WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,837 Posts
35mm is very wide for a pre-1950's watch, but normal for a 1970's watch...

Please tell us what you call "vintage".

Nicolas
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,673 Posts
35mm is very wide for a pre-1950's watch, but normal for a 1970's watch...

Please tell us what you call "vintage".

Nicolas
I think he is referring to a rectangular watch, 20mm wide and 35mm long (lug-to-lug).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
20mm is the width not length. Lug tip to lug tip is 35mm.

Being it is a cylinder escapement....I believe vintage does classify.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I think he is referring to a rectangular watch, 20mm wide and 35mm long (lug-to-lug).
He could be correct in that some 70's watches were that wide but I am not sure ever that short.

My fault for not explaining better.

||_____||
|______|
|______|
|______|
||-------||
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,498 Posts
I used to wear an Omega tanque.

R17.8 so it had to be at least 22mm wide but I'm pretty sure it wasn't any wider than 25mm.

I felt comfortable that it was a men's watch.

A 5' 10" amazon absconded with it.

It looked like a postage stamp on her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Yes definitely a mans watch - the ladies from the period are tiny. Watch in the photo above is really nice!

I have had comments on watch size at work because people are so used to mens watches now being so big you could barely make them larger. I think gold straps tend to make them look smaller and you need at least 32+ lug to lug before they stop overpowering the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
For sure a gent's watch. Women's watches of the era were more like bracelets, LOL.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top