5919 too small?

[msg315]

question: is the 5919 at 36mm too small for a 7.25" wrist? i get dress watches arguably can and should run a bit smaller but i can't help but think 37mm or even 38mm would be better. probably over thinking as usual but wanted to float out for some perspective. (the new 6119 although larger does not compare aesthetically in my opinion so is not an option).

[Robine]

If we say "yes", what are you going to do?

[msg315]

Originally Posted by Robine

If we say "yes", what are you going to do?

just interested in opinions. if you don't have one, dont bother.

[Robine]

My opinion: the size is fine. But the Roman numbers are too big. 3919 did this much better.

[ts3]

I am with you that 5119 is a lot prettier than 6119. If traditional you have to go all the way. Also prefer the larger Roman numerals on 5119 over 3919. For me a 36mm dress watch would work if I had 7.25 inch wrists but then again I am happy with a 34mm 3998P on 6.6 inch wrists.

[msg315]

Originally Posted by ts3

I am with you that 5119 is a lot prettier than 6119. If traditional you have to go all the way. Also prefer the larger Roman numerals on 5119 over 3919. For me a 36mm dress watch would work if I had 7.25 inch wrists but then again I am happy with a 34mm 3998P on 6.6 inch wrists.

agreed re larger romans on the 5119 vs. the 3919. 3998P

[azizu]

I had the 3919J which is even smaller than the 5119 and it looked beautiful and classy
I wish it was still in my collection




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MadSpaniard]

I don't think it's too small, but almost, certainly wouldn't go any smaller. Definitely a classic look, although perhaps a bit dated. Have you considered the 5196, which is a little larger at 37mm (and wears notably larger than its size indicates)? Also a classic look, but perhaps less dated and more timeless.

[msg315]

Originally Posted by MadSpaniard

I don't think it's too small, but almost, certainly wouldn't go any smaller. Definitely a classic look, although perhaps a bit dated. Have you considered the 5196, which is a little larger at 37mm (and wears notably larger than its size indicates)? Also a classic look, but perhaps less dated and more timeless.

agree it is "almost" too small. good way to put it. i had a 3919 but it was way too small. for me, the 5196 hour markers don't resonate with me. the only current calatrava that i like is the 5227. would prefer it without a date box but it is a beauty and a nice size at 39mm

[msg315]

Originally Posted by azizu

I had the 3919J which is even smaller than the 5119 and it looked beautiful and classy
I wish it was still in my collection




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mrngrz46]

Originally Posted by msg315

question: is the 5919 at 36mm too small for a 7.25" wrist? i get dress watches arguably can and should run a bit smaller but i can't help but think 37mm or even 38mm would be better. probably over thinking as usual but wanted to float out for some perspective. (the new 6119 although larger does not compare aesthetically in my opinion so is not an option).

Is a matter of taste.

In the 2WW there were many soldier with your wrist wearing 36 mm watch today super rare...

If me then I would skip and I have 18.5cm wrist.

[Robine]

Great watch, great shot!

[leisen]

Originally Posted by msg315

question: is the 5919 at 36mm too small for a 7.25" wrist? i get dress watches arguably can and should run a bit smaller but i can't help but think 37mm or even 38mm would be better. probably over thinking as usual but wanted to float out for some perspective. (the new 6119 although larger does not compare aesthetically in my opinion so is not an option).

Even though the watch is only 36mm it does not look small since it has a very narrow bezel and a very large dial. Classic and elegant watch. I you like it, do not hesitate to grab it.

[msg315]

Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk