WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
201 - 216 of 216 Posts
I generally divide the case size by my wrist circumference (in 3 locations,then averaged). I take that number and multiply it by the amount I don't care what anyone else thinks about the way it looks. Problem solved.
Now if I could only solve the problem of replying to 7 year old threads I'd be golden.
I think you have solved the equation. Good work sir.
 
I am just wondering how does lug length fit into this equation. I think it affects the way watch is worn as well.
Lug length and lug to lug length are certainly important components of fit. Whether the variables that determine fit can be reduced to a reliable formula is questionable. Other things like lug shape and spacing, case height, case shape, case side design, strap/bracelet design, appearance, etc., also affect how a watch feels and looks on the wrist.
 
I have a 175 mm or 6.88 inch wrist. This means that the seiko snk809 to the seiko SNZG15 is my limit. I tried the SNZG15 on, and it feels big. The snk809 is nice though looks small. Tried the seiko SRP625, feels nicer than the SNZG15 even though it is bigger and outside of this 4-5 equation.
Yeah this guide is old, can't take into account every sizing variable and it's not clear that "exactly 4" and "exactly 5" are the right numbers for outliers on the ratio. I have a 205mm/8" wrist that's also very flat, distorting the ratio further. By the numbers that means 41-51mm watches for me.

I can wear a 51mm watch. It doesn't overhang and if I were 20 again, I might actually wear a watch in the 50mm class. I tend to prefer 42mm up to about 45mm and those don't typically fill my wrist. On the low side, I can wear 40mm watches *most of the time* but at that point I look at all of the secondary factors to see if they'll wear large *enough*, not be too big.
The pointer day-date subdial is a hard complication to find, but you could also look at watches that use the Miyota 9122. The Melbourne Portsea is probably a better size option as one example: https://www.melbournewatch.com.au/products/portsea-calendar-classic

Used, the prices will be higher than the Orient Defender but not massively higher.
 
Interesting, the ratios work for me. 199.39mm wrist.

There are a lot of smaller vintage watches I like that I've always felt looked like a child's watch on my wrist. 40mm is about the absolute smallest watch size I think looks ok, but I prefer 44mm and up. My Omega Railmaster XXL which I think is 49mm (can't remember) is around the upper limit on the upside I would go. So this formula works for me.
 
After all these years, this thread keeps popping up!
I've never seen it before, but i would say your methode is oversimplified. I would rather considered lug to to lug instead of watch diameter and and the width lenght of th wrist (upper part) instead of wrist circunference.

And I'm pretty sure that the ratio of these values would give you a good estimation about how the watch wears on the wrist.
 
I think it looks like you want to be around 4.5 +/-. Below 4 makes it seem like saying 4-5 is too broad a range, IMO.

I’d say more like 4.3-4.7.
 
This is a fun rule of thumb. But at a 8.25" wrist, I feel like 42mm being the minimum is too big.

I realize rules of meant to be broken.

Carry on:)
My wrist size is very close to yours and I consider 42mm to be the largest watch I’d wear, typically that would be a diver. My sweet spot for a diver is 40mm and 36mm for dress/field watches.
It irks me when someone says 36 mm watches are small. They are not. For many many years 34-36 mm watches were the norm. This jumbo watch thing is a fad that will go away when the fashion pendulum swings back.
 
201 - 216 of 216 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top