Don't get hung up on case size

[bazza.]

The isolation continues :) just wanted to post this picture of 3 of my watches to show
case size only tells half the story

Left 42mm Middle 47.5mm Right 40mm

[xellos99]

I have had 46 / 47 mm watches 3 times and just had to sell them all.

I have a 6.75 inch wrist and it just looks stupid on me full stop.

44mm I can just about pull off without looking like a clown but 40mm is ideal for me.

I also had a 36mm and that was pathetically small like a ladies watch so that is a no also.

The thickness and weight of the case I find makes a big difference also, too thick or heavy and they are horrible.

So in summary about 40mm, 10mm thick and balanced weight that you can`t notice much on the wrist.

I think I am in the hung up camp but it was through experience and not just being fussy.

[oldoakknives]

For me also it's the thickness of the case which is more important. It's easier to wear a 42mm if it has a reasonably thin case. The ones that sit taller because of the thickness of the case always feel a lot bigger.

[Wallasey Runner]

Looking at the OPs image the watch on the left looks the biggest, probably because it has the biggest dial of the three and a very small bezel. I've owned several 45mm that wear like 42mm due to the size of the bezel area and I had a 40mm watch that I sold because it looked massive. So it's not just about the mm size, it's also about the proportions of the Watch.

[ac11111]

A balanced 35mm.

[th6252]

The isolation continues :) just wanted to post this picture of 3 of my watches to show
case size only tells half the story

Left 42mm Middle 47.5mm Right 40mm

very nice

[MartynJC (UK)]

^^^ say wat?????

Anyway - I find the active watch dimension for me is the lug to lug distance (across the face of the watch) - not the diameter. If a watch has wide lugs sticking out from the watch dial - and the lug-lug width is wider than my wrist then the watch just feels (and looks) too big - for me.

Martyn

[bazza.]

So many people get scared of the Tuna when they hear its 47.5mm watch but it wears so much smaller
I've a few different size watches here are a few
from left to right ; 37 , 38.5 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44, 47.5

[Onelasttime]

I had a Tuna SBBN017 and there is no doubt it is a chunky watch, but didn't feel ridiculous.



However, it got flipped and now I have a 7549 7010 Tuna, which is only a smidge smaller than the 017 but wears just right. It's still a chunk but slightly thinner.



Obviously the Tuna has no lugs which helps massively.

But I always thought a Seiko SPB077 would be way too big at 44mm by 50mm. Seems I was wrong …



And I can also happily wear a 36mm Explorer



Where it gets silly is anything over 40mm with no bezel. I had an LLD and just loved that watch, but it was wrong on my wrist with a 52mm lug to lug.

Then there was an AT Railmaster 41mm …



No, just NO!

Generally, the sweet spot for me is 38mm, but dimensions are deceptive.

[Russ]

I had a Tuna SBBN017 and there is no doubt it is a chunky watch, but didn't feel ridiculous.



However, it got flipped and now I have a 7549 7010 Tuna, which is only a smidge smaller than the 017 but wears just right. It's still a chunk but slightly thinner.



Obviously the Tuna has no lugs which helps massively.

But I always thought a Seiko SPB077 would be way too big at 44mm by 50mm. Seems I was wrong …



And I can also happily wear a 36mm Explorer



Where it gets silly is anything over 40mm with no bezel. I had an LLD and just loved that watch, but it was wrong on my wrist with a 52mm lug to lug.

Then there was an AT Railmaster 41mm …



No, just NO!

Generally, the sweet spot for me is 38mm, but dimensions are deceptive.

Nice watches. I have to say that the explorer looks more right on your wrist than any of the others.

[964boy]

A balanced 35mm.

A classy classic

[Mick P]

I reckon that case height is what gives a watch more presence and visual impact. The watches that I really prefer wearing is an old 40mm Rolex 1655 Explore11 and a 39mm Explorer1. Both of these watches are thinner than other Rolex and a shirt sleeve just rolls over them. The old 1655, in particular, although 40mm looks almost effeminate because the lens is so low and no one ever notices it.

The Subs and GMTs on the other hand with rotating toothed besels are thicker and higher and thus look a lot larger. Also they tend to catch on sleeves and that really draws the eye to them.

I sometimes wonder if Rolex ought to make their models hand wound which would help make them a lot thinner.

[robinsongreen68]

yeah agree with this, i was torn between the OP39mm and the explorer 1, but when you compare them in real life the case of the OP is higher because the bezel is domed. The OP is still a beautiful watch but i find the explorer a bit more discreet.

[Stuno1]

For me also it's the thickness of the case which is more important. It's easier to wear a 42mm if it has a reasonably thin case. The ones that sit taller because of the thickness of the case always feel a lot bigger.

Agreed thickness is almost more important than diameter.

[stix]

I came to the realisation a few years ago that if the watch isn't comfortable to wear on a regular basis, then it's not staying. I just don't see the point anymore as much as I like some of the models mentioned and many more. It's also about the weight as well as the overall size, the crown guards, the clasp and so on. If it digs in on any part of my wrist then I know it won't last.

The most comfortable dive watch I have owned by a country mile was the EZM 3. It was perfect! I had a Avenger Seawolf which was huge and again, it was just too uncomfortable in the end. I also had a Sea Dweller that I loved but, I just couldn't find the right fit and it always felt top heavy, as much as I regret selling it.

I picked up a TAG 2000 quartz diver recently, cheap, and it really is the sweet spot for me and a perfect little all rounder at 37mm.