Do I want a Daytona?

**RAJEN** · 20th December 2014, 15:16

I think if OP was serious and if he can't decide even now, he needs a different kind of help.

The size discussion on this thread has had me wondering for the first time- what is it that makes some people like bigger watches and some smaller? Is it some personality trait? Does that trait make itself felt in other parts of their life? Or is it just limited to watches?
Girly/ manly/ insecurity/dinner plate/saucers
And similar shit has been thrown about a lot
But in the end it's just a matter of preference .
I don't think in any other hobbies or fashion accessories , the size issue is such a prickly one. Certainly there are fads- like size of sunglasses for example. But, bigger watches are NOT a passing fad as some proponents of smaller sizes keep on insisting/hoping.. Speaking for myself, since my early years of collecting I have tended to gravitate towards bigger watches before the recent size explosion.
I have a bunch of sub 42 mm watches in my collection but by and large if there are same/ similar watches being offered in different sizes , I tend to prefer the bigger one. Only exception being Eterna Super Kontiki diver where I prefer the original over the reissue.

While appreciating a watch on someone else's wrist, the size issue doesn't matter as much.
Like Daytona. Always appreciate it more on someone else's wrist ..SS Daytona leaves me underwhelmed on my wrist.
I certainly don't think the size preference in watches is reflective of any deep seated issues but is certainly interesting.
As to the insecurities inspired by the preference and constant sniping and pigeon holing and caricaturing that it leads to, that could point to something more deep rooted and troublesome.

**burnsey66** · 20th December 2014, 15:21

Originally Posted by RAJEN

The size discussion on this thread has had me wondering for the first time- what is it that makes some people like bigger watches and some smaller?

The age of internet shopping?

I used to wear 40mm or under watches, until ten plus years ago I ordered a Panerai on-line.

MY GOD IT WAS HUGE!

But it was a hassle to return it, so I wore it. If it were in a store, I'd have probably left without purchasing.

My next few purchases were bigger, because I was used to it. Then I'd go back to a smaller watch and find it odd, but after a few days, the same could be said in reverse.

I am like you Raj, I like both and I'm a real man in 34mm, or 44mm.

**adesmith** · 20th December 2014, 15:29

So I popped in to the AD today. Typically they didn't have the white or black dialled SS watches in so I tried the platinum and the TT. The platinum was lovely with the chocolate bezel but as it was on a strap it made the watch seem even smaller so I tried the TT with a bracelet on to give me an idea of size.

Took this photo and will stew over it for a while. The manager told me to wait until Basel and see if a ceramic bezelled Daytona is launched. I think that a ceramic bezel would look great but ultimately a 42mm would be perfect.

I have a speedy reduced so I may nick that back of the wife and see if I get used to the size.

Ended up drooling over a rose gold sky dweller again but also got to see the new white gold pepsi GMT in the flesh which was stunning. Some lucky bugger was picking it up on Monday.

and with the speedy reduced that I will try to wear more often to see if I can get used to the size....

**Itsguy** · 20th December 2014, 15:37

Originally Posted by RAJEN

The size discussion on this thread has had me wondering for the first time- what is it that makes some people like bigger watches and some smaller? Is it some personality trait?

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, it seems to get overlooked in a discussion about whether a 39/40mm watch is small or not, that some people have bigger wrists than others! On my skinny wrist it's on the large side of just right, on someone else it may look small. I actually sold an otherwise lovely 39.2mm old model Aqua Terra because it was slightly too big on me, being a design with a small bezel and lots of dial.

I agree that in general watches have obviously grown since the 60s and I don't expect that to reverse, but huge watches that overhang the wrist and basically simply don't fit strikes me as a passing fad, like flares or wide lapels. I also think that some people really do just want a big watch because they equate a big price tag to a big chunk of metal, and want it to be noticed - a basic instinct but you do see it. Others buy big simply because it fits them. So generalising is unhelpful.

I do think though that there is less choice currently for people who prefer sub-42mm sizes, so some of us will always feel that current sizes have slightly overshot the mark - though someone recently went completely mental at me on this forum for daring to suggest this rather obvious fact. This debate seems to bring out some strong emotions and some pretty strange opinions!

**RAJEN** · 20th December 2014, 15:42

Originally Posted by Itsguy

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, it seems to get overlooked in a discussion about whether a 39/40mm watch is small or not, that some people have bigger wrists than others! On my skinny wrist it's on the large side of just right, on someone else it may look small. I actually sold an otherwise lovely 39.2mm old model Aqua Terra because it was slightly too big on me, being a design with a small bezel and lots of dial.

I agree that in general watches have obviously grown since the 60s and I don't expect that to reverse, but huge watches that overhang the wrist and basically simply don't fit strikes me as a passing fad, like flares or wide lapels. I also think that some people really do just want a big watch because they equate a big price tag to a big chunk of metal, and want it to be noticed - a basic instinct but you do see it. Others buy big simply because it fits them. So generalising is unhelpful.

I do think though that there is less choice currently for people who prefer sub-42mm sizes, so some of us will always feel that current sizes have slightly overshot the mark - though someone recently went completely mental at me on this forum for daring to suggest this rather obvious fact. This debate seems to bring out some strong emotions and some pretty strange opinions!

I didn't state the obvious which I should have. Most would agree that a small watch on a huge wrist ( say 36mm on a 8.5 inch wrist) or a huge watch in a small wrist (47 mm on a 6 in wrist) are an obvious mismatch but between these two ends lie the contentious issues. I am not talking about L2L or shape of lugs or the dial aperture etc which can all affect how a watch wears either.

**Philip** · 20th December 2014, 15:47

Bigger watches have been the fashion for a while. Luxury goods manufacturers follow the money - if the new markets want something conspicuous, they will get it. You can see exactly the same thing in car design - discretion and understatement are not popular at the moment.

Also suspect that the majority of people (particularly first-time buyers) dropping a large-ish amount of money on what is effectively jewellery want others to know about it, hence the enormous popularity of recognisable-by-everyone brands such as Rolex (and their recent clown watches).

**poppy** · 20th December 2014, 16:27

the girly size thing is just a joke, i assume the gorilla et al remarks are more founded in having been genuinely offended. YMMV

the reason some (not all) folk think the daytona (as lovely looking as it is) is too small is because they, like me, have large wrists. as a stand alone object, it is perfectly proportioned and an unmistakeable watch icon. but when compared to an individual's wrist, it can look very small, not least because it is a small watch.

we all seem happy to concede when someone wears a massive watch on a small arm that the watch looks too big, surely the opposite is just as true? either way, it certainly seems the fans of larger watches seem a lot more difficult to offend than those who like small girly watches.

**Belligero** · 20th December 2014, 17:01

35 mm on 200 mm / 7 7-8":

Some of you guys are nuts. ;)

**JasH** · 20th December 2014, 17:14

Originally Posted by poppy

the reason some (not all) folk think the daytona (as lovely looking as it is) is too small is because they, like me, have large wrists. as a stand alone object, it is perfectly proportioned and an unmistakeable watch icon. but when compared to an individual's wrist, it can look very small, not least because it is a small watch.
.

I am genuinely curious - what would be regarded as "large wrists"? i.e. what is your wrist size?

Only asking because I just bought a Daytona and it looks perfect on my 7.5" wrist. I would not even have minded if the watch were a tiny bit smaller. I would have thought 7.5" is an average size?

My wrists are somewhat oval rather than perfectly round though. I'd imagine the Daytona would look even bigger on a very round wrist.

**Belligero** · 20th December 2014, 17:22

^
Don't stress about it.
Some people forget that there's a considerably-sized region that most people would call "normal" between "large" and "small".

**ach5** · 20th December 2014, 17:43

I am very athletic and dont have much excess fat. My wrists are what you might consider "skinny" (I'm a cyclist so have big thighs and skinny arms - basically the opposite of the typical modern day caveman!), and I have had to remove 4 links from my Exp II 42mm to get it not to be too loose... and I still found the Daytona wore very small. Also, there was so much on the dial that everything seemed shrunk down and dainty to get it all to fit. Something about it was just really glitzy and delicate. And it was the only rolex I have ever felt where you could feel / hear the rotor.

I must say the dial was fabulous (although glitzy!) - it really looks amazing, but just not for me.

The "girls watch" comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek! And I am suprised at the knicker-knotting it has caused.

**J J Carter** · 20th December 2014, 17:49

My microscopic Mondaine, now effectively unwearable

!

**ach5** · 20th December 2014, 17:51

Originally Posted by J J Carter

My microscopic Mondaine, now effectively unwearable !

I'm sure there's a baby somewhere who it would fit

**RAJEN** · 20th December 2014, 17:53

[QUOTE=Belligero;3361795

Some of you guys are nuts. ;)[/

Aren't we all?
Otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing watches.😄

**mtagrant** · 20th December 2014, 17:57

Up until a couple of years ago, I wore and Omega Double Eagle which at 35mm you would think is very small, but the bracelet design meant it still felt pretty meaty.

Since then I have upsized with each new purchase - not purposely, but because each time I buy a bigger watch, it pretty soon becomes the norm, and I am not worried about moving up a size.

I recently bought a Breitling Seawolf which feels chunky, but not overly big for me. However, when I tried on a DSSD last year it felt far too big. Not seen these side by side, but believe they are a similar dimension.

I have just bought another watch today (which I still haven't seen in the flesh) that is 47mm, so getting worried it will be huge. And today, I am now wearing my Milgauss which at 40mm still feels like a good size

**ach5** · 20th December 2014, 17:57

Originally Posted by adesmith

Ye Gads! My eyes!!!

**poppy** · 20th December 2014, 19:47

Originally Posted by JasH

I am genuinely curious - what would be regarded as "large wrists"? i.e. what is your wrist size?

Only asking because I just bought a Daytona and it looks perfect on my 7.5" wrist. I would not even have minded if the watch were a tiny bit smaller. I would have thought 7.5" is an average size?

hmm, my wrist is a tad over 7.5 inches if i remember correctly. i tend to wear 44-45mm watches and like the way they look on my arm which is why i think the smaller, more discreet dimensions of the Daytona looked too small for my tastes. I do have pretty big hands though too.

it was dissapointing as i was in the shop to buy a daytona at the time and ended up with a DSSD and an avenger chrono for the same money instead.

**watchlovr** · 20th December 2014, 20:03

In the 70's divers watches and chronographs were large because they needed to be; large movements or heavy steel cases.
Now it is just fashionable, and surprise, fashions change to polar opposites too.

In my opinion the size of watches, particularly among the younger generation, probably driven by celebrities, has become ridiculous.

Class will always show and a Rolex Daytona is a classy piece, always has been, always will be, it's as simple as that.

**burnsey66** · 20th December 2014, 20:10

Originally Posted by watchlovr

In my opinion the size of watches, particularly among the younger generation, probably driven by celebrities, has become ridiculous.

I'm sure people were having the same discussion in the 60's and 70's, when watches like th Daytona were half a centimeter bigger than what was the norm...

**Guitarfan** · 20th December 2014, 20:17

Originally Posted by watchlovr

Class will always show and a Rolex Daytona is a classy piece, always has been, always will be, it's as simple as that.

To you maybe, but yet again it's opinion being touted as fact.

In my opinion the Daytona is a small, old fashioned horoligical has-been.

To each his own though!

**ach5** · 20th December 2014, 20:20

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

In my opinion the Daytona is a small, old fashioned horoligical has-been.

Rolex is all about the past, not the future though. If you want cutting edge aesthetics, you dont buy a Rolex.

**Guitarfan** · 20th December 2014, 20:24

Exactly, hence my final "to each his own" comment!

**learningtofly** · 20th December 2014, 20:27

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

Exactly, hence my final "to each his own" comment!

But a horological has been? What does that make the Speedmaster Professional, as a matter of interest?

**Guitarfan** · 20th December 2014, 20:28

Originally Posted by learningtofly

But a horological has been? What does that make the Speedmaster Professional, as a matter of interest?

The same...

**learningtofly** · 20th December 2014, 20:33

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

The same...

Fair enough. You've just written off what are arguably the two most iconic chronographs ever made; good work.

**burnsey66** · 20th December 2014, 20:34

Originally Posted by learningtofly

But a horological has been? What does that make the Speedmaster Professional, as a matter of interest?

About five grand cheaper.

**verv** · 20th December 2014, 20:36

Not entirely sure that there's any such thing as a horological has-been in the world of mechanical watches.
Oxymoronic statement.

**ach5** · 20th December 2014, 20:37

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

The same...

OK, for clarity, which watches do you admire?

**Guitarfan** · 20th December 2014, 20:58

Like everyone else on here, I like what I like. Cars have moved on since 1900, so why shouldn't mechanical watches?

**Gav** · 20th December 2014, 21:16

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

Like everyone else on here, I like what I like. Cars have moved on since 1900, so why shouldn't mechanical watches?

Yes that's true but some of the most beautiful cars come from an earlier era.. Jaguar Xks,E types Aston DB5, Mercedes Gull wing etc ironically a lot of manufacters are returning to their historic designs to satisfy a market demand.

The reason that the original watches were a larger size was for a specific purpose .. Legibility .. This has been replaced by a desire to show the world your latest purchase ... Big isn't necessarily better it's personal choice and big isn't a better design

**EJL25** · 20th December 2014, 21:24

If Daytona is horological has-been, this must be the horological current thing.

Better to be has-been.

**Guitarfan** · 20th December 2014, 21:37

I've never said bigger watches are better, just that I prefer them. It's a choice, yet smaller watch fans will not accept my view - they have to keep banging on about how I'm "wrong". I'm not, I'm just different.

The Swatch example is clearly missing the point I'm making, and I'm sure you know that.

**RAJEN** · 20th December 2014, 22:06

While. I like larger watches, I do enjoy the variety.
The watches I wore in last day and half range from 41 to 44 to 48 mm
The point is there is room for all sizes.

**Guitarfan** · 20th December 2014, 22:15

Exactly, and that choice should be respected without resorting to personal insults.

**aksing** · 21st December 2014, 00:51

Originally Posted by Zolawinston

Here's mine for comparison, doesn't look much smaller than sub or GMT but shrinks dramatically on your wrist IMO.

[IMG]

uploading pictures[/IMG]

Great pic showing it is a bit on the small side. Ceramic might wear bigger but the SS is probably years off if it is made at all which is a bit unlikely as will probably only be on the gold pieces.

**watchlovr** · 21st December 2014, 07:52

Perhaps you should just use your phone for telling the time, you would not want to get tied to the past.
Couple of good phone forums out there.

Lets see what you feel is a classy chronograph then.......which you obviously already own?

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

To you maybe, but yet again it's opinion being touted as fact.

In my opinion the Daytona is a small, old fashioned horoligical has-been.

To each his own though!

**adesmith** · 21st December 2014, 08:36

Originally Posted by aksing

Great pic showing it is a bit on the small side. Ceramic might wear bigger but the SS is probably years off if it is made at all which is a bit unlikely as will probably only be on the gold pieces.

Dont forget they already make a precious metal ceramic Daytona.....why shouldn't a stainless steel version be made next?

Werent there mock ups and rumours of one appearing last year alongside photos of a Pepsi GMT before it was actually made public?

**Mikes1** · 21st December 2014, 09:26

I would choose one...... the Daytona is a classic I think.....

**Guitarfan** · 21st December 2014, 09:57

Originally Posted by watchlovr

Perhaps you should just use your phone for telling the time, you would not want to get tied to the past.
Couple of good phone forums out there.

Lets see what you feel is a classy chronograph then.......which you obviously already own?

No, I like watches thanks. Just not old ones or old-fashioned ones.

I don't own or like anything classy. That's not my thing either.

**Yeti** · 21st December 2014, 10:52

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

I don't own or like anything classy.

Sounds about right

**Guitarfan** · 21st December 2014, 11:06

More sniping, what a surprise.

What exactly is the problem I'm causing? I don't like some types of watches and say so (on a discussion forum), without any mention of the owners - yet in return I've been personally accused of being wrong, having a lack of class, unsure of my masculinity and gay.

Can someone please explain why?

**learningtofly** · 21st December 2014, 11:15

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

More sniping, what a surprise.

What exactly is the problem I'm causing? I don't like some types of watches and say so (on a discussion forum), without any mention of the owners - yet in return I've been personally accused of being wrong, having a lack of class, unsure of my masculinity and gay.

Can someone please explain why?

Probably because of the offensive way you chose to express your opinion. If you can't stand the heat...

**Guitarfan** · 21st December 2014, 11:16

Thank you for responding, but how have I offended anyone? I'm all for give and take, but I don't think I've personally attacked anyone - just expressed my dislike of the Daytona.

**cyrusir** · 21st December 2014, 11:31

Back to the op
if you are asking you want one doesn't mean you will keep it

I got a new 116520 a few months back I still haven't made my mind up that said I haven't bought anything new in the interim

**ballin** · 21st December 2014, 19:41

Originally Posted by Gav

I don't understand your thinking that it's a girls watch ... How is a s/s chrono tool watch a girls watch or am I missing something

Just because a watch is ss and chrono doesn't mean its therefore mans watch, and I also don't classify the Daytona as a tool watch. But to clarify, it's just my opinion of how it looks and feels on the wrist, its just feminine to me .

**andrew** · 22nd December 2014, 13:49

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

More sniping, what a surprise.

What exactly is the problem I'm causing? I don't like some types of watches and say so (on a discussion forum), without any mention of the owners

Well, you went to full troll mode and called them all girls for starters. No need to screw up threads about any other watch you feel isn't manly enough for you. Then again I could be offering this advice to one or two other people on here who's blood pressure rises when you mention the Big R...

**JasH** · 22nd December 2014, 21:30

I'm new here..... but this thread is hilarious!

Lets down the forum IMHO.

PS. I love the Daytona.

**aksing** · 22nd December 2014, 22:40

Originally Posted by adesmith

Dont forget they already make a precious metal ceramic Daytona.....why shouldn't a stainless steel version be made next?

Werent there mock ups and rumours of one appearing last year alongside photos of a Pepsi GMT before it was actually made public?

Well first they would need to make a WG, YG and TT which they seem in no hurry to do, or indeed put a bracelet on the RG model which I would own now if they had, and also Rolex seem to be upscaling recently so a ceramic SS and probably TT too are unlikely imho, with ceramic being reserved for PM only, tho I would really like to see one.

**Belligero** · 23rd December 2014, 13:31

^

I appreciate that it's the only remaining sports model that hasn't been modernized by emboldening and embiggening. A ceramic bezel on stainless I'd accept, as long as they don't mess with the proportions and diameter.

There are so many other choices for those who want a clunkier chronograph, including Rolex's own Yacht-Master II — which combines an absolutely brilliant movement with a well-made but bulky and gaudy exterior. Something for everyone!

**Rano85** · 23rd December 2014, 15:42

Originally Posted by Guitarfan

More sniping, what a surprise.

What exactly is the problem I'm causing? I don't like some types of watches and say so (on a discussion forum), without any mention of the owners - yet in return I've been personally accused of being wrong, having a lack of class, unsure of my masculinity and gay.

Can someone please explain why?

You were quite clearly trying to wind up learningtofly, and others in general. You're now resembling a footballer who has blatantly tripped an opponent but is wandering around with his arms oustretched saying "what? me? I didn't touch him..."

Thread: Do I want a Daytona?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

wrist size?

This size thing is purely fashion

Do I want a Daytona?

Posting Permissions