WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,840 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As title.

Some dayes ago I want to an Omega boutique to try both Omega PO 42mm and 45mm.
Before this try I was quite sure that I would have bought the 42mm, I have a 6.7inch wrist.

I find the 42mm really small, it seems to have the size of a dressy watch with a diver case.
The 45mm is a monster on my wrist.

I was sure that I would have bought a Planet Ocean but now I'm not so sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
You need a 43.75mm PO. Haha.
seriously though, with an under 7" wrist, the 42mm should feel/fit right for most. My wrist is 7.5" and after having owned the 45.5 black/white twice, I now have a 42mm black white, and find it to be much more more wearable. I loved the look of the 45.5 on my wrist, but I grew tired of the size and mass.
I'm talking 2500 PO's by the way. Maybe the 2500 45.5 would feel like an in between for you vs the 8500's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
A 42mm PO does not wear like a dress watch. I have had the 45mm PO and the 42mm in the 8500 iteration. The 42mm really fits a sub 7.5" perfectly. It wears very comfortably and I don't think anybody has ever mentioned the word small when they look at this watch. I have the exact same size wrist as you and the 42mm is so very perfect size wise. It seems a bit smaller because of the bezel, but measure lug to lug and with crown and it is actually a rather large watch. I guess you think a Sub is smaller than a dress watch? I bet you would be very happy with 42mm.....or you could go 45mm on rubber, but it is still a very big watch and the lug to lug will cover your entire wrist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,840 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
Here is your solution! Ceramic bezel and dial, perfect size it height combination. I have a 7.75 inch wrist. The 8500 is a little bit thick for my taste (no offense to any owners).



I like the SMP but this could be my fourth choice in Omega house,
my ranking is:
1) PO
2) MoonWatch
2) Acqua Terra
3) SMP

fourth position may seems low but I low omega watches so I like SMP a lot even if in fourth position :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
The 42 only seems small when put aside a 45.5 PO.
My wrist is the same as yours and I have the 42. Started with the 45.5 but swapped it after a year and half.
The 42 is by no means a small watch on my wrist and is the biggest I'll ever go with a watch.

I have a a few pictues in this thread comparing the 42 and 45.5.

https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/my-new-po-2500-my-old-po-pics-806189.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,956 Posts
Like Franzy, I have a 7.75" wrist. I sold my 42mm PO 8500 because it was just too big, especially the 16.3mm height. Now I rarely wear my Sub-C because it is not as comfortable to wear as the AT, the Daytona or the JLC.

When I bought my 2201.50 in early 2011, I too compared it to the 45.5 model. I actually bought the XL, but after three days of staring at its steadily expanding size, I returned it for the 42. You should get what you think you'd most like, but I'm afraid a 45.5mm watch on your 6.7" wrist will end up scaring horses and small children. ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,689 Posts
I first owned the 42mm PO and found it to be a perfect size for my 7.5-7.75" wrist when worn on the bracelet. However, I much prefer the look of the PO on rubber, and found it to wear particularly small for a dive watch when on rubber, so I sold it and got a 45.5mm instead.

I then realised that I wanted a watch I could wear on rubber AND on a steel bracelet, and the 45.5mm unfortunately didn't fit the bill either, as it was just slightly too large for my tastes on it's bracelet.

Will hopefully pick up a PO GMT in the next couple of years if they decide to make one with silver numerals. That looks like the ideal size!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,471 Posts
Seriously, I would rethink the 42mm. I do agree that the appearance on the wrist is small for a 42mm diver watch, of considerable thickness. I have a 7.5in wrist, tried it on and found I like the 45.5mm size a lot better. That is unusual for me, as I usually gravitate to smaller watches. My AT8500 midsize 38.5mm is perfect for me, yet strangely the 42mm PO did look small.

I can't imagine the 42mm seeming too small for your wrist. It seems like it would be the ideal size. Amazing how much difference 3mm makes!

Good luck in your decision. Anyway, I would really try the 42mm again. Maybe the small appearance is due in part to the thickness of the watch. It is quite hefty, and you would normally expect a watch of that thickness to be more the size of the larger one.

Cheers,
Carl
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
...... Maybe the small appearance is due in part to the thickness of the watch. It is quite hefty, and you would normally expect a watch of that thickness to be more the size of the larger one.

Cheers,
Carl
I agree Carl. The 8500 PO's are quite thick, and perhaps the 42 just seems smaller than it is because of this. I think the 42mm 2500 is just right though...perhaps a better fit for the OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
My wrist is about seven inches, maybe slightly under right now and I wear the 42mm with pride. I can't imagine anyone ever telling me that my watch looks too small on me. You are only thinking it is small because you are comparing it to something else. Look in a full length mirror and see how much of your wrist it actually covers. I can't imagine wearing anything bigger and heavier than this.


Untitled by Vertec, on Flickr
 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Top