? There does seem to be a need for a properly sized watch thread, to counter this insane fashion for Brobdingnagian timepieces!

    Phew, end of rant! ;-)

    Alex
    Last edited by Earwicker; 10th September 2019 at 09:28.

  2. #2
    What is this ‘sensibly proportioned’ BS??
    You want a watch in 36-38 mm size,say so.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    What is this ‘sensibly proportioned’ BS??
    I'm not sure anyone outside the clique would call >40mm diameter watches 'sensibly proportioned', and it'd be interesting to know how many enthusiasts would actually prefer smaller ones. As far as I know, average wrist sizes haven't changed significantly over the past few decades, but finding a watch that isn't the size of a dinner plate is actually difficult now!

    Dunno, perhaps I'm unusual.

  4. #4
    Master jukeboxs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,140
    Sensibly proportioned differs by individual. 36-38mm too small for me, despite having a small-ish 6.75 wrist.

    Hopefully you'll get some takers.

  5. #5
    Master Papa Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Not Edinburgh
    Posts
    4,658
    I'm sure there have been lots of threads on ladies watches.

  6. #6
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,905
    No two wrists are the same and tastes vary, so a range of sizes is what we need. People tend to take this issue quite personally so it’s best just to agree on this point. It’s true though that those with larger wrists or a taste for larger watches have been better served over the last decade, but that’s gradually been changing.

    There are a few smaller divers, but bear in mind that a diver can get away with being a bit larger, as a larger bezel means a smaller dial, so up to 40mm tends to wear ok even on a slim wrist. If you’re after a cheap option and don’t care about lume, the Maen 38 might work. Rado make a tiny Captain Cook, though to me it looks like something out of Honey I Shrunk The Watch, which also applies to Blancpain’s smallest offering. Obviously we’re at the other end of the price scale here... And while we’re up that end, all the older five digit Rolex models are more modestly sized than current versions, including the 16570 Explorer II which is still relatively available and more affordable than the alternatives. Something tells me that this will change eventually due to everything else being hoovered up, but that’s another story. It’s probably around the maximum size you’d want to go but worth an honourable mention.

    Having struggled long and hard to find watches that fit and tried a great many, I can mention a few other greatest hits, including pretty much all vintage watches which tend to be somewhere either side of 36mm, Omega’s Aqua Terra which currently has a well sized 38mm and previously a 38.5mm (older 39.5 models feel significantly larger), vintage Datejusts, the modern Datejust 36, the Oysterquartz, Grand Seiko quartz, first gen Overseas, 14790 Royal Oaks - all 37mm, Habring² felix, Patek Philippe Calatravas, vintage Grand Seikos, various Nomos, some JLCs, I think there’s a B&R vintage style that’s about 38mm.

    It can be galling for the slim of wrist when looking at new watches as so many won’t fit, but they are out there.

  7. #7
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    cheshire
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa Hotel View Post
    I'm sure there have been lots of threads on ladies watches.
    Even the Ladies wont wear them tiny little things anymore.

  8. #8
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    2,742
    You probably know this already but 'sports' models with wide bezels, such as Subs and GMTs wear very differently to those with slim bezels. A 40mm GMT can acually wear much smaller than a 38mm Nomos Orion for example. The 'all dial' design of the Nomos makes it wear massive. OP, if your sweet spot is 36 to 38mm case diameter you may find that 40mm 'sports' models don't wear too big. Also, 36mm Rolex OP and Datejusts will be perfect for you but I appreciate you might not want to spend that much on a watch!

  9. #9
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Felixstowe, UK
    Posts
    701
    I'd tend to agree having settled in this range too. I'm a bit vertically challenged at 170 cms and my wrist is 18 cms. Almost everything over 38mm simply looks out of proportion on me. Having said that, I think that there is more to fit though than simply diameter - none of my watches are longer than 46mm lug to lug.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa Hotel View Post
    I'm sure there have been lots of threads on ladies watches.
    The last watch I bought was for my girlfriend and I found the same thing: they're mostly huge.

    Alex

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Earwicker View Post

    Apart from the above, I'm pretty much drawing a blank. Has anyone got anything to add in the 36-38mm diameter range? There does seem to be a need for a properly sized watch thread, to counter this insane fashion for Brobdingnagian timepieces!
    I agree wholeheatedly with your "rant". The Rolex DD40 was another clumsy resizing of the classic 36mm DD IMO. The 36mm is more than blingy enough, and perfectly proportioned.

    My son wears a lovely 36mm Glycine Airman which I greatly covet. It looks a lot like this, though I'm not certain that it is exactly this one:

    https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/th...ne-airman-no-1

    I blame the Americans, bigger is always better in the US.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by beechcustom View Post
    You probably know this already but 'sports' models with wide bezels, such as Subs and GMTs wear very differently to those with slim bezels. A 40mm GMT can acually wear much smaller than a 38mm Nomos Orion for example. The 'all dial' design of the Nomos makes it wear massive. OP, if your sweet spot is 36 to 38mm case diameter you may find that 40mm 'sports' models don't wear too big. Also, 36mm Rolex OP and Datejusts will be perfect for you but I appreciate you might not want to spend that much on a watch!
    There seems to be some variation in where people measure from - some include the crown for eg., others don't.

    I'm not mad about Rolexes but I know what you mean about some ~40mm watches wearing smaller - the Submariner is OK for a large watch. I find a lot of contemporary Rolexes a bit bling though, and I hate the cyclops!

  13. #13
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NW Leics
    Posts
    5,384
    34-38mm is my sweet spot and most of my favourite watches are in that range. My midsize Seamaster, Mark XII, Ingenieur for example. My GMT Master always seemed a bit too big at 40mm although it doesn't now, even though my wrist is actually smaller than it was when I bought it at 26.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    I agree wholeheatedly with your "rant". The Rolex DD40 was another clumsy resizing of the classic 36mm DD IMO. The 36mm is more than blingy enough, and perfectly proportioned.

    My son wears a lovely 36mm Glycine Airman which I greatly covet. It looks a lot like this, though I'm not certain that it is exactly this one:

    https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/th...ne-airman-no-1

    I blame the Americans, bigger is always better in the US.
    If you study costly signalling theory and a variant of it known as the handicap principle (see Zahavi and Zahavi 1997) then perhaps we find some explanation. The gist is that some species use what seem to be unnecessarily large anatomical traits to signal good genes to potential mates: if I can survive whilst visibly encumbered in this way then I must be 'fit'. Thus, if I can still function with an anchor strapped to my wrist...!

    Anyway, the manufacturers have all gone this way, they're all making bigger and bigger watches, but I wonder if they've kept everyone with them. It's hard to believe, but nonetheless it seems true, that finding a really good dive/military type watch under 40mm is actually a challenge these days!

    Crazy.

    Alex

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by monogroover View Post
    34-38mm is my sweet spot and most of my favourite watches are in that range. My midsize Seamaster, Mark XII, Ingenieur for example. My GMT Master always seemed a bit too big at 40mm although it doesn't now, even though my wrist is actually smaller than it was when I bought it at 26.
    Yeah, I agree. 38mm case diameter is actually quite a sizeable watch! Granted it's puny compared with some of these crackpot dive watches today, but still!

    Alex

  16. #16
    Master Onelasttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Everywhere, yet nowhere...
    Posts
    6,679
    Weird, but I've had no problem at all building a collection featuring a wide range of different watches, covering a wide range of sizes, for a wide range of different purposes.

    You're asking us to do all the work for you. It's part of the fun finding these things out for yourself.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Onelasttime View Post
    It's part of the fun finding these things out for yourself.
    I don't want to do a PhD on it, but a spot of Googling revealed that finding quality watches under 40mm case diameter isn't easy and your choice appears to be severely limited. You've got a few G10-type watches, Eddie's 36mm Everest, and the 38mm Hamilton Khaki/Field watches, although I suppose they arguably come under the rubric of G10-type. Even they're a bit big, the issued CWC G10 is 36mm if memory serves.

    I'm just interested to see if I've missed anything tasty and if other people feel the same way, i.e., that this fashion for colossal watches is daft. The number of times I've seen a picture of a watch on a website and thought, that looks really great, and then looked at the dimensions and given them an incredulous double-take is telling: "that wants hanging on the bloody wall not strapping to my wrist!"

    Alex

  18. #18
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    553
    My grandpa's watch from the 1950's is "sensibly proportioned". I love the watch and I'd use it too but I'm 6'3 tall with big wrists. I'm not a bodybuilder but I've been hitting the gym since I was 18. What was "sensible" size back in the 1950's is not sensible now... not for bigger wrists anyway.

    My grandpa was probably 5'6 tall.



    Anything less than 40mm doesn't look good on my wrist. It's just the how I feel. Some 45mm watches look amazing, some not so amazing. The case shape plays a big role too.
    Last edited by JPE; 10th September 2019 at 13:08.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    My grandpa's watch from the 1950's is "sensibly proportioned". I love the watch and I'd use it too but I'm 6'3 tall with big wrists. I'm not a bodybuilder but I've been hitting the gym since I was 18. What was "sensible" size back in the 1950's is not sensible now... not for bigger wrists anyway.

    My grandpa was probably 5'6 tall.

    Anything less than 40mm doesn't look good on my wrist. It's just the how I feel. Some 45mm watches look amazing, some not so amazing. The case shape plays a big role too.
    Sure, I'll grant with both hands that people with big wrists are likely to be happier with bigger watches, although barring extremes, I would think 40mm would look pretty large on any wrist.

    I don't know, but would hazard a guess, that this pronounced watch hypertrophy grossy exceeds any increase in average wrist size that may have occurred since the war. Just look at the manufacturer's product shots, they're obviously going for that "little kid out in daddy's watch" look, presumably because it's what people want. I don't like it but we're all different. Trouble is, this trend has taken hold to the extent that high quality watches under 40mm diameter - which not long ago would've been considered bloody huge! - are very rare, and choice is restricted.

    Alex

  20. #20
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Earwicker View Post
    I don't want to do a PhD on it, but a spot of Googling revealed that finding quality watches under 40mm case diameter isn't easy and your choice appears to be severely limited. You've got a few G10-type watches, Eddie's 36mm Everest, and the 38mm Hamilton Khaki/Field watches, although I suppose they arguably come under the rubric of G10-type. Even they're a bit big, the issued CWC G10 is 36mm if memory serves.

    I'm just interested to see if I've missed anything tasty and if other people feel the same way, i.e., that this fashion for colossal watches is daft. The number of times I've seen a picture of a watch on a website and thought, that looks really great, and then looked at the dimensions and given them an incredulous double-take is telling: "that wants hanging on the bloody wall not strapping to my wrist!"

    Alex
    What you may not realise is that there have been about a thousand threads on this topic here over the last few years. It's far from a new observation that most modern watches seem oversized. Many will agree with you, as they found these watches unwearable during the peak of the large watch trend. At one point is seemed that almost every new watch was 42mm, as if this had been chosen from on high as the new standard size for all men. Some had no problem with this as they were a good fit for them, while a significant minority simply couldn't wear them. Some couldn't wear them and tried anyway, with hilarious consequences. Some who had slimmer wrists complained (the phrase 'clown watch' came up a lot), while others who had larger wrists and didn't want watches to get smaller complained back. Every other day the 'large watch trend' was declared to be over, and wasn't. Things have moved on from that point, and you do see many more watches at 40mm or under, though arguably a 39-40mm dress watch (or indeed Rolex Oyster Perpetual / Explorer) is still no shrinking violet and on the large side for some of us. We are starting to see a little more choice and variety, though speaking for myself I find watches often come in two sizes - too big, and too small. Quite a few people find 38mm to be a magical size, a sort of modern take on the traditional 36mm. Many manufactures still jump straight from 36mm to 42mm, completely missing the sweet spot in between.

    There were many factors in the large watch trend. Bigger was sometimes confused with better, more 'presence', more weight, more watch for your money. They certainly stood out in the display case, upstaging better sized rivals and looking like the more expensive model. It's also easier to make a well proportioned watch by making the case bigger than by making the movement thinner. And of course there was the ostentation factor, but tread carefully with that one, or people who simply have larger wrists and need larger watches will become rather tetchy. But not surprisingly, many people wanting a special, expensive, luxury watch want something that stands out. It's the forum types who start to crave a watch that fits.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Itsguy View Post
    What you may not realise is that there have been about a thousand threads on this topic here over the last few years. It's far from a new observation that most modern watches seem oversized. Many will agree with you, as they found these watches unwearable during the peak of the large watch trend. At one point is seemed that almost every new watch was 42mm, as if this had been chosen from on high as the new standard size for all men. Some had no problem with this as they were a good fit for them, while a significant minority simply couldn't wear them. Some couldn't wear them and tried anyway, with hilarious consequences. Some who had slimmer wrists complained (the phrase 'clown watch' came up a lot), while others who had larger wrists and didn't want watches to get smaller complained back. Every other day the 'large watch trend' was declared to be over, and wasn't. Things have moved on from that point, and you do see many more watches at 40mm or under, though arguably a 39-40mm dress watch (or indeed Rolex Oyster Perpetual / Explorer) is still no shrinking violet and on the large side for some of us. We are starting to see a little more choice and variety, though speaking for myself I find watches often come in two sizes - too big, and too small. Quite a few people find 38mm to be a magical size, a sort of modern take on the traditional 36mm. Many manufactures still jump straight from 36mm to 42mm, completely missing the sweet spot in between.

    There were many factors in the large watch trend. Bigger was sometimes confused with better, more 'presence', more weight, more watch for your money. They certainly stood out in the display case, upstaging better sized rivals and looking like the more expensive model. It's also easier to make a well proportioned watch by making the case bigger than by making the movement thinner. And of course there was the ostentation factor, but tread carefully with that one, or people who simply have larger wrists and need larger watches will become rather tetchy. But not surprisingly, many people wanting a special, expensive, luxury watch want something that stands out. It's the forum types who start to crave a watch that fits.
    Sorry, I haven't been around watch forums for a long time, I used to take a keen interest but that'll be at least a decade ago.

    I'm sure you're right in what you say, I think it's the lack of choice that I find strange and bothersome. Some people will always like huge watches, either because they're huge or they just like the oversize look. My uncle likes gargantuan watches but his wrists are bigger than my neck! But now they're pretty much all vast. Take the Certina example I gave above: their dress watches - which, aesthetically, I rather like - are 40mm! I.e., a size that would once have been comfortably into dive watch territory, and dive watches are so big to ensure legibility under water and are usually worn over a wetsuit! Such sizes are now pretty much the norm for dress and field watches!

    I dunno, has anyone ever managed to get an insight from the manufacturers? I guess they've done some market research and concluded that everyone wants huge watches. Unless there's been some rapid upward trend in average wrist sizes, I'm baffled.

    Then again there're lots of things I don't understand. I can't get my head around quantum mechanics either, and to the list of things that befuddle me can be added, 'why normally sized humans all of a sudden want to wear watches the size of Australia'!

    Alex

  22. #22
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Earwicker View Post
    Sure, I'll grant with both hands that people with big wrists are likely to be happier with bigger watches, although barring extremes, I would think 40mm would look pretty large on any wrist.

    I don't know, but would hazard a guess, that this pronounced watch hypertrophy grossy exceeds any increase in average wrist size that may have occurred since the war. Just look at the manufacturer's product shots, they're obviously going for that "little kid out in daddy's watch" look, presumably because it's what people want. I don't like it but we're all different. Trouble is, this trend has taken hold to the extent that high quality watches under 40mm diameter - which not long ago would've been considered bloody huge! - are very rare, and choice is restricted.

    Alex
    Yeah. Look at my grandpa's watch. It's probably from the mid-50's. Just five years after that Rolex Submariner 5512 (40mm) was released. Sub must have been a HUGE... no... GIGANTIC watch back in the day. It's still perfectly sized. I love my Explorer II 40mm but it looks very small in comparison because it has a smooth bezel.

    It's not just about the millimeters. Other things play a role too. 45mm Planet Ocean with metal bracelet was just too big and clumsy, even for me.

  23. #23
    Master ryanb741's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,486
    Chap in the lift had an earlier model Breitling Aerospace 40mm on. Now that was a well proportioned watch

    Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

  24. #24
    Master Tetlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,520
    Just get the G10 and be done with it, sure it's expensive for what it is but for what you're after it takes some beating.

    Better still get a fixer upper from ebay for around £50 and have some fun fitting a new movement inside, there is even a guide somewhere on the web from a site callled watchfettlers or similar. If that is too much of a mission make an account over on MWRforum and post a want to buy, I'm sure somebody there will sell you an issued G10 cheap enough.

  25. #25
    Grand Master magirus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Up North hinny
    Posts
    31,153
    Sensibly proportioned? No such thing, IMHO. It's entirely subjective and a matter of personal taste. I wear the watches I like for me and no one else, sizewise from a 36mm 1984 Datejust, up to a 42.5mm Voyager and 42mm Archimede Deck Watch, with other sizes in between.

  26. #26
    Master draftsmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Malta and sometimes bits of Brit
    Posts
    4,199
    Big sports watches are nothing new.

    My Grandfather Tuna is probably the heftiest watch I own- and it has proper vintage cred. Likewise my Speedsonic. There are a few others if I can be bothered to think of them.

    Ok, I think it’s a shame that modern Rolex and Tudor don’t have the elegant proportions of their model ancestors. Eg vintage Tudor Ranger- 34mm, but the modern “heritage” Ranger is a clown-sized 40+mm.

    If you want midsize dive watches, rejoice in the fact that you can buy a lovely Heuer 1000 series or a Tudor midsize Sub or a midsize Omega SMP for a LOT less than the full-size version.

  27. #27
    Master sweets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol - UK
    Posts
    3,716
    To the OP, I think you have managed to get your interest in watches back just as the trend for large watches (42mm+) has turned the corner, and manfacturers are making smaller ones again.
    Sure, there is plenty of large-scale stock out here, but more and more people are releasing 40mm and smaller models.
    Oris 65 for instance, a mainstream dive watch under 40m (yes, I know there are larger ones too), same with the Rado Captain Cook, which comes in at 38mm as well as the laughable 45mm.
    There is lots of choice.
    D

  28. #28
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    6,263
    Vintage for the sub 36mm win:











    But it is hard to beat Eddies stuff...


  29. #29
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    90
    I’ve read this whole thread with interest. I have tiny wrists (16cm) but wear watches that range from equally tiny (vintage 34mm) to humongous (42mm ExpII ‘homage’). I like them all.

    The sweet spot for me is somewhere around 38mm for pure perfect fit. For that reason I’ll never sell my Omega Date, which at 39mm along with lots of personal history, is a watch for life. However, I also love the look of the BBB on my wrist. It’s firmly in the humongous category but it just makes me happy to see it. Even if some might think it looks ridiculous!

    I suppose what I’m saying is that it’s all very personal this watch size thing. It’s quite possible for a small chap like me to wear a big watch and be happy.

    As per comments in this thread I do think there’s a reasonable choice of smaller sizes to choose from nowadays. I’ve been googling extensively over the past year or so and it seems manufacturers are starting to produce smaller watches again. Some of Omega’s latest are really nice, if a bit pricey and Eddie’s are hard to beat for value.

    I need to hold back my urge to buy anything else right now but my next watch will probably be something cheap, old and small. Probably.....


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  30. #30
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    553
    This is my 45mm Breitling Steelfish. It looks ok on my wrist but absolutely stupid on my brother's wrist (who's a smaller guy).



    Here's a Super Avenger on someone's wrist. Doesn't look that good, eh?



    This is my old friend's 36mm DJ. He has moderately sized wrists. It looks smallish but he doesn't feel that way. In my opinion it looks fantastic on him. I couldn't wear that watch though.



    Yeah, it's all about the wrist/hand size and personal preference.

  31. #31
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Posts
    254
    Modern watch, sensibly sized seems to be your ask. Longines Heritage Conquest with black or cream dial is an answer, but only in my opinion, which may match someone else’s here today, but not so sure about tomorrow....


  32. #32
    Master bedlam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia (GMT +8)
    Posts
    1,064
    A small faced dive watch isn't more sensible. 36mm certainly isn't. 42-43mm is the sweet spot (for me).

  33. #33
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,903
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    My grandpa's watch from the 1950's is "sensibly proportioned".
    That’s a nice looking watch. Montres Choisi relaunched in 2013. Their ‘Heritage’ and ‘1929’ ranges have some nice vintage designs, but make the OP’s point by having 42mm-44mm cases. http://www.choisiwatch.com

    They used a picture of the model your grandfather had to illustrate their heritage.

  34. #34
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Felixstowe, UK
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by bedlam View Post
    A small faced dive watch isn't more sensible. 36mm certainly isn't. 42-43mm is the sweet spot (for me).
    Perfectly sensible 37.3mm ‘dive’ watch.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by andyd30 View Post
    Modern watch, sensibly sized seems to be your ask. Longines Heritage Conquest with black or cream dial is an answer, but only in my opinion, which may match someone else’s here today, but not so sure about tomorrow....
    That's really nice! Neither dress watches nor Longines have been on my radar in the past but that's a good watch. Longines's website says the diameter's 35mm, but it looks bigger than that to me...

    https://www.goldsmiths.co.uk/medias/...FmNmVkMmE4NWY5

    Oddly enough, the Certina DS-1 Powermatic 80 Himalaya caught my eye the other day, which has a similar vintage dress watch aesthetic:

    https://www.watchshop.com/mens-certi...p99998494.html

    Check out the dimensions though - it's the size of a Rolex Submariner! Hold that thought: a major Swiss manufacturer is turning out vintage-style dress watches whose dimensions are comfortably into dive watch territory FFS!

    Alex

  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by lughugger View Post
    Perfectly sensible 37.3mm ‘dive’ watch.
    That's pretty, but there's something a bit 'faux-dive' about it - somehow a bit shiny and water resistance down at 100m.

    I'm still very tempted to get a Certina DS PH200M - it's too big but aren't they all. At least with a dive watch you can say, well, it's a dive watch, they're meant to be big! When I see a dress watch the size of Jupiter it looks dead wrong (to me).

    Alex

  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetlee View Post
    Just get the G10 and be done with it, sure it's expensive for what it is but for what you're after it takes some beating.
    Not the worst idea of all time, but they're sold out!

    Interestingly, a lot of these G10-style watches are sold out, there seems to be healthy demand for military-style timepieces that aren't huge.

    Alex

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by NCC66 View Post
    I’ve read this whole thread with interest. I have tiny wrists (16cm) but wear watches that range from equally tiny (vintage 34mm) to humongous (42mm ExpII ‘homage’). I like them all.
    I've got small wrists - about the same as yours - but enormous hands (I can make a 13th on the piano!), so I can get away with wearing larger watches but I don't particularly like them.


    As per comments in this thread I do think there’s a reasonable choice of smaller sizes to choose from nowadays. I’ve been googling extensively over the past year or so and it seems manufacturers are starting to produce smaller watches again.
    Pff, I hope you're right. I've been out of the watch thing for a good decade or so, and coming back to it now they all look pretty big to me. Dress and field watches the size of a Rolex Submariner or even larger are pretty normal, and some recent dive watches from Citizen et al. need putting in a church spire not strapping to someone's wrist!!

    Alex

  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    Here's a Super Avenger on someone's wrist. Doesn't look that good, eh?

    WTF is THAT??!!

    Yeah, it's all about the wrist/hand size and personal preference.
    Indeed. To each their own. Interesting you mention hand size, I've got small wrists but massive hands so I can often get away with bigger watches; I'm not mad keen on them though, especially heavy ones.

    Alex

  40. #40
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Surrey, UK. Odiáxere or somewhere in-between
    Posts
    7,398
    Blog Entries
    19
    There have been other threads on watch size - the diameter is one of many measures to consider. Others I look at are

    Height / Diameter ratio:
    Some watches are considered ‘top heavy’ with thickness making them uncomfortable - with the watch too thick for the width. For example the Omega POC is both large and thick, also the 16600 sea dwellers before the resurgence used to get criticised for being thick compared to width so tended to slide round the wrist.

    Width across watch lug to lug
    For me it looks silly and feels uncomfortable if the lugs go beyond the width of my wrist. So measure across your wrist in mm then maybe take off 10% give maximum lug to lug size.

    From shopify.com


    Lug shape
    If the lugs shape (point down) the wrist it wears more comfortably than straight lugs if the case diameter is a larger size. Zenith , BP etc are masters of this.

    Just some things I consider. And bezel sizes / crystal size, and so on. Just try the thing on before buying.
    Picture angle
    Take a picture of the watch on wrist in a mirror as that shows how it looks. These close up distorted pictures by phone cams don’t really reflect reality.

    Martyn.
    Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 11th September 2019 at 08:19.

  41. #41
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Felixstowe, UK
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by Earwicker View Post
    That's pretty, but there's something a bit 'faux-dive' about it - somehow a bit shiny and water resistance down at 100m.

    I'm still very tempted to get a Certina DS PH200M - it's too big but aren't they all. At least with a dive watch you can say, well, it's a dive watch, they're meant to be big! When I see a dress watch the size of Jupiter it looks dead wrong (to me).

    Alex
    Well the Captain Cook is a modern re-issue of the original. No faux lume either on the Ghost LE. Not sure who needs these inflated depth proof watches....


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  42. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by lughugger View Post
    Well the Captain Cook is a modern re-issue of the original. No faux lume either on the Ghost LE. Not sure who needs these inflated depth proof watches....
    Silly isn't it: 300m and more, with helium release valves etc. I knew a guy with a Sea Dweller who didn't even wear it in the bath!

    The Captain Cook is a nice looking watch in all fairness, I'm not wild about the hour hand but it's a sensible size and seems nicely done on the whole.

    Alex

  43. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by MartynJC (UK) View Post
    There have been other threads on watch size - the diameter is one of many measures to consider. Others I look at are

    Height / Diameter ratio:
    Some watches are considered ‘top heavy’ with thickness making them uncomfortable - with the watch too thick for the width. For example the Omega POC is both large and thick, also the 16600 sea dwellers before the resurgence used to get criticised for being thick compared to width so tended to slide round the wrist.

    Width across watch lug to lug
    For me it looks silly and feels uncomfortable if the lugs go beyond the width of my wrist. So measure across your wrist in mm then maybe take off 10% give maximum lug to lug size.

    Lug shape
    If the lugs shape (point down) the wrist it wears more comfortably than straight lugs if the case diameter is a larger size. Zenith , BP etc are masters of this.

    Just some things I consider. And bezel sizes / crystal size, and so on. Just try the thing on before buying.
    Picture angle
    Take a picture of the watch on wrist in a mirror as that shows how it looks. These close up distorted pictures by phone cams don’t really reflect reality.

    Martyn.
    Agreed on all points. The lugs are critical to a good fit; some of these large, sticky-outy crowns can affect comfort too.

    Alex

  44. #44
    Here are two sensibly proportioned watches on one sensibly proportioned bloke.

    A not at all 'slightly daft' 39 Oyster Perpetual...



    And a 44mm Seiko 077...


  45. #45
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by alfat33 View Post
    That’s a nice looking watch. Montres Choisi relaunched in 2013. Their ‘Heritage’ and ‘1929’ ranges have some nice vintage designs, but make the OP’s point by having 42mm-44mm cases. http://www.choisiwatch.com

    They used a picture of the model your grandfather had to illustrate their heritage.
    Yes I know. That's my photograph. I discussed with their CEO about 10 years ago and they asked if they can use my photo. :)

  46. #46
    Master bedlam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia (GMT +8)
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by lughugger View Post
    Perfectly sensible 37.3mm ‘dive’ watch.
    Well, it's like a dive watch. The lack of indexing makes it about as sensible as a ruler with only every 15th millimetere marked.

  47. #47
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    This is my 45mm Breitling Steelfish. It looks ok on my wrist but absolutely stupid on my brother's wrist (who's a smaller guy).
    (I think it's 44mm, but yes.)

  48. #48
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,903
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    Yes I know. That's my photograph. I discussed with their CEO about 10 years ago and they asked if they can use my photo. :)
    Can’t beat this forum for first-hand expertise.

  49. #49
    Master bedlam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia (GMT +8)
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by lughugger View Post
    Well the Captain Cook is a modern re-issue of the original. No faux lume either on the Ghost LE. Not sure who needs these inflated depth proof watches....
    Anyone who dives to 100m or more (like I do).

    Have you ever used a dive watch in adverse diving conditions?

    Low-light or poor visibility at depth is hard enough without struggling to read your equipment or risking it failing because it isn't engineerered for the task. In a dive watch I'll take 200m WR over a spinning anchor every time.


  50. #50
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by alfat33 View Post
    Can’t beat this forum for first-hand expertise.
    Here's my original photograph that they used.


Posting Permissions

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