Reply With QuoteI don't set hard limits because I will wear a watch that is a bit too big for me.
I think 39mm is the ideal for my 6.75" wrist but I have several 44mm watches.
They are obviously a little too large but i`m not that bothered what others think.
I've been pondering a new watch for a little while, quite open to budget, brand, size, type of watch.
But the more I look, the more I seem to find that watches just don't seem to fit me that well.
I have quite slim wrists and have realised that 42mm diameter is generally the max I can carry off, but regularly wearing an SMP has also taught me I don't like thicker watches (that meant 'bye bye Pelagos' and 'hello Grand Seiko 9F Anniversary), the Pelagos also teaching me that long lug-to-lug doesn't suit me either - that's more of the problem, than thickness, as a watch clearly can't overhang your wrist!
I've looked at some of the sale sale stuff on EJ, the '57 Speedmaster Broad Arrow would be perfect but is just too big, Railmaster doesn't have a date (although I am still pondering that), 39.5mm Ceramic PO would be a good curveball but too thick and then from others - the new Seiko SPB 62mas reincarnations are probably the perfect size but I don't like the thick bezel, new SMP would go well with my other two but it's too long, new SLA037 (blue dial hi-beat 62mas replica) was looking good but is much deeper.
I guess it's just over time you learn what fits you better, but it seems to have removed a lot of choices for me!
More of a meandering thought than anything, but is that just something you find over the time of collecting?
On a more positive thought my SMPs, GS 9F and Speedmaster Triple Date all hit the mark.
I don't set hard limits because I will wear a watch that is a bit too big for me.
I think 39mm is the ideal for my 6.75" wrist but I have several 44mm watches.
They are obviously a little too large but i`m not that bothered what others think.
35 to 39mm is ideal for me, have a 43mm at the moment which is too wide and also tall, coupled with the bracelet makes it a chore to wear.
My wrist is only 6.75 on a good day and I go back and forth with my PO 45.5mm. Some days I think it's too big, some days I think it's spot on. I think finding a comfortable strap definitely helps. I've realised I can't wear it on the bracelet but I've got a Nick Mankey strap and a Zuludiver rubber strap which makes it a lot more wearable..
Before I knew about watches I had a diesel big daddy which I wore once, felt like an absolute tool and sold it.
It can also change over time. My sweet spot for a couple of years was 41mm to 42mm and I could get away with 45mm or 46mm on certain watches. Anything below 40mm just felt too small.
During the last 12 months I have owned several watches in the 36mm to 40mm range and I believe that has now become my new sweet spot. In addition the height has also become an issue and I am now preferring slimmer watches. I am pushing 60 so maybe a bit of wisdom and common sense are starting to creep in, but I genuinely believe that I can no longer carry off a bigger watch.
I appreciate that we are all different and all have our own sweet spot, but it was interesting putting on a new watch that I thought was my size and then rejecting it because it was just too big. I have revised my sweet spot to 38mm to 40mm max.
Same for me, but height and lug to lug also important.Originally Posted by stowaJLCfan
It is difficult, but if you can try them on rather than read the stats...
I am always about 40mm as a sweet spot, but I wear a Breitling Seawolf that is supposed to be upward of 44mm, yet wears like a tall version of my SubC.
I also have a GS Spring Drive Diver and it says 44.6, but wears about the same as my Black Bay Chrono.
And I had a BB Steel that wore a lot smaller than the BB Chrono, although they're basically the same case.
Face size, rather than case size, makes a huge difference.
Lug to lug is key for me. If it overhangs your wrist much, it looks odd and feels bonk.
I also need to wear bracelets that are max.22mm at the lug, and they have to taper to 20mm at least, or less.
A 22mm bracelet at the clasp just doesn't sit right, aesthetically.
I’m almost the opposite. For the past 4-5 years I’ve worn a Garmin Fenix 3. That’s 51mm wise and 16mm deep.
I have always lusted after a speedmaster professional and finally bought one last week. I love it but really have to get used to it being so small!
So my advice is buy a huge watch, wear it until you get used to it and then a whole world of watch size will open up to you!
I'm quite content from the largest watch I occasionally wear, a Suunto Stinger dive computer, that I find a real pleasure on a rubber Sinn strap I'm pretty sure that's over 45mm. At the other end I sometimes wear an early Wittnauer Allproof at 27mm, an equally dinky Mk1 Weems and a West End that is only a mm or so larger. However most of the time my sweet spot is between 34-41mm. I generally don't go much larger but I'm quite content with anything smaller that was designed as a man's watch.
yeah I'm the opposite. first luxury watch on my slim wrists, and daily for many years, was a 41.5mm 8500 calibre PO. Get used to a monster like thst and the Pelagos thst arived last year, and the Seiko sumo, both feel smaller. I'm considering a fiddy for a future purchase now.
I too have a ladies wrist and won't now wear over 40mm
Even then if it does not have a decent sized bezel it will look too big.
unfortunately it rules lots of lovely watches out for me but I'd rather wear the watch than vice versa.
Seen too many skinny wrists parading the latest must have Rolex on here unfortunately.
I too had concerns about 'size' many years ago due to having a small circumference wrist and as a result my first decent watch was dictated by this and I got a 36mm mid-size Seamaster
as has previously been posted there are many factors to take into account though,
- round wrist or flat wrist
- lug length (this is the big issue for me too ) that said I have a Pelagos and find it fine
- Face size
- Bezel (if one) thickness
- case thickness
- material/weight
- bracelet or strap
Nothing beats trying something on to see how YOU like it though prior to disregarding, without seeing and trying on (if possible) it would be wrong to do so.
My wrists are slim at approx 6.5" but every watch I own, I personally like how it fits/looks, ranging from 36-44mm and of various thickness/depth.
That said pretty much every wrist shot I take either with my phone or a camera seems to give a false impression and make them look out of proportion
Given your criteria of open budget, brand, size, type of watch, I'd personally try something you fancy where possible before ruling out anything on 'stats'
good luck with your search...
Size can be amazing:
SLA019:
Diameter: 44.3mm
Lug to lug: 50.5mm
Thickness: 15.4mm
Wears like a large watch
Omega cal 2500 Planet Ocean 42mm
Diameter: 42mm
Lug to lug: 46mm
Thickness 14.5mm
Wears like a not that big watch
My sweet spot is somewhere in 36mm - 42mm diameter, sub 48mm lug to lug and between 11mm - 15mm in thickness.
so generally i cant go near anything over 42mm, 38-40mm tends to be the best fit for me but ive come to learn that thickness, the dial size vs a bezel size and sometimes even the dial colour can change how a watch feels optically on the wrist.
I have had a couple of 44mm watches and own 2 at the moment, one a Pam GMT i've desperately tried to make work, but cant and that finally went off to a dealer this week, the other is my JLC Compressor diver. The JLC is a funny one, it feels comfortable, doesnt IMO look to big for my wrist and i'm always happy to wear it, the problem with the PAM is its ALL dial so just looks like a wall clock on my wrist. The large bezel on the JLC dampens that visual effect down significantly and thats why i feel like i get away with it.
At 42mm I have the Submersible 683, decent size bezel, the rubber strap on it is like butter around the wrist and so for what is a chunky watch, i feel like it get away with it.
I find straps play an important part to how visually a watch can look size wise as well, a chunkier padded strap on a 37mm watch can really elevate it up to the look and feel of a 39mm/40mm watch
I find a bund strap on nothing more than 39/40mm works well for me, they always make the watch look so much bigger, Natos seem to reduce the size for me.
I've always liked the look of a new ceramic SD but i tried that on and it just felt way too big for me, profile, depth etc, so have stayed away from that and always been content with my 16660
Anyway, point is, i've found there are lots of variables which is why i will at least try something that i might feel will be too big as every watch looks different on the wrist, a change of strap can have a big impact, dial and bezel configuration plays a big part and even the glass, domed, flat etc all have an impact.
Jumping from a large watch to a smaller watch doesn't help either, always makes the smaller of the 2 feel even smaller until you've worn it for a day or 2 and get reacquainted
It goes the other way as well though, things you might feel are to small with the right strap can wear some much larger, older Airkings or OP's at 36mm, most balk at that size today, they shouldn't, wear them for a few days and you soon get used to them (unless you genuinely have a tree trunk wrist)
Unfortunately most brands aim for a median wrist size to maximise sales, which is reasonable up to a point. But if you have slimmer wrists, over time you gradually realise that most watches don’t really fit. It’s too expensive for many brands to offer more than one size, and if they do, it’s often a choice of too large and too small. It’s striking how many people find 38mm a good size, one day brands might realise that by offering this size, they will maximise sales by being one of the few choices for a significant minority who can’t wear most other watches. Brands have also lost the knack of making thin watches, and often seem to make them in dinner plate sizes just so the proportions look ok - it’s much easier to make a watch larger than thinner, though all brands seemed to manage it in the past.
It’s worth trying the Omega Aqua Terra in the 38mm version, one of the best proportioned watches out there for slimmer wrists, without that slightly oversized feel that the Rolex Explorer or oyster perpetual 39 have. Grand Seiko also manage to make 40mm 9F quartz that fit, due to curving lugs and not being too thick, as well as offering 37mm models. The Habring2 Felix is 38mm, and GP make a Laureato in 38mm. Nomos also have some options. Of course, an advantage of slimmer wrists is being able to wear vintage / older models, including original Rolex sports without the fat lugs, 1st gen Overseas, 37mm Royal Oaks like the 14790st, and many others. You also can’t go too far wrong with a 36mm original datejust, from any era - or even the Oysterquartz. Sadly though, with slimmer wrists and a preference for thinner watches, it becomes much more about finding watches that work than simply picking ones you like.
Whether a watch ‘wears’ well really depends on the wrist width rather than the circumference usually quoted.
A large watch probably looks better on a wide flat wrist rather than a more round one of the same nominal size.
For a long time I thought I had a ‘sweet spot’ of 40-42mm and I’d never deviate from it. This ultimately led to me collecting a load of very similar sized watches and regarding anything above or below said ‘sweet spot’ as the devils work.
Recently, though, I’ve come to realise that there are large watches, small watches and watches that are TOO big ie those that hang over the wrist. If a watch is large it may just be a particular aesthetic rather than being too big for me. For example, I’ve got 2 large zeniths that I’d have never worn previously because they’re 43 and 44mm respectively, but I’ve made peace with the fact that, sure, they’re not dress watches but the size of the watch is intentional as there is a particular look they cater for (short sleeves, casual etc). This has opened up a world of possibilities for watches that I would have previously given a wide birth (ploprof etc).
There are definitely some that are literally too big- the big pilot, for example- but I find that if the lug to lug is circa 50mm then it’ll probably work.
agree with this, case shape has a big impact, its how things fit to the wrist
I have slim square wrists, smaller vintage watches suit me best. Fortunately that’s what I prefer. The thickness of most modern watches ruins them, they start to luck like hockey pucks. I had an Aqua Terra 38mm and that always seemed too thick, it never fitted as well as it should. A smaller 34-36mm watch will look OK on an average or slightly larger wrist, a watch doesn’t need to be the maximum size a wrist can carry, but a big watch on a small wrist just looks silly. If I was buying a new watch my choice would be extremely limited, many of the current models wear like dinner plates on me. Rolex still produce nice 36 and 34 mm models but all the sports watches have become too big for me, even the Explorer 1 was spoiled when they hiked the size up to 39mm.
I think it is very dependent on the watch.
I've got small wrists and would limit myself to 42mm with an ideal size probably being 40mm. That said, I'd happily wear a very large G-Shock because they are light and designed to be oversize so it doesn't look so weird wearing a large G-Shock.
Comfort is a different...and for me usually varies with the thickness of the watch. For example, I found Omega Seamasters to be much more wearable than the equivalent Brietling Superocean or a Rolex Maxi-case sub just because it sits much flatter on the wrist.
Size limit is the same as money limit. Everybody would like a little more, and they might push it a bit, but at the end not everyone can have a Richard Mille, or sport an Egiziano. So nobody has to look for their limits as they are already there. And nobody really cares about other people's limits. Hehe.
"The whole purpose of mechanical watches is to be impertinent." ~ Lionel a Marca, CEO of Breguet
Yeah, I'd push it for the right watch as long as comfort wasn't also horrendous. I had previously considered a 44m Speedy DSOM...normally far too big but I think would have worked because it didn't weight that much and somehow appeared smaller than its measurements suggested.
Totally agreed - the Seiko SPB "Baby Marine Master" is, on paper, far larger that I'd usually wear. It's 44mm diameter and over 50mm lug-to-lug, but the case shape and profile means that it wears way smaller and is one of the most comfortable watches I own because it fits my wrist really well. As others have said, it can be misleading to rely on measurements alone without actually trying a watch on...
Ive discovered that its not the size for me, its the dial.
Ive happily worn 47mm panerai in the past, but the one watch ive worn and thought "thats far too big" is the 43mm moser pioneer.
My biggest watch is a 41mm and smallest 36mm now. Quite happy with that range.
They’ve actually sorted them out with the current generation, they’re noticeably thinner than they used to be. The quartz ones were also always thinner than the autos. Those who find the current Explorer or OP39 a bit big (and there are many of them) may be surprised how well they wear. Unfortunately though, they keep tinkering with the recipe and the new dials haven’t really caught on in the way the black and white OP39s have. The design just feels a bit less coherent and you never seem to see them on this forum as a result. I’ve given up hoping they’ll make a perfect one, but the proportions and range of sizes are actually very good, other brands could learn from them.
I haven't tried the "MM200" yet, but was just going to say something very similar about the MM300. It's 44mm but it wears much smaller than my 42mm Kemmner Turtle.
In comparison the Kemmner looks huge, but it's mostly an illusion. The Kemmner bezel is actually slightly wider than the 42mm case, whereas the MM300 bezel is smaller than the widest point on the case, which doesn't cover a large area because the case has curves all over the place. The Kemmner also feels bigger on the wrist because it's quite flat, whereas the MM300 has a sort of cutaway design so that the caseback footprint is relatively small. The MM300 is noticeably thicker, but not so much that it makes the watch look huge. Whereas the larger dial on the Turtle does make it wear a lot bigger.
Dont look at diameter only, see what lug-to-lug sizes do for you also..
I would broadly agree with this.
I also find that as you get older, one's tastes tend to veer away from big and brash, to more conservative (for me anyway). My sweet spot is now in the 34-37mm range (whereas a decade ago, it was 40mm plus).
But to expand on what Verv has said, I have a 44mm vintage Seiko 6309 that looks comfortable on my wrist (7.5cm), whilst I think the Speedmaster Professional looks too big on my wrist even though it's 42mm, because the diameter of the dial is wider.
True, small watches can look larger purely from the length of the lugs, and the thinness of the bezel.
Yeah I do try to, it's just some of the more unusual things can be difficult to try on.
The new SMP I thought was going to fit well, but tried it on and it was just too big for me. Such a shame, as I would've happily gone for one.
Yeah I agree. It's interesting the comments about the brands changing and the 'big watch phase' slightly being on the downturn.
I can only hope!
Used to wear 44. But realised 39-40 is a sweet spot for me.
It’s interesting how many of us have tiny/dainty/slim/ladies/delicate/small (delete as per your preference). I thought I was unusual with my 6.25”.
It’s also interesting to hear others who find, like me, that quoted dimensions can be misleading as to fit. I’d say my sweet spot is around 38mm, if such a watch existed. As such, I’ve always stuck around the 35-40mm diameter. Recently though, I’ve ventured outside this and now have watches up to 44mm. Some of it is down to liking a bit of ‘presence’ but mainly it’s just trying watches of all sorts and sizes to see what I like. Lug to lug makes a huge difference to the fit on my flattish wrist. Prior to lockdown I spent a couple of hours trying on various Omegas. I’d expected the new SMP to be ideal for the new larger watch wearing me but just couldn’t get on with it. It felt and looked all wrong. On the other hand, the PO at 43.5mm looked and felt great. Even the DSOM at 44+mm worked well.
So, for me and unless it’s a watch well below the magic 40mm diameter, it’s a case of largely ignoring the case size and searching out a watch to try on. Which is fun. Or it used to be.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There was a forum poll on wrist sizes a while back, and there were also some figures elsewhere. I concluded that roughly a third of people would find most modern watches slightly too big. That’s a minority but it’s also a huge proportion of the potential market. I don’t really blame the manufacturers for aiming for an average size, but it actually creates a gap in the market. At least things have improved since a few years back, when almost every new release was 42mm, with the occasional 36mm version as an alternative due to the size of older movements and their date wheel position. That left a yawning gap in between, and it’s still there in many cases, eg Overseas, 37mm or 41mm, still missing the sweet spot for many of us.It’s interesting how many of us have tiny/dainty/slim/ladies/delicate/small (delete as per your preference
As much as I love 40mm watches ( all my favourite models are 39mm-42mm) my sweet spot is 36mm. The shape of my wrist also means slimmer cases work better than thick cases too
Ken aka Wallasey Runner once described me as "no stranger to the larger watch", so those who know me here will not be surprised to see me chip in!
The truth is that there are many variables at play in determining whether or not a given watch 'fits' someone, and I think they fall into 3 categories:
1) the watch itself... case diameter and thickness, dial size, bezel size and construction, dial to bezel ratio, lug-to-lug length all play a role
2) the person... wrist diameter and wrist shape/geometry both matter
3) emotional preferences and unconscious bias... what someone is comfortable wearing, what they think about watch size (both consciously and unconsiously), self image, age-related bias are again all factors that (might) come into play
In my own case I started off in this hobby mostly wearing watches around the 40mm mark, but gradually escalated my preferences to the point I am at now, where (apart from the watch I was given for my 21st birthday) every watch I own is between 43.5mm and 47mm diameter.
My wrist diameter is a shade over 7" but my wrist geometry is relatively wide and flat. I enjoy watches with presence and have a strong leaning towards tool watches, mostly (but not exclusively) dive watches. Weight doesn't particularly bother me although comfort does.
Interestingly I have not found that age has changed my views on what I like and wear - and I am now 65.
Below is a wrist shot of my Navitimer World, which is 46mm diameter and has very little bezel - as can be seen, it doesn't overhang my wrist even given the distortion of taking the photo slightly too close to the camera...
Simon
I think a person's overall size/physique plays a part in how a watch looks on the wrist (others have mentioned face size, which I suppose is more or less the same thing).
Interesting to see a couple of previous posters commenting on how age plays a part. I would have said a conventional view is that as we become older, we become a bit more conservative in our tastes, which suggests a smaller watch size. But I notice the previous poster mentioning that age has not changed his taste for larger watches. I'd add another age related issue, and that is eyesight. Like most people, my close vision has deteriorated with age (presbyopia) with the result that I'm reluctant to wear a watch that is smaller than 38mm, especially one with a complication (even a date). I like chronographs but really cant read any below 40mm and the larger the chronograph registers, the better. I've ended up tending towards 40-41.5mm watches, even though my wrist size is only 6.75 inches.
I'm not quite sure how you missed the end of my post, which said exactly that, at the end of the sentence you quoted!
Here -
It's definitely an overall size thing, just found it a bit annoying that so many things that tempted me didn't really work. Oh well, if I don't buy anymore, it wouldn't be a problem!
[QUOTE=Shubs;5478028]I think a person's overall size/physique plays a part in how a watch looks on the wrist (others have mentioned face size, which I suppose is more or less the same thing).
Just realised the references to face size in other posts are (obviously) for the face of the watch not the wearer - what a pillock.
[QUOTE=Shubs;5478171]Funniest post of the day...
Simon
I think it's a good rule of thumb to never wear a watch larger than your face.
I have the same issue, thin wrist and so many nice watched that simply doesn't work for me. I've noticed the sweet spot is basically 40-41(or 42), anything above and it's uncomfortable or looks stupid.
Posting Permissions
