WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

Registered
Joined
339 Posts
IMO although we are past the fad with oversized watches, I still tend to like watches in the 40-41mm sized cases. I do have a medium-large wrists at 7.5 inches. For example, I find the 36mm DJ too small for me what more with the said vintage watches mentioned. To me, they are more in the feminine side for my tastes. This is only my honest opinion.
 

Registered
Joined
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
IMO although we are past the fad with oversized watches, I still tend to like watches in the 40-41mm sized cases. I do have a medium-large wrists at 7.5 inches. For example, I find the 36mm DJ too small for me what more with the said vintage watches mentioned. To me, they are more in the feminine side for my tastes. This is only my honest opinion.
You put it in a nice way, that's cool 馃檪
 

Registered
Joined
265 Posts
The "Small" Tank Solo would be the perfect size for the average man's wrist IMO. I have the large but my wrist is 8" - more relevant, my wrist is 7cm across. My Tank is 3.5cm lug to lug and that seems just about right to me (1/2 the width of my wrist). From what I've seen in vintage photos, that size ratio to match.

The first model I tried was the XL. It was too big, it seemed too thick and I disliked that date window. I went for the Large despite the owner telling me it was too small <he had a 40 or 42mm monstrosity on his 6" wrist and the watch looked like it was wearing him, not the other way around!
 

Registered
Joined
2,231 Posts
I鈥檇 take small size any day. In fact I prefer so-called small size watches that have iconic status. They look good that way. Bigger size looks like a mockery of them. I may have extreme views here on this topic.
 

Registered
Joined
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
The "Small" Tank Solo would be the perfect size for the average man's wrist IMO. I have the large but my wrist is 8" - more relevant, my wrist is 7cm across. My Tank is 3.5cm lug to lug and that seems just about right to me (1/2 the width of my wrist). From what I've seen in vintage photos, that size ratio to match.

The first model I tried was the XL. It was too big, it seemed too thick and I disliked that date window. I went for the Large despite the owner telling me it was too small <he had a 40 or 42mm monstrosity on his 6" wrist and the watch looked like it was wearing him, not the other way around!
I couldn't agree more. That described size ratio, all depending on wrist size, is very perfect! The last part of your comment really made me LOL!
 

Registered
Joined
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I鈥檇 take small size any day. In fact I prefer so-called small size watches that have iconic status. They look good that way. Bigger size looks like a mockery of them. I may have extreme views here on this topic.
Also agree with you on the 'mockery' opinion. Big, specially on the Tank, changes the original dial's proportion wich is suppose to be more square than rectangular. The end result of manipulating such an elegant design is just ordinary.
 

Registered
Joined
2,231 Posts
I鈥檇 take small size any day. In fact I prefer so-called small size watches that have iconic status. They look good that way. Bigger size looks like a mockery of them. I may have extreme views here on this topic.
Also agree with you on the 'mockery' opinion. Big, specially on the Tank, changes the original dial's proportion wich is suppose to be more square than rectangular. The end result of manipulating such an elegant design is just ordinary.
Thanks for so succinctly putting in few words.
 

Registered
Joined
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
I鈥檇 take small size any day. In fact I prefer so-called small size watches that have iconic status. They look good that way. Bigger size looks like a mockery of them. I may have extreme views here on this topic.
Also agree with you on the 'mockery' opinion. Big, specially on the Tank, changes the original dial's proportion wich is suppose to be more square than rectangular. The end result of manipulating such an elegant design is just ordinary.
Thanks for so succinctly putting in few words.
Thanks man, maybe others share similar opinions, or not 馃檪. Let's hear them all out 馃槈.
 

Registered
Joined
165 Posts
Coincidentally I ran across your video on Youtube the other day when I was researching the Cartier Tank as I really want one.
The watch is pure class and looks like a million bucks. I really wish Cartier would just create a 3 hander in the regular "Large" size (27.4 x 34.8), as the XL size is way too big and looks clownish for a watch of this style. It also has a date window which I feel is completely unnecessary and ruins the dial symmetry.
 

Registered
olex Submariner Date, Tudor Black Bay Bronze, Tag Heuer Carrera Chronograph, Tank Must de Cartier XL
Joined
4 Posts
I think the challenge with the Tank, or any classic watch, is the mindset of the wearer.

The original Porsche 911 was just 164 inches long, nearly 50 years later that same model is 178 inches long (and proportionally much wider). All objects evolve in time, the classic ones included.

The Tank Extra Large (XL) is a watch for modern tastes, and is perhaps more suited for today and the future (maybe). A smaller dress watch gives a wonderful vintage look (for those who know), if that's what you're looking for.

The concept of Style evolves over time, and sometimes circles back. In summary, buy what you like looking at on your wrist (images of the Large vs. XL attached for reference).

Large Tank Solo.jpg Tank Solo XL.jpg
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top