What is your favorite watch size?
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Joined
·
10,282 Posts
Yes it's come up before, with the consensus that it's hard to be specific about case diameter because different watch styles and designs wear differently.
I have a small wrist, my preferred size is 36mm-38mm for dressy styles with thin bezels, and 38-42 for sports/diver styles.
I have a small wrist, my preferred size is 36mm-38mm for dressy styles with thin bezels, and 38-42 for sports/diver styles.
Joined
·
687 Posts
I voted for <40mm. I do own larger watches but the 38-40mm looks/feels the best. I have a 42mm Flieger that feels huge but its the look of the genre and is thus acceptable to me. I have a whole bunch of divers that are >40mm but that genre tends to wear small (short lugs and curved cases). It seems I have gone full circle in my watch taste and have recently gone back to the 38mm size. For what its worth my wrist is 7.5"
Joined
·
1,713 Posts
Doubt it.
I voted 42 but could have voted 44 just as easily. I have watches down to about 33mm and up to 46mm. I love 'em all but feel the most comfortable in the 42-44mm range.
Joined
·
4,592 Posts
42-44 will never go but things north of 46 may disappear at some stage.
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
It really does depend on the purpose of the watch. Imagine a 38mm ABC watch! Many running and G-shock watches kind of need to be bigger to accomodate all the functions/protection etc. Standard analog watches should ideally be under 40, but I can see the case for a diving watch being more. I've got 190mm wrists.
Joined
·
1,388 Posts
Ditto here on the 42-44 range...
Joined
·
22,775 Posts
It's been discussed several times before. But just because I'm curious, I'll ask why such granularity above 40mm and only a single bucket below 40mm? Look around and I think you will find that most watches made today are < 40mm. diameter
Joined
·
1,545 Posts
32mm
That's a lot less than 40mm.
That's a lot less than 40mm.
Joined
·
4,620 Posts
42-44 is the sweet spot for me, but it depends also on the proportions.
A 40 mm case by 13 mm thick is going to look like a tuna can on my wrist but a 44 mm case at 13 mm thick can usually look better.
It also depends on the shape, the lug shape, lug proportions, style and curvature of the lugs, lug length, position of the lugs on the sides of the case and shape of the underside of the lugs and watch. Also, it depends on whether or not a bracelet is involved, with or without end links; a nicely integrated bracelet can mask size differences.
But anything below 40 mm usually looks too small to me anyway on my wrist.
A 40 mm case by 13 mm thick is going to look like a tuna can on my wrist but a 44 mm case at 13 mm thick can usually look better.
It also depends on the shape, the lug shape, lug proportions, style and curvature of the lugs, lug length, position of the lugs on the sides of the case and shape of the underside of the lugs and watch. Also, it depends on whether or not a bracelet is involved, with or without end links; a nicely integrated bracelet can mask size differences.
But anything below 40 mm usually looks too small to me anyway on my wrist.
Joined
·
20,990 Posts
Yup, dying since the 50s, when huge watches like the Rolex Submariner and Blancpain Fifty Fathoms came out. Dying in the 60s too, with the 42mm Speedmaster and large wearing Heuer Monaco. And dying now, with Rolex selling multiple models, like the Yachtmaster, DeepSea, and Explorer at 44, 44, and 42 millimeters.
Personally, I wear watches from about 40 to 47mm, depending on lug to lug length.
Joined
·
1,713 Posts
This dern "Internet" thingy is a dying trend.
When I just started developing interest in watches, I liked bigger watches. But over time my tastes started changing and now I usually prefer smaller watches to bigger ones. In my opinion, esthetically, usually a 38-40 mm (or even smaller) watch just looks better on anyone compared to something that is 44-46mm (of course, depending on the style and purpose, so I don't want to generalise too much). Smaller ones are also more practical - they usually fit under sleeves and tend not to bang on door knobs, desks and various other objects. In terms of important features and complications, I don't think there is anything a 46mm watch can do that a 38mm watch can't. I also dislike very thick watches.
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
^ Raza: does that mean you're not getting the Tag Heuer pro dive (Bond quartz)? I was so looking forward to seeing you in that! (Come on, it's 38mm ... surely, that's not a deal-breaker, is it? (just teasing ... but still, a nice watch, I think!
Yes, Ctilly, this question seems to come up a lot, but that's okay (I mean, trends change, maybe even from last month or even last week, but never in the classic sense, with over-sized clocks disappearing and being replaced with vintage styles and more classic sizing; then, unlike fashions/fads which come and go, classic is timeless and lasts forever, yes?
For me, it depends on the watch category; in terms of dress watches, <40 is proper in the classic sense (mine range from 34 to 39mm, with 36mm being my average). Then, dress watches are supposed to be discreet and elegant, 'more is less' as they say, making a statement as such. In terms of sport watches, I like them a bit bigger because, well, they're not dress watches but sport watches, legible/easy to read, etc., thus mine range from 38-42mm, with 40mm being my average. Then, I'm not "big and tall" either, having average sized-wrists, and what I wear may not suit a pro basketball player, for e.g. (Note: as to watches being a bit bigger than they were a century ago or even back in the 50s, this is true; then, people are getting bit by bit a tad bit taller on average. Anyone been to i.e. a museum and viewed the size of the suits of armour lately? That was the size of brave warriors back then. Interesting, yes?
That said, I don't wear clocks and never did (that silly trend has ended); by the same token, basketball players don't or at least shouldn't wear a quarter, as that looks just as silly on their wrists as a clock would on mine. Different sized wrists, different sized watches. Same effect, provided you wear what suits your size.
Cheers.
Yes, Ctilly, this question seems to come up a lot, but that's okay (I mean, trends change, maybe even from last month or even last week, but never in the classic sense, with over-sized clocks disappearing and being replaced with vintage styles and more classic sizing; then, unlike fashions/fads which come and go, classic is timeless and lasts forever, yes?
For me, it depends on the watch category; in terms of dress watches, <40 is proper in the classic sense (mine range from 34 to 39mm, with 36mm being my average). Then, dress watches are supposed to be discreet and elegant, 'more is less' as they say, making a statement as such. In terms of sport watches, I like them a bit bigger because, well, they're not dress watches but sport watches, legible/easy to read, etc., thus mine range from 38-42mm, with 40mm being my average. Then, I'm not "big and tall" either, having average sized-wrists, and what I wear may not suit a pro basketball player, for e.g. (Note: as to watches being a bit bigger than they were a century ago or even back in the 50s, this is true; then, people are getting bit by bit a tad bit taller on average. Anyone been to i.e. a museum and viewed the size of the suits of armour lately? That was the size of brave warriors back then. Interesting, yes?
That said, I don't wear clocks and never did (that silly trend has ended); by the same token, basketball players don't or at least shouldn't wear a quarter, as that looks just as silly on their wrists as a clock would on mine. Different sized wrists, different sized watches. Same effect, provided you wear what suits your size.
Cheers.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!