WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

41 - 60 of 103 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
I think wrist watch fit has more to do with hand size, hand build and ring size.

Two people have the same size wrists. One of the people has had a white collar profession for 20 years and likes to read and practice music for enjoyment. The other person has had a blue collar, manual labor profession for 20 years and likes to ride motorcycles and fix cars for enjoyment. The manual labor person is going to have bigger and stronger hands and is going to be able to pull off a larger wrist watch.
Have you ever lugged a drum set, PA, or Hammond B3 organ up/down a set of stairs?

Music can be a "blue collar" profession!

....agree with your post otherwise. (y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
I only focus on wrist dimensions if I'm buying a used watch on a bracelet and need to know if I need to be looking for additional links. When determining if a watch "fits" my wrist I only consider my wrist width and the watch lug to lug.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
I was replacing a NATO with a custom strap on my Seiko Samurai when my son (in his early teens) was curious about what I was doing. During part of the exercise I placed the bare watch on my wrist to show him how it "fits", that while the lugs are close to the edges of my wrist they were not hanging over my wrist when looking down on the watch. My wrist is 16.5cm/6.5" and his is 15cm or just under 6". I had him take of his Casio CA53W-1 Calculator watch and I placed my Samurai on his wrist to show him that it would be too long for him.

It fit :oops:

Well, it fit in the fact that the lugs were within the boundaries of his wrist as well; the lugs did not overhang at all! I was befuddled. We are both slender -- okay, we're skinny except I've got the old man spare tire-ish now while he has a natural six-pack like I did when I was his age 😒 so I fully expected the watch to not fit within the borders of his wrist.

I looked at our wrists and they are naturally more oval than being close to round and more flat on the top versus the bottom, with our forearms tapering noticably smaller just prior to meeting the wrist (we need to wear our watches below the bone). So I measured the top width of my wrist at the narrowest point where I wear my watches with my vernier calipers and it came in about 53.5mm. I then measured the same width of his wrist and it was about 51mm. Okay, that makes sense as to why the watch fit as we are very close in wrist width even though our diameters have over a 1/2" difference in them. With the strap on my Samurai he is 3 notches deeper into the strap from where my setting is.

It was through this little exercise I realized that using the wrist circumference is less accurate than if we were to use wrist width as the basis for measurement for wrist size. I think this could also explain why some watches seem to fit well on those where they maybe shouldn't using the conventional measurement.

My post title is ambiguous for a reason: I'm asking if redefining wrist size would even be possible but also if we could even start the trend to use the new way of measurement.

What say you on this topic?
I can see what you are getting at (I think) but it is completely unnecessary. These aren’t trousers or shoes we are talking about. “Proper fit“ is in the eye of the beholder and a completely subjective thing when it comes to watches. I have seen people post pictures of watches that are hideously large for their small wrists along with comments about how well they think it fits. Conversely, I have seen people with huge wrists post pictures with very small watches proudly stating the same. Do you know what? If they both like the way it looks then both are correct. There are no rules to this. What looks good to me may not look good to you and vice a versa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Air_Cooled_Nut

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I can see what you are getting at (I think) but it is completely unnecessary. These aren’t trousers or shoes we are talking about. “Proper fit“ is in the eye of the beholder and a completely subjective thing when it comes to watches. I have seen people post pictures of watches that are hideously large for their small wrists along with comments about how well they think it fits. Conversely, I have seen people with huge wrists post pictures with very small watches proudly stating the same. Do you know what? If they both like the way it looks then both are correct. There are no rules to this. What looks good to me may not look good to you and vice a versa.
That's because wrist shots are notoriously deceiving and misrepresentative of what the watch looks like in real life. I like looking at wrist shots, but it's in no way the real world.
I get what he's saying and agree to some extent.

I have a slender frame but have been bodybuilding and competitively powerlifting through my late 20s, and solidly through my 30s and 40s (I'm 49). I have large calloused hands and very vascular hands and arms. I'm not sure I'd have that if I wasn't currently lifting very heavy things. I think it allows me to wear larger watches and have them still look proper.
So glad you posted this. Also a bodybuilder, so I have size 6.75" wrist and wear a size 42 jacket. Wtf is that right? I think it's the penultimate example of the OP's dilemma which is essentially wrist size being almost completely uninformative. So I could post a wrist shot with a 45mm watch on, @Uzernaime would say it looks huge, but then if you took a photo of my entire body, it would look entirely in proportion mainly because of shoulder width and arm size. I kid you not, a 50mm U-Boat doesn't look bad on me. While it's maybe a tad on the large size, it's definitely workable. But anyone who saw "50mm watch on 6.75" wrist" would think that's completely unworkable. And unfortunately I can't go to the gym and bulk my wrists! :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
That's because wrist shots are notoriously deceiving and misrepresentative of what the watch looks like in real life. I like looking at wrist shots, but it's in no way the real world.
I am well aware of the effects of a wide angle lens on a wrist shot. That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to people who wear watches with clearly overhanging lugs and huge cases. It happens. If they like them, so be it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I am well aware of the effects of a wide angle lens on a wrist shot. That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to people who wear watches with clearly overhanging lugs and huge cases. It happens. If they like them, so be it.
Oh the lugs shouldn't overhang, that's just reckless driving. How irresponsible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Why it’s worth trying on watches. Seiko tunas are a classic example - seeming large cases that wear a lot smaller than they look on paper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
In the UK the Watches of Switzerland group have a "will it fit" on their website. I haven't double checked without but I think that's based on wrist width, rather than circumference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
I find wrist width hard to measure. It's hard to eyeball with a ruler. Measuring with calipers, the measurement varies by half an inch oro more depending on how tightly I clamp it. At what point is the "correct" measurement? And there are so many intangibles. I have a 43mm that looks OK, and 40mm's that look like a pie pan. Lug overhang isn't the issue. I know from experience that 50mm is close to upper limit of comfortable; though I can probably do a couple of millimeters more if I want to push it.

Sizing watches will never be a science. Numbers like wrist size and lug to lug are good as guidelines that get you in the ballpark, but how well a watch fits depends on so many other immeasurable imponderables and subjective perception. Like I've learned that a 42 or 43 with a very busy dial looks big but OK, but a plain, minimalist 40mm (or even a 37mm Nomos) starts to look like a frisbee. Light dials look different than dark dials, dainty dress watches wear differently than chunky tool watches, in ways that measurements won't help you. There really is no substitute for trying on a watch, but that gets tough when so often you're dealing online.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
Too many variables, what we need to do is go back in stores and try the damn things on and see how they actually fit.
I agree. If only it were that simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
I find that forearm size plays a role as well. I have led an active life and work in manual labor and have the forearms to show from it. I have a 19cm wrist and small to average size hands. If I am wearing long sleeves then I can get away with smaller sized watches, down to 36mm and they don't look weird. As soon as I'm in short sleeves, however, small watches just look strange on my arms. I'm also quite hairy which doesn't help either LOL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,280 Posts
It's all about wrist shape and width on the top. Flat and small can still be a larger watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Air_Cooled_Nut

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
I think what some are forgetting here is that there are others that want a ball-park figure before they decide if something will work for them or not. Certain conditions need to come close to or be met for an action to take place.

One wouldn't buy and then park a 28' 5th-wheel motor-home if they have a single car driveway near town that is 20' long with no garage. But knowing the limits (20' driveway) allows the smarter person to get a shorter camper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
I find wrist width hard to measure. It's hard to eyeball with a ruler. Measuring with calipers, the measurement varies by half an inch oro more depending on how tightly I clamp it. At what point is the "correct" measurement? And there are so many intangibles...
You don't use a ruler as you're correct, eye-balling it is highly inaccurate.
With calipers you want it to just touch your skin. If you enjoy wearing watches that cut off your blood circulation then yes, clamp down on those calipers!
Life is full of intangibles so you pick the best that you can. I know because measuring intangibles has been a part of my career. Don't make it harder than it needs to be and beware of analysis-paralysis!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,177 Posts
I see what you're saying and that's a good argument. Do you really think changing how we niche enthusiasts take a measurement would really affect SKUs? I simply viewed it as a way to better estimate how a watch may wear -- as a general guideline of course!
Given how much we whine and complain on this forum about little things that the average user doesn't care about and some of us will do this on a company's instagram or twitter account so the whole world can see? Yes. Also, a lot of the watch band sellers that aren't established go to 3rd party like Hadley Roma sell to us, not the general public. I would dread to deal with one of us crazies when we don't get exactly what we demand because the small company can't really be expected to stock 478956378164289 SKUs. You know a good lot of us nuts here would send a 10 page screed to the BBB if that happened. :devilish:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Air_Cooled_Nut

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
I was replacing a NATO with a custom strap on my Seiko Samurai when my son (in his early teens) was curious about what I was doing. During part of the exercise I placed the bare watch on my wrist to show him how it "fits", that while the lugs are close to the edges of my wrist they were not hanging over my wrist when looking down on the watch. My wrist is 16.5cm/6.5" and his is 15cm or just under 6". I had him take of his Casio CA53W-1 Calculator watch and I placed my Samurai on his wrist to show him that it would be too long for him.

It fit :oops:

Well, it fit in the fact that the lugs were within the boundaries of his wrist as well; the lugs did not overhang at all! I was befuddled. We are both slender -- okay, we're skinny except I've got the old man spare tire-ish now while he has a natural six-pack like I did when I was his age 😒 so I fully expected the watch to not fit within the borders of his wrist.

I looked at our wrists and they are naturally more oval than being close to round and more flat on the top versus the bottom, with our forearms tapering noticably smaller just prior to meeting the wrist (we need to wear our watches below the bone). So I measured the top width of my wrist at the narrowest point where I wear my watches with my vernier calipers and it came in about 53.5mm. I then measured the same width of his wrist and it was about 51mm. Okay, that makes sense as to why the watch fit as we are very close in wrist width even though our diameters have over a 1/2" difference in them. With the strap on my Samurai he is 3 notches deeper into the strap from where my setting is.

It was through this little exercise I realized that using the wrist circumference is less accurate than if we were to use wrist width as the basis for measurement for wrist size. I think this could also explain why some watches seem to fit well on those where they maybe shouldn't using the conventional measurement.

My post title is ambiguous for a reason: I'm asking if redefining wrist size would even be possible but also if we could even start the trend to use the new way of measurement.

What say you on this topic?
Not surprised at all with the results of the experiment you did with your son. I find lug to lug and the flatness of your wrist more important than wrist circumference. I have same size wrist as you.
There’s nothing ground breaking and I don’t think we need to be redefining anything

The fact of the matter is that the best way to see if a watch fits is (surprise surprise) to wear it. Even a watch that ticks all the rules may end up not looking like it fits on a particular person’scwrist.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
984 Posts
Wrist width vs. lug-to-lug width is certainly key to whether or not a watch will look good on a given individual, but wrist circumference is still necessary to properly size the strap or bracelet. But, for sure, most of the time around here we are talking about watch size in relation to wrist size, not band length.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I agree that wrist width is more relevant for estimating if a watch would fit than wrist circumference. By comparing wrist width with L2L length, you'll immediately see if the lugs would overhang or not.

I started a thread on this subject some time ago:

Feel free to add some more data points there. :) On average, the wrist width is 1/3 of the circumference. People who deviate from this average towards 1/2.9 or so will have it easier to wear comparatively larger watches.
I agree. I just wish more companies listed lug to lug....along with how much the lugs drop below the back of the watch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,733 Posts
Since language is developed and used by group experience, and with English representing a very LARGE group, no "we" (WUS) could NOT redefine "wrist size" in any way that would be adopted by the greater public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,038 Posts
My wrist is 6.75" around but only like 2" wide so I can't really wear anything with a L2L much bigger than 48-50.
 
41 - 60 of 103 Posts
Top