It's not about millimeters folks!

[Master Mariner]

Hello people! Please let me once more dig out a subject already exhausted..

There's one thing that has been bothering me for a long time. I just have been unable to put my finger on it.

I know A LOT has been debated here on TRF about case sizes. Whether 40 mm is too small and 42 too big etc, but bear with me.

Here's the thing: It really does not matter that much, what the actual millimeters are. It is the appearance that makes the difference. There's an excellent photo illustrating my point on our neighbouring Forum, the Watchuseek.com that I happened to stumble upon. Here is the link, check it out my friends:

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f23/i-w...-c-521814.html

What do you think? We all know the Speedy pro is 42mm and the Sub c 40mm.

I think this is exactly the reason why some are deterred from the new maxi case phenomena and others love it. I also believe the new Explorer II will not have wrist a presence bigger, than let's say the Sub c.

I confess that I love the new maxi case design, so much so that it was the deal maker, if you will, for me to seriously go for the GMT II c in the first place.

[WyoWatch]

That is very true. My 42mm Planet Ocean wore smaller than my Sub C at 40mm. I have a 44mm Ball Diver that wears like a typical 42mm watch. It's definitely about how it "fits" and looks on your wrist. I also find that width is less important than the lug to lug height. Most watches will look too big if the lugs extend over your wrist.

[Alcan]

The big and small of it all.....

Tudor @ 28mm, Sub @ 40mm, and mid 60's Russian diver @ 58mm.

I don't wear the diver often.

[Fiery]

I've recently had a chance to try on a 41mm Hublot Big Bang Early Grey. It looked and felt actually smaller than my Sub-C. I was so surprised by that, that I had to put both watches on my wrist, and ask the sales lady to confirm the Hublot is really 41mm. Even when the watches were right next to each other, I could swear the Sub-C was at least 2mm bigger than the Hublot. Quite a neat trick by Rolex, thanks to the supercase!

[horseco]

case thickness as well as lug width make a huge difference also...

[dddrees]

It's the whole package. I think the diameter, case width, case thickness, lug width, and bracelet all make a difference.

[horseco]

Originally Posted by dddrees

It's the whole package. I think the diameter, case width, case thickness, lug width, and bracelet all make a difference.

totally... I agree 100%

[Dr. Robert]

I have a small wrist, but it's flat not tubular, maaaan.
It's the case length, measured lug to lug.....I have 42mm diameter watches w/ 46/47mm
case length & they sit well, none of the "dreaded watch lug overhang"
Rolex subs, gmts, ex2s are 48mm case length, which is the max for me......I've had 49-52mm case length.....way too long, uncomfortable.

[Danand]

Plus for the subc and gmt11c the size and shape of the crown guards make a huge difference, ESP when comparing to most omegas of 42 mm.
(I think that is why so many on this forum have commented that the 40 mm size is just right)

[Danand]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

I have a small wrist, but it's flat not tubular, maaaan.
It's the case length, measured lug to lug.....I have 42mm diameter watches w/ 46/47mm
case length & they sit well, none of the "dreaded watch lug overhang"
Rolex subs, gmts, ex2s are 48mm case length, which is the max for me......I've had 49-52mm case length.....way too long, uncomfortable.

I also have a small wrist, but it is somewhat flat, allowing me to comfortably wear the super case. Anything bigger though just wouldn't work.

[paddy_crow]

Like it or not, millimeters do add up. So do grams.