Reply With QuoteWith 8.5" wrists 40mm is about as small as I can go. Any smaller than that and I feel self-concious (which is a shame, because there are so many great watches under 40mm that I miss out on)
Rich
:lol:
but seriously, when you are looking at a watch is size a big issue, as i know that when i look the smallest i can go to is 38mm and the biggest i would want is probably 50mm.
What about you guys does size make a difference when you are purchasing.
thanks,
Andrew
With 8.5" wrists 40mm is about as small as I can go. Any smaller than that and I feel self-concious (which is a shame, because there are so many great watches under 40mm that I miss out on)
Rich
40mm is perfect for me or at least I think so. The PRS 20 looked ok though, wore a bit smaller than 44mm IMO.
So yes, size matters :D
Respect the past, live the present, protect the future
I didn't like small watches at all until I bought my Rolex Explorer I. Despite it's rather meager 38mm, it just looks so right. I still prefer larger watches, but it doesn't stop me enjoying the Explorer - in fact it's one of my favourites.
My other extreme is the 47mm Panerai 183, but it is certainly the largest watch I would want to wear. At 47mm, I think it's almost too big. 50mm would certainly be too big for my liking.
Generally I find I don't get on with watches much over 42mm. My collection at the moment ranges from 37mm to 40mm.
Dave
I've got 6 watches, three are 41mm and three are 42mm, not much variation there :P
My wrists are less than 7" but I don't like to wear anything smaller than I've got now but also not much bigger either :)
I'm not a fan of wearing anything <39mm, my smallest is 40mm (Speedy) & biggest 48mm (Tuna Can) but this wear smaller than my 44mm Chrono Avenger ..
/vince ..
I have 6.75" wrists and I've had watches from 38 to 46mm. There's no doubt that for me <40mm is more comfortable, but I like to know I'm wearing something! :) So for me 42mm would be the ideal size. My 45.5mm PO is a bit on the large size for me and as a result doesn't get worn as often as it should. My bro has the smaller one and it's perfect!
I won't consider anything over 60mm.Originally Posted by dawson2k5
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
My preference is around 40-42mm, largest watch I've had was 44mm Seawolf and I think thats about as large as I can go.
Thomas
Doug D. - Nice Panerai, but it's not a 183 (I assume that's a typo). I know because I really like the 183 and it's a Radiomir style. I believe yours is a 187 limited edition.
I used to wear Pannys, 47mm and 44 but I have got the vintage bug now and 38mm is too big and 47 mad.
Try it for a bit, get yourself something around 32mm, wear it for a week then try on something big.
Small watches are for the wearer, big watches are so people notice it :twisted:
I've got 7.25" - 7.5" wrists (depending on the day, I suppose...) and find that anything over 42mm is just too big. I have liked several 44mm watches until I tried them on. By the same token, I have tried on several small watches (35-37mm) and found them just too small -- too bad, too because there are a few Nomos watches that I adore.
So, for me, I stick to 39 - 42mm.
Cheers,
Jay
Not a fan of large watches... 40-odd mm is about as big as I want. Don't mind older/smaller sizes at all.
I have watches ranging from 33mm to 42mm and find I wear the 42mm watches the most. I don't think I'd like to wear a watch bigger then 42mm, though, with my small (7,5") wrist.
Also, I do like the look of 39mm or 40mm watches on my wrist better, but I only have two Seikos in that size. I don't like not being able to manually wind them to start them up, and therefore I almost never wear them...
In a few months (when the tax return comes in) I'm going to get an Oris Big Crown Pointer Date in 40mm to fill that gap.
Largest I've owned was the 46.6mm (52mm with the crown) Marathon CSAR. I've owned everything in between, too and currently have the Glycine Lagunare 3000 on order, which is 46mm. I tend to prefer a watch with a bit of weight and heft, though I really enjoyed the SD which was tiny compared to the CSAR. I find different watches wear differently and a lot depends on the combination of width and depth, as well as the width of the dial and bezel.
I have just over a 7.5" wrist and have owned 45mm PO's but feel comfortable with the max of 42mm. The Submariner is my ideal proportions. I think a big watch on small wrists looks ridiculous. I just don't like big thick watches.
I have three pet hates with the way some people wear watches. I never comment to people as its my own hang ups.
1. Where the watch strap is a obviously a link or two to big and looks more like bracelet rolling around someones wrist.
2. When people wear the watch so the face is on the underside of there wrist.
3. When people don't realise that there is such a thing as a watch being too big for there wrist, some wrist shots look ridiculous.
Dunno, my wrists are just over 7.5 inches and I have no probs wearing up to 46mm as long as the lugs aren't too long. A watch looks wrong, to me, when the lugs overhang the wrist edges. The CSAR had short lugs and fit just nicely:
I think it will also depend upon which section of the wrist you wear the watch. Some wear above the wrist-bone, some below. That will also make a difference as to how a watch wears.
A watch that is obviously too big for a wrist is infinitely worse than a small watch on a big wrist.
I think people can get too hung-up on size sometimes, missing out on some great watches because of prejudices of what they think will be too big or too small (which seems to be more often the case nowadays).
I have a couple of vintage Rolex Oyster Perpetual (Date & Datejust). They differ by approx. 1 - 2mm in diameter (35 & 37mm measured) but the smaller looks and feels very small. The 37mm diameter I can wear with no issues. Amongst the other 43 watches I currently own are a few approaching 48mm in diameter. I have 7.5" wrists and nothing I have looks and feels too big to me
Chris Dobson
I wholeheartedly agree. I collect vintage so i am cool with watches that are small by todays standards. I have 6.75" wrists and regularly wear 30mm trench watches. My daily wearer is a sub and i sometimes wear a BM, anything larger would look silly on my wrists. Long may the trend for larger watches continue as it means the price of the pieces i am interested in stay lower.
Regards
tim
After years of wearing Pannies and Chrono Avengers etc on my 8.5" wrist , I took
del yesterday of a Datejust. Partially done to satisfy my curiosity as to how I ever
managed to wear one all the time 20 years ago and partially to quell the need for a Rolex again.
Guess what............................ It's too small. I just can't do it, so I'm trading it tomorrow. :(
Frank
I am guilty of deciding a watch would be too big before even seeing it in real life...
Dave
I do think you get used to a certain size. Before I started getting into watches I had a Bulova that I wore for 20+ years that was approx. 34 or 35mm. When I first got my Damasko DC56 it seemed huge. Then I got a Zeno Moonphase that was probably 1cm bigger. Then a PAM. Now the Bulova looks like a child's watch on my wrist and Damasko looks to be moderately sized.
Ultimately, for most people I think 38-42mm are about the "correct" size for most people and proportional to a normal wrist. However, even though they may be ill-proportioned, I still love the size, heft and readability of my PAM. I just hope they will stay in fashion, since I do have this secret fear that 20 years from now we're going to look back at these watches the same way we look at Nehru jackets, 6 inch wide psychedelic ties and mutton chops. :D
I have the same problem as Rich. My wrist size is smaller at 7.5" but I am tall and heavy built. I feel that 42mm is the smallest I can wear due to personal taste. I just love big watches and I blame Panerai for that! There are many watches I like around the 40mm mark that I would love to buy but just cannot commit to, like a Stowa Marine Original as one example, even though it has a thin bezel.
I have been wearing a 48mm watch regularly for a few months now, and anything less just looks tiny in comparison. It does not look 48mm after a few days of wear as we get use to the size. As long as the watch is comfortable to wear, the large size is never an issue with me personally. All psycological I know.
I have to wear a 41-42mm watch for a week so I can wear and feel comfortable wearing a watch in the 42-44mm case size. I put the 48mm watch back on again (after wearing a smaller cased watch for a week or so) and the 48mm size looks huge!
Dave
.
Watches, like shoes ... are not 'one size fits all'. This is a pointless thread. :blackeye: :P
john
Every watch a story.
i love that panerai but i,d shit my self wearing it with all the knocks and dings it would get , i just purchased an orient star 300 m diver at 45mm in less than a week its had 3 knocks already and scratched the crystal :( f.....g door handles.I didn't like small watches at all until I bought my Rolex Explorer I. Despite it's rather meager 38mm, it just looks so right. I still prefer larger watches, but it doesn't stop me enjoying the Explorer - in fact it's one of my favourites.
My other extreme is the 47mm Panerai 183, but it is certainly the largest watch I would want to wear. At 47mm, I think it's almost too big. 50mm would certainly be too big for my liking.
Hmmm, well I agree that shoes aren't one size fits all. But watches could easily be - we could make it law that all watches must be 35mm and that would work fine for anyone over the age of 8 or so.
A better analogy would perhaps be comparing against fashion or style i.e. people can wear whatever they enjoy. Even that analogy would be flawed because someone wearing a fluorescent pink tracksuit would stand out, but 99% of real, non-WIS people never notice watches anyway no matter what size or colour.
Of course I'm making this far too complicated and serious than it needs to be! :bigsmurf:
Despite having tiny wrists, I like big watches: JSAR, 1000m Tuna Can, UTS.... I think it started with Panerai. Nowadays, I think real hard before buying anything less than 44mm.
Made me laugh that did..... :lol:
Joe.
The next question is, what's the biggest watch a woman should wear!!? :)
I saw a girl the other day wearing one that must have been 45mm+. I actually thought it looked pretty good on her (the watch was c**p, but sizewise I mean). It looked kind of sexy but was probably helped by the fact that she was absolutely gorgeous. I'm sure it's probably one of those things that only some people can pull off.
I think its what you get use to.
My first auto was a smallish 37mm seiko 5, the bloke i got it from also had a 009 which I tried on and though god this is mahoosive I'll take the 5 instead
A few years later I got a 42mm SMP then I bought myself a 009 and thought this aint as big as i thought. Next came the Breitling SO same size as the SMP and then a Panerai 177 now we are up to 44mm. If i carry on at this rate I'll be trying to strap Big Ben on my wrist if I make it to 80
Well, I have owned 44mm Panerai's and they were fine, but prefer the Rolex Sub 40mm for size as it's more practical - less chance of it getting whacked/catching on jackets etc.
I'm reasonably tall and chunky (my wife would say fat!) - at 6'2'' and nearly 16 stone, never think I have large wrists until a friend tries on one of my watches and it's way too big on their wrists - I think my wrists are round as opposed to flattened if that makes sense!
I think a 40mm watch looks great on my wife, who has wrists like twigs - those tiny ladies watches remind me of my Grandma, and how can anyone tell the time on one of those??
I really want to like the Rolex Explorer, but it looks silly on my wrist - I've tried one on a dozen times, and every time the sales guy/girl says it looks like a girls watch, and I have to agree :cry:
As long as it's comfy, and you like it, then buy it - some allegedly large watches - eg the Seiko Monster - wear smaller than expected, so you have to try them on :wink:
Does size matter? Not at all. It's the watch that matters. A divers would look silly at 30mm. An officers watch from 1914-1918 would look stupid at 42mm.
A watch should be judged on its merits and type, not on its size. :)
Anyway, it's nice to have watches of differing sizes.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
It's not the 183 that you'd have to worry about, it's the objects that come into contact with it, door frames, brick walls, even Crusader tanks - they all come off second best. The 183 is a brute!!i love that panerai but i,d shit my self wearing it with all the knocks and dings it would get , i just purchased an orient star 300 m diver at 45mm in less than a week its had 3 knocks already and scratched the crystal :( f.....g door handles.I didn't like small watches at all until I bought my Rolex Explorer I. Despite it's rather meager 38mm, it just looks so right. I still prefer larger watches, but it doesn't stop me enjoying the Explorer - in fact it's one of my favourites.
My other extreme is the 47mm Panerai 183, but it is certainly the largest watch I would want to wear. At 47mm, I think it's almost too big. 50mm would certainly be too big for my liking.
In general 40-42mm is what I look for, but a lot can depend on the case style and in particular length and shape of the lugs. A larger watch with the right lug design can look ok and be comfortable on my wrists, but most watches over 44mm I have tried I thought just looked silly.
Wrist size of 6.75" and I wear anything from 36mm up to 44mm, with my sweet spot somewhere around 38-40mm. Design plays a big part, divers tend to wear smaller than they are due to the bezel for instance.
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
I have a 7 3/4" wrist and generally wear 40mm most comfortably. That said, my smallest is 34mm and my largest 46mm. I think it is more about lug-to-lug than diameter, and the design plays a big part too. Plus, of course, wear what the hell you want to!
A shot of my recently departed 48mm Steinhart (enjoy, r1ch!):
I have incoming at 56mm lug-to-lug, BTW
really depends on the style of watch. i have some vintage dress pieces and they're 33-36mm. my smallest daily wearer is 37mm and i generally don't like to go bigger than 42mm, but i do own some pieces at 44mm., lug-to-lug length is key. my wrist size in 6.75".
there seems to be a lot of owner's sentiment on the forums that if the watch takes up the entire surface of the wrist without sticking out on the lugs, that it is not too big...when imo nothing could be further than the truth.
Wrist size of about 7" and 40-44mm is my prference had the 45 PO but it was just a shade too big for my liking,
I think thickness has a lot to do with it as well and about 16mm is my limit
I have learnt that 38-40 mm is about right for my 'shade over 7' wrist.
G-Shocks can be bigger, though.
You mean Panerai 187. I sold mine to someone who has since become a friend. Great watch. I also owned the Panerai 183 for a while (Black Seal) but it isn't 1/3rd the watch the 187 is. If I hadn't purchased my GP Seahawk II Pro, I would have thought hard about reacquiring the Pam 187. I believe this will be a collector's watch over time. But then, I've been wrong before.I didn't like small watches at all until I bought my Rolex Explorer I. Despite it's rather meager 38mm, it just looks so right. I still prefer larger watches, but it doesn't stop me enjoying the Explorer - in fact it's one of my favourites.
My other extreme is the 47mm Panerai 183, but it is certainly the largest watch I would want to wear. At 47mm, I think it's almost too big. 50mm would certainly be too big for my liking.
Posting Permissions
