Size - is the trend towards 'big' (>42mm) watches diminishing?
Are watches going to slowly go back to more 'classic' dimensions - i.e. 40mm and below. For me, the sweet-spot (albeit on 6.5" wrist) is 38mm - 40mm.
All the manufacturers about 12 years ago jumped on the 'oversize' trend - I think that was a mistake. The design of most big watches looks compromised.
Discuss! :)
Last edited by The Hack; 11th July 2023 at 20:57.
Definitely not a mistake, just a fashion trend. Designs have to move on, get bigger, get smaller, and the cycle will continue.Originally Posted by The Hack
Panerai models look best 42mm upwards, most Breitlings look good in larger sizes and the Rolex ExpII looks good at 42mm.
The average person is getting larger too, small watches don't suit every wrist.
100% agree and I'd add IWC to that list too although 42mm is about my personal limit.
Conversely I think the Datejust is best in the classic 36mm size. The upscaled versions really don't work well for that type of watch imo.
It depends on the watch.
Some watches are just right when large, and that includes Panerai, IWC Big Pilot, square B&R.
I agree with a previous poster that the DateJust is best at 36mm, and doesn’t look right when scaled up. I don’t get on with the 42mm Explorer II either, although the new Subs at 41 are OK. The phat “Supercase” was a consequence of that trend.
Trends are definitely back towards classical sizes, but there is still a place for those watches that drove the the mid-noughties trend. Latecomers such as Rolex who tried to ride that trend were less successful, in balanced / pure design rather than sales.
Dave
And age.
I had a lovely 42mm(?) Twinjet Navitimer; it ticked every box. But I couldn't see what time it was, the dial was too busy and the gold hands with white face didn't help.
I sold it and replaced it with an 1861 (?) Twinjet 47mm; now as well as ticking all the boxes I can actually use it for telling the time!
I do love Navitimers.
Last edited by unclealec; 11th July 2023 at 22:34.
It has been happening for quite a while. The herd is just getting to hear about it now.
As we know it’s all about perspective, a 40mm watch with no bezel can look bigger than a 42mm watch with one. Back in the 40s and 50s a 34mm watch looked good on a guy on rations, but perhaps no longer the case on a man mountain with gorilla wrists.
A sign of the times. Infamously linked with the 'austerity' - we are all in it together. The, "loads of money" phase has passed, now it is time to tighten the belts. The ballooned size of watches is over, probably for most, buying a watch is the last thing they are thinking of.
There, I think I have mixed my metaphors quite enough for one evening.
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 11th July 2023 at 22:41.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
Really?
smaller watches doesn't necessarily mean lower prices
the tightening of belts phase only seems to be for those who had tight belts to start with. The airports are full, Tesla sales are through the roof and there's a shortage of housing which roughly translates as those who can afford big houses are still buying them and those that can't, aren't.
I do think watch sizes are reducing slightly but only slightly and there are still plenty of 'big' watches still being released.
Partially I would agree, the trend for huge watches - Panerai, Breitling 44mm+ sizes seemed to have slowed down.
More brands are looking at their back catalogue and looking at 40mm and below. BB58, Pelagos 39mm, glass box Carreras at 39mm seem to be getting a lot of praise from the industry. Even Panerai released 40mm & the due range
36mm still seems to be the conscious size for the perfect everyday watch.
However Omega with their Seamaster have increased to 42mm, Rolex Sub 41mm (think technically smaller), Explorer 40mm & 42mm, Ti Yachtmaster 42mm, even the new 1806 is large, Tag Aquaracer 43mm, most Carrera's 42mm+ so the industry to me doesnt think the size is 40mm below.
2 examples - my younger nephew 26yrs old, wants to pick up his 1st good watch, doesn't know the rabbit hole which we all do, but knows Rolex, Cartier, Tag & Tudor. He's roughly 5ft 10, broad, and straight away the 1st 3 watches he shows an interest in are the Moonwatch 42mm, Carrera Sport Chrono 44mm & Carrera Elegant 42mm. It wasnt until he tried on my BB58 and me telling him the watch rule I work by (l2l length larger than wrist it's a no), he actually likes that size and steering away from the 44mm ones.
A good mate off mine is looking to get a luxury watch to pass onto his 2nd born, apart from knowing Rolex, and swayed by many on Instagram and loving the Daytona's & DateJusts, originally looking at Breitling Premier Chronos, Tag Elegant Chronos, Tudor Chronos and Speedy all at 42mm.
Or are companies just offering more variety?
There seems to be a trend for companies to release one model of watch in a number of sizes which I think is a good thing.
Some watches do look better in a larger size other not so much.
The 42mm watch trend peaked ten years ago and sizes have been coming back down ever since. That said, the default size now seems to be 40mm, which is still pretty large for watch with no tool bezel, considering that Rolex subs / explorer 2s etc used to be 39mm.
At 6’2 and 150kg in general anything under 40mm looks absurd on my wrist.
40-42mm is touch and go relying on design and lug length to be acceptable. For example a Sub looks wrong on me, in fact most 40mm dive watches don’t work as the dial looks tiny.
42 and above are usually ok dependant on lug length but usually they are fine.
So I’m all for bigger watches however and this is a biggie. The small movement in a big case everything crowded around the pinion due to cost / lazy design is a big fat NOPE for me.
I’d rather no date than one halfway in on the dial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To me it's simple buy what suits your size , my friends wrist is 2 inch smaller than mine , what looks good on his wrist doesn't look good on mine and visa versa
Sent from my Pixel 6 using TZ-UK mobile app
36mm has always been my sweet spot, although my Inge 3521 is 34mm and that works fine (for years I actually thought it was 36mm). A bit more for Diver style watches although I think my midsize Seamaster is 36mm, and that's perfect.
Not a rule, but anything bigger is a compromise.
Im not sure that it's a trend. If it is, it's been going for well over a decade.
I agree with other posters that the datejust looks "right" at 36mm, and I happily wear it at that size.
Then again, I think that Panerai look "right" at 44 and 47mm, and the Sea-Dweller at 43.
I think the tick towards smaller watches that we're seeing is because manufacturers are reissuing old models to appeal to buyers who want the proportions to remain the same as the originals for purity, and there's also the "Hodinkee factor" at play which has created a market dedicated to the Ben Clymer types who want everything smaller because vintage.
Id say that 40-42 was the "norm" these days with products either side of that.
Personally im happy in the 36-47 range, but it does very much depend on the watch.
most watches have been 39 - 44 range for a very very long time. I dont see a trend where 42,43m 44 are getting any less in favour of 38-40
7.5" wrist and worn 34mm perfectly fine.
Dont get people saying 39mm is too small ie Tudor 54......it really isnt small at all.
Some will say it is.....it isnt.
Not really much to discuss as this has been discussed over and over again. But, it IS true that the perception has changed. The brands have realised that not all watches HAVE to be big. Certain styles look better in smaller proportions and the case size doesn’t need to be inflated for those.
The best era of watch design for me was from the mid-1960s to mid-1970s, from just before automatic chronographs to the age of digital and quartz. My 1966ish Heuer 2446 is about the same size as a Sub, around 39mm, and by 1970 or so the automatic Heuer Autavia 1163 was 42mm, as was the Omega 1000M (not including the crown guard). I don't know what a PloProf was but it must have been 46 or 48mm. The 1970 or so Seiko 6105-8110 was 44mm, so was the Omega Big Blue. The Seiko 6215-7000 was 43.5mm wide.
Lots of classic watches were 42mm or more, so the larger case size isn't necessarily a trend.
"A man of little significance"
I don't think it's a coincidence, that when Eddie started offering sub 40mm pieces his business skyrocketed.
I don't think that there's going to be a general 'trend' anymore.
As society and societal norms become increasingly homogenised there's a place for everything.
The smallest watch in my collection is 35mm and the largest is 46mm.
I'm 5'11" but relatively chunky and my wrists are nearly 8" and I wear them all and feel disinclined to let someone else tell me what I should be wearing.
And has already been identified several times, it really depends on the watch.
A Max Bill looks pretty big at 38mm in fact, faces down my Planet Ocean at 43.5mm.
Wear what you like, it's all good.
Last edited by Paul J; 12th July 2023 at 14:33.
Really depends on the design of the watch and not just spec sheet. Panerais look strange at less than 44mm to my eyes, even though a 40mm Panerai is the "right" fit for my wrist, Ill go with the 44mm all day. Same with certain other watches. You have to try them out.
People with small wrists prefer smaller watches, I wouldn't entertain anything under 40mm, looks too small on me. Then again, I don't have a 6-7" wrist, I have a 8.5" wrist and on that basis I prefer 44mm + and can get away with it.
I keep seeing reviews of watches and thinking, ooh yes, this looks great and then the reviewer shows a wrist shot and it transpires their wrist is the same size as a twiglet and the watch being reviewed wears big for 39mm. No it doesn't, you e got pipe cleaners / twiglets for wrists, that's why it looks big.
I tried one of the 39mm ltd edition Longines hydro conquest - common wealth games versions. I loved the design and bezel but it needed to be 43-44mm for me to even consider it.
I'm sure that there'll be numerous cycles, as already mentioned, whereby the size of watches will decrease and increase. Just don't worry about it, woman in work wears a 39mm Tudor and it works. Another wears a steinhart, also 39mm and that works. Just wear what you enjoy, whether you've got arms like a gorilla or those of a stick insect, it's your choice what you wear.
Sent from my SM-S908B using Tapatalk
I think this.
We seem to have this discussion about watches moving down to smaller sizes every few Months for the last at least 10 years. I don't see it personally, more as Sinnlover suggested more options are being offered so cater for all wrist sizes which is always a good thing. Large watches are here to stay IMO, but variety of sizes is the future, I don't think there will be an in-trend watch size any more as there used to be, and I personally doubt we'll return to 36mm and below being the norm(too many people like to make a statement with their wristwear and those sizes are too discreet for that purpose) although those options will be there.
Crikey that's a fair old weight, even at 6'2.
I sold my panerai as I had stopped wearing it years ago , my latest purchase was a 36mm day date. The biggest watch in my collection is a 42mm Explorer 2. I much prefer 36-38mm watches .
Well Rolex seems to be making bigger watches while Tudor smaller. Go figure
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
im not too sure about the wider market, but I'm discovering the convenience of smaller watches again, that fit under your jumper sleeve, cuff, or similar!
Having bought a 45MM Panerai for my 40th, my recent 50th watch dropped to a 37MM Revival shadow so a definite size preference flip for me.
I have to say that during the June hot spell, a 36mm datejust on oyster was a blessed relief from wearing "big" watches.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote