They appear to be women watches, at least to me.

I'd say 36mm is the minimum for a men watches nowadays.

 

If you find a watch with lots of dial and a thin bezel you could probably go as low as 34mm. Anything less on your size wrist is tough sell in today's world (not saying it can't be done though). My 34mm Max Bill on my 6 3/4" wrist:

I like smaller watches but anything smaller than this starts to look weird to me. If you get a chance, one trick I'd recommend is to look at the watch in the mirror while you're wearing it; this will give you a better idea of how the watch truly appears...For some reason they look smaller when you're staring straight down at your wrist.

Is your avatar Curly from the Three Stooges or some sort of famous scientist/philosopher?

 

If you find a watch with lots of dial and a thin bezel you could probably go as low as 34mm. Anything less on your size wrist is tough sell in today's world (not saying it can't be done though). My 34mm Max Bill on my 6 3/4" wrist:

View attachment 1489018

I like smaller watches but anything smaller than this starts to look weird to me. If you get a chance, one trick I'd recommend is to look at the watch in the mirror while you're wearing it; this will give you a better idea of how the watch truly appears...For some reason they look smaller when you're staring straight down at your wrist.

Is your avatar Curly from the Three Stooges or some sort of famous scientist/philosopher?

you made the best point if you ask me, when i read your comments i was marveled.

 

It's Larry from the three stooges. I believe Larry Fine was his real name.

 

Louis Fienberg (aka Larry Fine), an accomplished violinist and a professional boxer, as well as the famous recipient of abuse from Horowitz brothers - Samuel, Moses and Jerome (pronounced Jer-e-me)....

How small is too small? If it has a 7 ligne movement, it's too small.

 

36 is hard for me to deal with, just too "used" to 38-43 mm watches.

 

Given the common current sizes, I'd think that most people who even notice your watch will probably think anything smaller than 36 looks small and will not know nor care whether it's vintage.

 

They appear to be women watches, at least to me.

I'd say 36mm is the minimum for a men watches nowadays.

This is pretty much exactly my thinking. Of course, it depends on the watch and the wrist, though. If a watch is "manly" enough that it couldn't possibly be confused with a ladies' watch, I might maybe go a little smaller, but even then I suspect I'd find it funny lookin'.

And always remember, Curly had the shaved head.

 

37mm is the floor for me, and even then only for dress watches.

I was astonished that Longines brought back the Conquest Heritage at 35mm, when a 38-39mm version would have so much more modern appeal.
If somebody wanted the vintage watch, why wouldn't they... buy the vintage watch?

The nice thing is that you can still collect and appreciate undersized vintage men's watches - you just have to gift them to your wife or girlfriend.
My wife doesn't quite understand why I keep buying her watches - what can I say, I'm a giver

 

wearing a 40 mm seiko and with a friend who was wearing a vintage gold Omega....I really felt silly with my huge watch next to his classic looking piece. We are right around 30 in age to give you some perspective. So I say find a watch you like and odds are the smaller vintage piece will make the guy with the big watch feel silly.

 

DustinS. You are so right. It is a relative notion....

My smallest is 36mm only because that is what I own.

I don't need a hockey puck on my wrist to feel like a man.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

33mm Omega.
I also arm is thin, too small.

Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

 

I have about a 7 1/3" wrist, very large hands and arms. 40mm is my sweet spot for watches without external bezels, 42mm for divers. I own a 38.5mm watch that looked small at first, but quickly became acceptable to me. I'm not sure how much smaller I could go, but I doubt that anyone who thought I was wearing a ladies size watch would bother to change their opinion if they were informed or realized that it was vintage. Those folks wouldn't know that vintage men's watches were intentionally small and represented the manufacturers micro engineering capabilities.

 

Well... If you really care what other people, who in general probably don't even look at your watch, let alone the size of it then 34-36mm, if you find a watch that you like, because of the looks, the engineering, the style and the brand and it is 32 - 34mm and you like wearing it, then go for it!

About 18 months ago I would have said anything below 42mm is too small, now I have a Submariner, I wont look back...

Buzz

 

Well... If you really care what other people, who in general probably don't even look at your watch, let alone the size of it then 34-36mm, if you find a watch that you like, because of the looks, the engineering, the style and the brand and it is 32 - 34mm and you like wearing it, then go for it!

This.

It depends on a few factors for me. Wrist size being a big factor. Overall body shape too. A lightly built bloke will get away with smaller compared to say a heavily built rugby player type.

I'm scrawny of wrist and frame so can get away with down to 30mm. Well I'd get no stares even from fellow WIS so... Design of the watch another factor.

Here's a 30-31mm example.

1940's Alpina for the German navy in WW2. I reckon the pale dial works better than a dark. I had a near identical German Army "DH" with a black dial and it wore smaller.

Here's another 30mm on me.

1911 by the movement, but likely cased a little after that date.

Even for "god he's in need of a feed" me, some vintage are just too small.

1950's 14kt Longines 28mm in width IIRC. I really like this watch, a great timekeeper with an amazing power reserve for the size and tim, but sadly it's just on the wrong side of small. It does look like a "womans" watch.

How fashions change though. Here's an ad from 1909 for an Elgin strap watch.

If that arm was any more masculine he'd be up a tree.

Ironically when women wore wristwatches in the late 19th early 20th century they often wore pocketwatches on leather straps and they would have run around 40mm. So it was the ladies who kicked off the big watch look.

 

33.

 

I used to prefer 38 to 39 mm. Most of my watches are vintage and about 34mm on average, and this is now my preference. I even have a few that go as low as 32mm which is a little small even for my taste, but I really like these Omegas so I still wear them. Depending on the dial and case design, the watch can actually look bigger if the bezel area is very narrow.

Now when I try on a watch that is close to 40mm, it just looks big and clunky to me. I think if one size is worn for a while one will become accustomed to it.

 

For dive vintage watch. The smallest to go is 37mm due to the bezel for me. The dial will looks much smaller. If its a dress watch, smallest to go will be 34mm. The absent of rotating bezel will make the watch appear bigger due to bigger dial.

 

TBH, not many other people actually sit and look at your wrist and your watch. So it's what you like looking at that counts. A good dress watch should be understated and elegant. A vintage watch of 32/34mm or so will fit that bill quite nicely, I've got watches as small as 30mm.. You also don't have the added weight on your wrist like some of the big modern watches, which can actually be quite comfortable, I've gone to bed a few times not realising i still had my watch on!
cheers,
Ben.

 

I think anything as low as 32mm is perfectly fine. People who say 36, 38 or 40mm should be the minimum really don't know what they're on about. Massive watch size is just a fleeting fad, vintage watches are as masculine (or suitable/appropriate, whatever) as the contemporary behemoths that one sees today.

 

I wear whatever I want and don't care what other people think.

My 67 Rolex is pretty small, that's just the way things were back then, just because the fashion today is larger watches it doesn't mean my enjoyment is affected.

 

Lots of good answers, including the Three Stooges diversion. I'm going to go for it, and will post some pics later. My universal geneve and rado are both pretty small - 34 ish, and I enjoy wearing them. Thank you WIS

 

What does "too small" mean? Someone is going to make fun of the wearer? If it was good enough for Cary Grant and John Wayne, who cares? As we always say, no one notices your watch, anyway. If they happen to notice it because it is "too small," you've started a WIS conversation.

 

I go with 34mm as my low.....But, that's just me.

 

If you like the watch, buy it and wear it!

Who cares what is "stylish" and what isn't?

I see way too many people worrying about what others will think.

Focus on what makes you happy and forget about everyone else.

 

For a rectangular watch a good comparison in size would be the Jaeger LeCoultre Reverso. Also, consider that in some cases you might be wearing a watch of some historical significance (World War II military watch) and they certainly were not as large as the watches of today.

 

Echoing the sentiments above, depends on your wrist, case shape, dial size, etc. I have a 34mm modern dress watch that works perfectly on my 6.5 in wrist:

-adi4

 

I think anything as low as 32mm is perfectly fine. People who say 36, 38 or 40mm should be the minimum really don't know what they're on about. Massive watch size is just a fleeting fad, vintage watches are as masculine (or suitable/appropriate, whatever) as the contemporary behemoths that one sees today.

Agree.

 

Most Rolex "Bubbleback" references are only 32mm cases. Here are a couple wearers

Lord Mountbatten

c.Jake's Rolex World

Ryan Gosling in Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)

Pretty feminine...

If you like the style and are comfortable with the size, then wear the watch. It doesn't matter if it's 33mm, 43mm or even 53mm, it's your wrist, don't worry if other people (even the vaunted wizards of style here on WUS) don't like it. Buy the watch you like.