WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

61 - 80 of 103 Posts

Registered
Joined
1,439 Posts
So if you redefine wrist size, what happens to the well-established millimeter system of measuring watches? Would a 40mm watch on one size wrist be labeled a 38mm on a larger wrist? Or a 42mm on a smaller wrist? So once you know your wrist size then you can buy the properly sized watch?
Perhaps we can redefine what a nonsensical post is.
 

Premium Member
Joined
2,814 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 馃槖 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?
"we need to wear our watches below the bone"

Below the wrist bone? Like between your wrist bone and your hand? No one should ever wear a watch there. Watches go above the wrist bone for everyone, away from your hand.
 

Registered
Joined
9,369 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.
How can you guys across the pond live with these units..

With the nearest practical increments being either 1.75'' or 2.25''*, approximately 2'' can mean anything between 47.6mm and 54.0mm. That's a huge range! I'm really happy that watch manufacturers don't state their size measurements in inches, but use mm instead.

* I've never seen people on WUS posting a wrist size measured to 1/8 of an inch
 

Registered
Joined
801 Posts
... using the wrist circumference is less accurate than if we were to use wrist width as the basis for measurement for wrist size...

...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...
Toby, these are good points to discuss. Sometimes members seeing photos of my watches on my wrist have inquired about my wrist size (maybe they're thinking of how the watch might fit their own wrists), and I tell them it's 7" with a flat profile (another way of expressing the way you describe the profile of your own wrist, I guess).

Another point I'll make: perhaps overall physique is just as important to suitability of a watch.

Lastly, we're gonna need VW and Ducati photos, please :)
 

Registered
Joined
194 Posts
Another measurement that is difficult to pin down is how far the clasp opens! Some clasps/deployants dont open enough fit over my hand. I have discovered, if I roll the watch to the palm side as I work it over my hand, it works better. Of course this isn鈥檛 an issue with straps with buckles or natos.
 

Registered
Joined
6,969 Posts
How can you guys across the pond live with these units..

With the nearest practical increments being either 1.75'' or 2.25''*, approximately 2'' can mean anything between 47.6mm and 54.0mm. That's a huge range! I'm really happy that watch manufacturers don't state their size measurements in inches, but use mm instead.

* I've never seen people on WUS posting a wrist size measured to 1/8 of an inch
What makes you think that those reporting wrist size in units of mm or cm aren't rounding to the nearest increment of 5mm/0.5cm?

The smallest practical increment is a function of what tools you have at your disposal, but most common rulers or tape measures are graduated to 1/16th of an inch, if not 1/32nd. If people choose to round to the nearest 1/4, that's not really a shortcoming of the unit system.

Those of us that work in precision use decimal inches rather than fractional, and speak in mils (thousandths of an inch).
 

Premium Member
Joined
9,441 Posts
What makes you think that those reporting wrist size in units of mm or cm aren't rounding to the nearest increment of 5mm/0.5cm?

The smallest practical increment is a function of what tools you have at your disposal, but most common rulers or tape measures are graduated to 1/16th of an inch, if not 1/32nd. If people choose to round to the nearest 1/4, that's not really a shortcoming of the unit system.
strong point tellingly told
 

Premium Member
Joined
71,371 Posts
Wrist circumference is a very handy tool and I wouldn鈥檛 change it but it鈥檚 no replacement for actually trying a watch on.
 

Registered
Joined
289 Posts
How about this?

Consider personal physical characteristics:
Measure wrist circumference and width.
Measure hand length and width.
Measure forearm at the thickest point.
Measure your height an weight.
Skin tone - From Nigerian who works in the sun all day to Scandinavian albino who lives in Mom's basement.

Consider watch data:
Calculate the dial/overall diameter ratio of the watch in question.
Watch diameter and L2L.
Watch style - dive, dress, field, flieger, etc.
Case colour - black, SS, gold, rose gold, etc.

Then, toss out all the above information and ask yourself these two questions, on a scale from one to ten:
How much do I like the watch in question?
What is my G.A.F.F.* regarding what other people think?

Whichever is the higher number will tell you whether to buy the watch, or not.

*Give-A-"F"-Factor

Yes, I'm being a tad facetious. I apologize if it offends anyone. It's just that I've soooo gotten over my concern over wrist size vs watch size. When I was thinking about buying my Dan Henry 1939, I gave some serious consideration to its 49.2mm L2L vs my 165mm wrist. When I finally pulled the trigger, received it and put it on, I thought "Well, that's the largest watch I can ever wear".
15885228


When I recently went on the hunt for a deck/marine watch, I wanted a hand wound, small seconds version. I was fixated on the Stowa Marine Original, but I did not want to spend that much. The hunt lead me to the Tisell 157. However, I agonized over the 44mm diameter and 52mm L2L. I eventually decided to roll the dice and order it.

15885230


When I received it and tried it on, I thought, "Yep, that's big". But, the lugs didn't overhang my wrist, so I figured I'd give it a chance. After several days of wear and not banging it or hooking it on anything, I thought, "I like this watch far more than I care about what anyone else thinks, so I'm going to keep wearing it".

So, I've come to the conclusion that this is the most important consideration...IMHO, at least.
 

Registered
Joined
9,369 Posts
The smallest practical increment is a function of what tools you have at your disposal, but most common rulers or tape measures are graduated to 1/16th of an inch, if not 1/32nd. If people choose to round to the nearest 1/4, that's not really a shortcoming of the unit system.

Those of us that work in precision use decimal inches rather than fractional, and speak in mils (thousandths of an inch).
Measuring tapes using one type of increments, but vernier calipers using another, that doesn't sound very practical to me. 95% of the global population don't need two different ways of measuring length within the same system of units. And that's before we get to the point where 1 inch = 1/12 foot, 1 yard = 3 feet, 1 mile = 1760 yards, etc., etc.

But I do understand that this is a topic of national pride to you. Fair enough. Use any units you like. :) It just looks so unnecessarily complicated and outdated from an outside perspective.
 

Registered
Joined
6,969 Posts
Measuring tapes using one type of increments, but vernier calipers using another, that doesn't sound very practical to me. 95% of the global population don't need two different ways of measuring length within the same system of units. And that's before we get to the point where 1 inch = 1/12 foot, 1 yard = 3 feet, 1 mile = 1760 yards, etc., etc.

But I do understand that this is a topic of national pride to you. Fair enough. Use any units you like. :) It just looks so unnecessarily complicated and outdated from an outside perspective.
I'm not going to deny that it's an archaic system. Base-10 is much more convenient than base-2 (or 12, or 3), which is why those who work with these units professionally (engineers, architects) use decimal inches (or feet, for those that work on very large scales) rather than fractional. We also tend not to jump between feet and inches. In my line of work, when working in Imperial units (I use metric quite a lot as well), the inch is the largest increment. Even when dealing with objects on the scale of tens of feet. In metric, the mm is the standard unit, even when dealing with objects that are on the order of 10 meters.

There are measuring tapes and rulers graduated in decimal inches (I have a 6" scale graduated in tenths and hundredths, plus calipers graduated in thousandths) as well as decimal feet.

For casual measurement, fractional units are easier for many. For the less eagle-eyed, it's easier to see an 1/8th of an inch, or 1/4 of a cm, than to squint to discern the nearest mm. Hence I suspect most reporting their wrist size in metric are probably rounding to at least the nearest 1/4 cm, if not nearest half.

PS: the archaic nature of the Imperial system lends it a level of charm and whimsy not found with the metric system. One doesn't encounter dilemmas like "how many rundlets are in a butt, and how do they translate to hogsheads?" with the metric system.
 

Registered
Joined
1,165 Posts
I'm not going to deny that it's an archaic system. Base-10 is much more convenient than base-2 (or 12, or 3), which is why those who work with these units professionally (engineers, architects) use decimal inches (or feet, for those that work on very large scales) rather than fractional. We also tend not to jump between feet and inches. In my line of work, when working in Imperial units (I use metric quite a lot as well), the inch is the largest increment. Even when dealing with objects on the scale of tens of feet. In metric, the mm is the standard unit, even when dealing with objects that are on the order of 10 meters.

There are measuring tapes and rulers graduated in decimal inches (I have a 6" scale graduated in tenths and hundredths, plus calipers graduated in thousandths) as well as decimal feet.

For casual measurement, fractional units are easier for many. For the less eagle-eyed, it's easier to see an 1/8th of an inch, or 1/4 of a cm, than to squint to discern the nearest mm. Hence I suspect most reporting their wrist size in metric are probably rounding to at least the nearest 1/4 cm, if not nearest half.

PS: the archaic nature of the Imperial system lends it a level of charm and whimsy not found with the metric system. One doesn't encounter dilemmas like "how many rundlets are in a butt, and how do they translate to hogsheads?" with the metric system.
Well, when you put it like that ... it almost seems worse. o_O

Unfortunately, I don't see US going metric in my lifetime.
 

Registered
Joined
194 Posts
Well, when you put it like that ... it almost seems worse. o_O

Unfortunately, I don't see US going metric in my lifetime.
When I was in the 3rd to 5th grade, a long time ago, circa 1973, there was a huge push in the public school system to switch over to the decimal system. It did not work. Except we buy liquor in ml鈥檚!
 

Registered
Joined
9,369 Posts
For casual measurement, fractional units are easier for many. For the less eagle-eyed, it's easier to see an 1/8th of an inch, or 1/4 of a cm, than to squint to discern the nearest mm. Hence I suspect most reporting their wrist size in metric are probably rounding to at least the nearest 1/4 cm, if not nearest half.
That really seems to be different over here. We readily use half a meter or centimeter, but never quarters. A quarter meter sounds completely weird. In general, if half of something isn't small enough, we go down to the lower unit. You can actually see that logic on all metric measuring tapes, rulers, etc. If that scale looked any different, it would be completely confusing to people over here.





PS: the archaic nature of the Imperial system lends it a level of charm and whimsy not found with the metric system. One doesn't encounter dilemmas like "how many rundlets are in a butt, and how do they translate to hogsheads?" with the metric system.
Yes, that's definitely true. :)
 

Registered
Joined
5,883 Posts
Measuring tapes using one type of increments, but vernier calipers using another, that doesn't sound very practical to me. 95% of the global population don't need two different ways of measuring length within the same system of units. And that's before we get to the point where 1 inch = 1/12 foot, 1 yard = 3 feet, 1 mile = 1760 yards, etc., etc.

But I do understand that this is a topic of national pride to you. Fair enough. Use any units you like. :) It just looks so unnecessarily complicated and outdated from an outside perspective.
We do it to annoy you, knowing how exercised you get over it :)

1760 (yards in a mile) is divisible by 23 numbers other than itself; 1000 (m in a km) is divisible only by 15. The standard reaction is "yes but we have iphones now" and it misses the point. Once the system is in place it's hard to dislodge, as we shall see.

FWIW imperial units (what Americans call standard or - hint - "customary" units) are on their way back in the UK, although they never really went away. Of course, because we have computing power everywhere now, we don't need numbers to be flexibly divisible any more, but what can I say? Tough cookies. I don't hear anyone complaining about the metric watchmaking industry still using pre-Napoleonic lignes, or the global auto industry using a mix of both for car tyres (e.g. 225/45 R17) for example.
 

Registered
Joined
5,883 Posts
PS: the archaic nature of the Imperial system lends it a level of charm and whimsy not found with the metric system. One doesn't encounter dilemmas like "how many rundlets are in a butt, and how do they translate to hogsheads?" with the metric system.
Or how many lignes to a pouce? Two pre-metric measurements, still used today in horology, which was once a subject relevant to this forum ;)
 

Registered
Joined
174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #79 ·
How can you guys across the pond live with these units..

With the nearest practical increments being either 1.75'' or 2.25''*, approximately 2'' can mean anything between 47.6mm and 54.0mm. That's a huge range! I'm really happy that watch manufacturers don't state their size measurements in inches, but use mm instead.

* I've never seen people on WUS posting a wrist size measured to 1/8 of an inch
Being that my hobby involves foreign vehicles I'm more than happy to use the simpler/easier metric system but, alas, the USA is still lagging a few decades. I agree with what you're saying (VERY good point!) but let's not get side-tracked on that rabbit hole.
 

Registered
Joined
174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #80 ·
"we need to wear our watches below the bone"

Below the wrist bone? Like between your wrist bone and your hand? No one should ever wear a watch there. Watches go above the wrist bone for everyone, away from your hand.
Sorry, did I mess that up? For some reason I get the two positions switched. For clarification, I wear it above the wrist bone, not between the bone and hand. Yes, for me, that is uncomfortable when the watch is between the bone and my hand.
 
61 - 80 of 103 Posts
Top