My theory on Big(er) watches...

[Annan]

I'm always impressed at how such a small measure as a mm or two can make such a difference. My first Rolex was a 34 mm Date. I only bought it because I didn't know there was a difference in size from the Datejust (36mm). When I finally figured that out (I'm a slow learner) I always noted how small my Date seemed in comparison to the DJ and coudn't wait for the day to get one. When that happened, my 36mm DJ looked huge to me and I swore I could not go larger. I'm 5'10'', 165 lbs with 7.25" wrists. Then.....I added a 40mm EXP and now my DJ looks small!! The EXP covers the top of my wrist and to me seems the perfect size. Haven't tried on anything bigger but seriously doubt I could pull it off. In summary, like all things, IMO it comes down to personal preference and what you think looks good on you. Trends do indeed come and go and your preferences do change for a multitude of reasons.

[TheVTCGuy]

With everyone giving their Height and Weight, thought I'd throw mine in. I am 6'2" tall and 220 pounds (solid muscle). Oh, BTW, I also model as a spare career and have appeared on the cover of GQ magazine several times. And I-... Oh... oh wait.... all that stuff.... that's only in my dreams, I keep getting this whole Fantasy versus reality thing mixed up....

Sigh....


All good points guys, and one thing that has been brought up is visibility. As a generation, we are all getting older and our eyes are getting weaker. Yes... yes I have to wear reading glasses now and the 40 MM was just a bit hard to read without them; (especially my Daytona which has a particularly complicated dial). The extra 2 MM of the Explorer (along with the simpler layout) really made a difference; much easier to see.

[JohnnyHathoway]

Originally Posted by Kingair

That's for women . . . .

Just kiddin'

HAGOne

Then my wife pulled one sick joke!

[VICI]

Visibility isn't the reason watches are bigger.

Eyesight didn't get worse over the decades, the demand grew for large watches because people like it.

Both from fashion trend to proportion.

Simple.

[sierra11b]

Originally Posted by Toplaw

Visibility isn't the reason watches are bigger.

Eyesight didn't get worse over the decades, the demand grew for large watches because people like it.

I thought the same thing. If anything, vision has gotten better over the years because of medical advances, right?

But I thought there's more to your reasoning... I do agree that the demand grew because people like larger watches but would like to see some evidence that older watches were purchased with visibility in mind. I imagine watches in the 34-39mm were the top sellers because they were the biggest you can find for legibility sake (with the exception of vintage issued fliegers). I imagine that watches of 42mm may have sold relatively well during the old days with this assumption? I could be wrong.... BUT assuming this were the case, and considering the contributing factor that fashion trends played some role in today's sizes, I wonder if 42mm would be considered small these days?

[mvmbles]

My wrists are 7.3-7.5 and 42mm is the absolute largest I will ever wear. Even some 42's are pushing it for my tastes. 6'2" 190+/- here.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I'm not very big and have a small 6.5" wrist. I'm starting to feel marginalized every time new models come out. It's getting harder to find reasonably sized sports watches.

So true. I'm fairly average sized with a slim build and 6.25"-6.5" wrists. There are now more new watches that I can't wear, than I can. Rolex is one of the very very few companies that haven't gone crazy with the sizes... yet. There has never been a time that I couldn't wear every single Rolex watch until now. The new EXP2 is too large, as is the DSSD. Who knows the next model that Rolex will "improve" out of my size range.

[handsfull]

Funny....even when I first started my watch craze (1983?/pop swatch), I thought watches in general were all too small. I think 40/41mm is darn near perfect.

[Rock]

People are getting bigger generation by generation, but I don't think that is the rationale for bigger watches.
I wonder if it is a fashion trend started by the increasing popularity of 'sports watches' like the much imitated Submariner.
Also, watches are more than ever a 'fashion statement' rather than just a utilitarian item. Fashion statements demand to be noticed.
If you can't read a 36mm watch a visit to the Optometrist may be indicated.
I am always amused that some people identify things as "girls cars" or "girls watches". Perhaps they have some issues with self-image.

[MilgaussMan1]

saw a bigger guy w. an airking, it didnt look right to me, but it works for him.

bigger is easier to see for the visually challenged. i think 42mm is a good size!

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by shafran

I actually think much of it is what we are told I rarely see a large watch on someone that looks like it fits. Most often it looks to large on someone. I still think that 38-42 is the perfect range for most people.

I agree with you. There is some small portion of people who genuinely require a watch in the 34-36 range due to their size. They are, however, at the extreme end of the distribution. Same thing with people who need a watch in the 44-46 range.

Clearly if you have an 8.5 inch wrist, a 40mm watch is going to be small. However, what percentage of people actually have wrists that large, and why are most new watches sized for them? My ankle isn't even that large!

[Htab]

Originally Posted by h999r

I have to agree with you on this one, because 42mm yes definitely looks better on my wrist compare to 34mm, thats the reason.

[shafran]

PS I just flipped my panerai 45mm radiomir. My wife thought it looked good on me, but I felt it looked to big.
My remaining three watches are a 16528 Daytona a Lange 1 and a Breguet 3700. All 40mm or less.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by shafran

PS I just flipped my panerai 45mm radiomir. My wife thought it looked good on me, but I felt it looked to big.
My remaining three watches are a 16528 Daytona a Lange 1 and a Breguet 3700. All 40mm or less.

Besides the fact that "too big" is basically person opinion, I think it's safe to say that if the lugs overhang your wrist it's too big. Besides that, for me at least, it comes down to a question of garishness and ostentation. It would be mortifying to be "big watch guy" around the office.

[JJL]

Originally Posted by drchuck72

I'm 5'10". I used to be around 220lbs. Currently 175. I always thought I was a big guy but I only have 6.5" wrists. Now that I have lost the weight, I realize, I am actually a pretty small framed person and I was just fat.

Anyways, I started off wearing 38mm TAGs. When I got my first Rolex (a 40mm Sub), it seemed big. Then I got my Breitling. Now I have a 44mm Panerai and a 42mm ROO. Fortuanately, my wrists are fairly flat so I can get a way with the larger watches (although not in the traditional sense).

Yes, people are getting bigger (in each direction). A lot of it has to do with the relative abundance of food (over abundance in some cases) as well as the manner in which we have tampered with the food (hormones, antibiotics and genetic manipulation). I agree, the size of watches had to increase to remain proportional to our physical stature. I don't see this as a bad thing. It just is what it is.

DrC

I find it very interesting that you found out your frame wasn't as big as you thought it was, as I've observed that with most people that have lost a lot of weight.

My question to you is, how much did this effect your wrist size? You are 6.5 now (which is what I am) but what was it when you were your heaviest, do you remember?

[submariner66]

Originally Posted by JohnnyHathoway

I think it's to counteract the latest trend in men's trousers. These skinny jeans are killing me!

Me too!! Can't stand this either. Smaller guys are ruling the men's fashion now.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by submariner66

Me too!! Can't stand this either. Smaller guys are ruling the men's fashion now.

If by "smaller" you mean 6'2 with a 32 inch waist, then I agree.

[gofore59]

Your points are valid, but it is important to note that small watches became fashionable because companies were showing off their technology. Smaller and precise were examples of innovation and in the age of records things like "thinnest automatic" helped companies brand themselves and showed off their skill.

Look at cell phones today. Without question they could be smaller with technology and at one point they needed to be for portability (white briefcase phones from the 80s people). Now there is a trend towards almost tablet size phones which look silly if you ask me. There is certainly a range of sizes that work well with some going too far in either direction. APPLE - the ROLEX of phones if you will - makes their phones a certain size because they have the right usability.

Back to watches...

Larger watches are definitely a trend, but they also are larger because proportionately we are larger. However, the major difference between watches today and in the past is their function which is to accessorize. Unless you are the only person on this board without a cell phone you already have the most precise timekeeping instument in your pocket at all times. A +- 1 second a day Rolex is no match for your iphone. Date, chronograph, calendar, moonphase, etc. are all childs play these days.

We wear watches becuse they compliment our look. I personally feel that 36mm only works on thinner wrists and women these days. Anything gigantic looks odd on anyone. 38-42mm will always look good on most anyone and proportionate regardless of trends...

[c.rod]

i like big watches because they fit me. im 6'3" 230lb. proportionally they are far better than a 40mm