But publications don't generally recommend watches for a range of wrist size.

Diameter gives you the width of the typically circular, round case of the watch; lug to lug give you how long the case is. Depending on the curvature of the lugs, lug to lug dimension is not very representative because you are trying to portray a 3D shape with a 2D measurement.

 

I totally agree with you. A watch whose lugs curve down a bit can be a joy and that 3D match is why, for me, I never buy a watch unless I've had it on wrist - or "know" the watch case from something very similar. However, when you see the lateral lug to lug in an article, it is still a 2D dimension. It seems to me that tells me more than trying to compare to circumference - given that most wrists aren't actually round.

 

I'd like to know where you are doing this lateral measurement?

Asking because I'm just a touch over 7" but the width I measure at the bone is 60mm.

My larger watches (50-54mm L2L) usually want to natually sit a little lopsided towards the top where the bone is, meaning the bottom strap looks normal because it has room to wrap around properly but the top suffers from the dreaded drop down effect you get from overhanging lugs.

My smaller watches tend to sit better in the middle and the strap wrap looks a lot more even.

I also asess comfort based on weight and not just size.

My 44mm flieger is probably the heaviest chunk of metal (thick case and auto movement) in my collection and it shows on wrist.

My 36mm Timex quartz's are diminutive by comparison because they are half the weight on top of being considerably smaller, of course meaning they stay in place better and essentially disappear on wrist.

What you are proposing makes sense to me. Wrist circumference should be used as a guage as to what bracelet/strap length should be, and wrist width should be used to guage what L2L will be most appropriate (taking into account that L2L can have a small bearing on strap length as well).

Update:

I measured the width of my wrist where the bone is at approximately 60-61mm.

This is the big flieger with the 54mm L2L, longest one I have (a few more at the 50-53mm L2L):

Pretty easy to see the hang-down at the top compared to the natural drape at the bottom.

Small Timex scout, about 44.5mm L2L:

Still doesn't sit even, but looks a lot less lopsided than the flieger.

 

I guess I won’t say you’re wrong, what you’re saying sounds probably correct…I just personally have never understood this idea of watch fit or taken it into account at all. For me, it’s about the watch and what size seems appropriate for that watch. I wouldn’t buy a dress watch at 43mm, nor a fleiger at 36, and everything in between, but it would never be about whether it physically “fits” on my wrist.

 

I also go with the proportional size of the watch vs my wrist.

 

Me too

 

I don't always wear my watch on my wrist

 

Please… I beg you- no pictures!

 

No matter how much I like a watch otherwise, wearability always wins out in the end. Size is at least 75% of wearability. Thus, I disagree with your thesis about spending too much digital ink on size.

All these factor into wearability (and my personal ideal spec 6.6 to 6.75 wrist)
Diameter (~39mm)
LugtoLug (~47mm)
Height (<12.8mm)
Case shape/design (hard to quantify)
Weight (<120 grams)
Alloy (Grade 5 Ti or SS 316L)
Type of bracelet or strap (Ti or small link such as jubilee, female endlinks, 1/2 link available, 20mm, tapers to <18mm at clasp)
Clasp design (with tool-less microadjust)

 

This is also how I see it, bringing something this complex with many aspects, it is always better to wear the watch on your own wrist. Some 42mm are too large for me, some not. It really depends on many things as mentioned by sdiver68.

 

because it's easier to measure precisely?

 

I agree it's a more useful measure, but why call it bone width and not simply wrist width? I assume we don't want to discount any layer of dermis from the measurement?

 

I have relatively flat wrists as well. Personally, I wear what I like and there is only one watch so far I have not bought due to size. It is the IWC BP, and I passed only because my wife put her foot down so to speak. (I may still get it regardless

That said, I think large diameter watches tend to be thicker, and aesthetically a thick watch on a flat shallow wrist may look off to some people. I am not in that camp and wear watches that conventionally speaking are too large for my wrist. But all that matters is what makes you (and your significant other) happy.

Edit: forgot to add. I think your height has something to do with it. If you are relatively tall with skinny wrists (let’s say long distance runner physique), I think that can help balance out a large watch, regardless of wrist size.

 

I always assumed it's because more people have rulers than calipers, and even though you can do it accurately with a ruler it's slightly harder to explain. But I think you're quite right that with would be a better measurement.

 

No amount of logic or math will convince some people that their watch is in clown shoes territory.

Not my concern. I'm not the one walking around looking like sonny boy got his hands on Daddy's watch. I will still tell them if asked...I haven't given up completely, just stopped caring.

And pull your pants up and tuck your shirt in, and get off my lawn.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

My running shoe size is 9, and I like 38-42mm watches.

 

A long as your feel aren't size 6, that sounds about right.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

I've never given this much thought, but I'm curious as to how much variation there is in wrist profile between men? It may be that wrist width is going to be fairly well correlated to wrist circumference anyway.

To throw one more measurement into the discussion, mine is ~185mm circumference, ~57mm across (caliper measured), for a flatness coefficient of 57/185 = 0.308.

Using 6.9" as your average circumference, yours is 0.297.

 

68/220

.309

I still think 45mm watches look ridiculous on most wrists.

 

There's no way to accurately measure "bone width". Wrist size is an approximation for that, but it's helpful to know when someone says they have a 7.5" wrist what their body fat percentage is.

Someone with 7.5" wrists at 18% BF is waaay different from someone with 7.5" wrists at 30% BF.

Most people have below 7" wrists if they were below 20% body fat.

 

I find this kinda curious.
I'm around 25% body fat but there isnt much if any fat (or muscle) around my wrist. Move an inch up my arm (towards the forearm) and sure, fat and muscle start to make my arm thicker.
If I look at the width of my wrist, at the actual joint, I feel nothing but skin. I wonder if this means my wrist is flatter as well, but my body fat rounds it out? There is a wee bit of meat/fat on the bottom side of my wrist i guess.

 

My wrist is right at 7.5" and is flat. My sweet spot is 42-43mm whereas I know guys with the same wrist size but rounder in shape and that size looks too big.

 

LOVE your quote👍

 

I have quite a small wrist circumference - 6 1/4" or 160mm. But I'm lucky that my wrists are quite flat and my wrist width is 52mm like the OP. It means I can wear watches that wear a bit larger than my wrist circumference might imply, but also means I often have to add a hole to certain straps.

 

Absolutely, wrist width is more realistic, it's the same with lug to lug instead of diameter.

Other factors should be considered as watch high, springbars holes position, female or male links and diameter.

 

Chrono24's "try it on" feature requests wrist width, not circumference. That was frustrating the first time I saw it because I didn't have the measurement handy, but I couldn't deny the sense it made to fit a watch that way.

Sure, there's the curve of the lugs to consider (as mentioned above), and the length of the band, but maybe they're secondary. Similarly, I might be concerned about how far my TV sits from the wall, but I'm still going to choose its size based on the area of the wall.

 

It may work for watch head measurements, but not strap length

 

My wrist is 6"7 in, but is round. I have trouble with big L2L like my Victorinox, if it had minus 3mm...

 

why do we measure wrist circumference with a tape measure instead of looking at lateral bone width?

Maybe because most watches fit all the way around your wrist and don't just balance on top of your wrist!?!?!?!?!?

 

For me, it's both circumference and lug-to-lug distance. First filter is circumference, since I have enough experience knowing anything smaller than 38mm is (IMO) going to look too small on my wrist. Lug-to-lug helps me know when I'm reaching the upper limit of case size. I can comfortably wear watches up to around 46mm, but there are a couple of watches with L-L distances or lugs that don't angle down that make it look odd. This is a really subjective decision. One size doesn't fit all and what I prefer someone else's cup of tea.

 

Taking a step back, most watches offered for sale list the size of the watch case - not the size of the dial, and not the measurement between lug tips, which are really the realm of watch enthusiasts.

The answer is, try it on if you can so you can figure out if you like how it looks, because as you observed, wrists come in a variety of shapes and sizes. A lot of watch-sellers couldn’t tell you in person what the lug-to-lug measurement is anyway.

 

This is why lug to lug distance along with types of end links (male or female) are so important for judging fit.

 

Just wear what Super Models want to see...problem solved!

 

‘What they want to see is a younger person!