WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, everyone. I'm considering acquiring an AT (white dial, blue hands) as a dressier watch than my other watches, but am hesitating between the two sizes. I tend to prefer something in the 40-42mm range, and some 39mm watches feel a bit small to me, but at the same time, the smaller size seems like it would better with cuffs, suits, etc.

First of all, do you think the AT I have in mind would make for an appropriate "dressy" watch? And second of all, how big does the 39mm wear? Which would you choose?

Thanks in advance for your opinions,
David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,693 Posts
As far as I know you can only get the Blue/silver (white) combo on 39mm - IMHO only the Railmaster doesn't look like a dinner plate in 42mm.

The AT is all dial and so it wears large while being more than fine with formally cuffed shirts.

I own one and it makes a fine dressy watch. I have to admit that I rarely use it as such but I know I could if I wanted to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
You've picked great options! I love the white/blue AT.

I don't know what your other watches are so I can't compare, but the Aqua Terra is generally considered a dressy sports watch. If you want a true dress Omega, I'd go with a DeVille. But I like my watches to be a bit more versatile, so the Aqua Terra's personally as dressy as I'd ever go while my collection is still small.

The 39mm runs true to size. I compared it right next to my 41mm Seamaster Pro, and it definitely seemed smaller. Some people even comment that it is really 38mm (see https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=205524), and various internet retailers will actually list it as 38mm as well.

I have a 7-7 1/4" wrist, and if it were me, I'd buy the 42mm. I think they're great watches at both sizes.

What goes well with suits is relative. Sure, all other things being equal, a 39mm AT might look more dressy than a 42mm AT. But a 42mm AT looks dressier than a midsized SMP. Point: smaller doesn't necessarily mean dressier. Get what you like, or you'll always look down at your wrist and regret it.

Just be sure to get a nice leather strap for it...that will dress it up in a second (and besides, the AT bracelet--particularly its clasp--isn't Omega's best effort).

Good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I appreciate the responses, thank you. I hadn't realized the larger size had been discontinued, but i'm leaning toward the 39mm anyway.

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
The blue/white is my fav AT combo. If 39mm feels small get the 42mm.
For me I'd get the 42mm.

I also think it can be worn either way ... sporty or dressy. You can also consider getting a nice strap to dress it up more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Had the same problem this time last year, 39mm vs 42mm, with a 7 1/4 inch wrist.

After trying both sizes on a couple of times and really wanting to like the larger size I had to admit finally that it was just too big.

The 39mm looked easily as large as my Speedy Pro and really did seem to be the perfect size IMO.

Looked through my old photos but can't find a wrist or comparison shot.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

PS Mine was the rose gold/white face and really was spectacular.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,228 Posts
i was recently in the market for a 2255 seamaster and decided to try on the ATs... for a small wristed guy like me (around 6.5'), the 39mm looked kind of weird as im guessing its smaller face along with the lugs made it look more elongated. The 42mm which i also tried on looked perfect though and definitely doesnt wear too big. IMO the 39mm wore quite small on the wrist.

I say the AT makes a great watch for any occassion and i would have gone for it be it not for that enticing electric blue SMP right next to it! hehe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,405 Posts
42mm by a hair>>>

it's 42mm, but it's balanced. So it doesn't seem too large.

Recently, tried on the 39mm and 42mm Railmaster. I liked the 42mm version better. I felt the larger diameter dial felt more balanced. Also, it didn't feel like a 42, but more like a 41 [does that make sense?].



The 39mm looked more like a 38mm. It really looked smaller.

Just my 2cents.

good luck and please post some pics too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,232 Posts
Now that you have all these valuable opinions at your disposal, pay a visit to your local Omega retailer (if there's one nearby) to compare them side-to-side and on your wrist to make an educated decision.

Glen

remember...the watch that makes it on your wrist does not exist unless you post images ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
As inlanding says ,try them on your wrist its the only way to see which one suits you
few years ago i tried a rolex submariner against a po ,the po won as the sub looked very lost on my wrist,even though id always fancied one

the po was also £1000 cheaper, -which pleased the wife ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I have the 39mm AT (Black dial). I have an average size wrist and tried on both the 39 and the 42mm side by side as others have suggested. That's the only way to go. I also think the color of the dial makes a difference to the eye re size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
365 Posts
I have the 39mm black-dialed AT. My wrists are around 6 3/4" and the 39mm fits perfectly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
I own the 39mm AT with white face / rose gold hands + indices. Due to the fact, that the bezel is rather small, it looks bigger than it is. And the rose gold version is a very dressy watch. Just have a look:







 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top