Smallest wrist for 42mm EXP II

[Tseg]

Maybe there is right and wrong, maybe not, but certainly there can be group think based on our observations of the modern 42mm EXP II on others' wrists.

This survey may help inform the unknowing and those new to watches where to begin and what others think (understanding all watch owners rarely care what others think based on everyone's posts).

[Oyster99]

I'd say 6,5 but its all relative and what you like...

[Old Expat Beast]

I voted 7 because it looked and felt just about ok on me and I'm 7.25.

[WWC]

I'd say 7 as well. I've got a 6.75 and I think the explorer 2 looks really big on my wrists.

To me the Daytona is perfect while the ceramic sub is borderline for me

[Star Ferry]

As much as it shames me to say it, the lugs of the Explorer II protruded over the edges of my dainty 6.5" wrist. Even the salesman trying to sell me the watch admitted it was too big.

[Paul_81]

Just under 6.5 and it doesn't bother me. I like it up against my hand so don't know if that makes difference..... it's my rolex I'll wear it if I want

[JLM3]

6.5

[sportsmaven20]

I voted 7.5" because I had one and flipped it because, on my 7" wrist, it looked like the watch was wearing me.

[tomcorkery]

Originally Posted by Paul_81

Just under 6.5 and it doesn't bother me. I like it up against my hand so don't know if that makes difference..... it's my rolex I'll wear it if I want

Think it looks perfect

[nathaniel]

7. The lugs are too long for anything smaller.

[Ravager135]

I'm a 7.5. I think the watch looks perfect on me from a size standpoint. My 40mm watches also look good but they have the maxi case and the Explorer II has more tapered lugs so the difference isn't a whole lot noticeable. My 44mm Luminor Marina wears just a tad too big. I'm alright with that because that's the intended look with Panerai. I think I've found that 40-44mm is the right range for me.

[AS1]

I voted 7, although with wrist size I think it does depend on build, overall style etc.

For me with a 6.5 inch wrist, 42mm pieces just don't look good. I think 7 is the beginning of the sweet spot for 42mm. And even better at 7.5+.

[Paul_81]

Originally Posted by tomcorkery

Think it looks perfect

Thanks I like it too lol

[eltonbalch]

I think anything under 6.75" is probably pushing it but I also think wrist shape comes into play. My wrist is 7" but is a wide oval and flat on the top so the lugs don't look like they hang over the edge. There are perspective issues as well. If you look at your watch in a mirror, you will have a better idea of how it looks to others. Looking at a watch on your wrist when it is only a foot or two away may make it seem larger. Put the watch on and try the mirror test.

[KeithP]

Its entirely dependent on shape of the wrist. If it's flat, it fits a small wrist just fine. Beyond that, its personal preference.

Mine are flat 6.75, and this is my grail. I've tried it on many times, and love the visibility and how low and flat it sits on the wrist. It's a brilliant size for what it is- a watch designed for ruggedness and visibility in harsh environs. I don't think the size was a "fad-ish" choice on ROLEX's part at all. It's a brilliant, well thought out piece, size and all.

[Wingman244]

I am at 7.6 inch wrist and I almost think that is not big enough. Ask me this same question 3 months ago and I would have not agreed, then I saw a sweet little Omega Speedmaster Automatic Reduced at about 38mm case width. I thought it was a joke when I first put it on, but it grew on me to the point at which I do not look at the 38mm case as being too small, I acutally feel it fits better than my 42mm Polar E2. Now whenever I put on my 42mm Polar E2 I feel it may be just too big... I can't believe I am saying this but maybe 40mm is the best size - but please keep the maxi hands.

BTW, my boss is a 6'5" football player type build and probably has 8+ wrists and wears a 45mm Omega OP and it looks way too big on him.

Untitled by Kurt Klimisch, on Flickr

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by KeithP

Its entirely dependent on shape of the wrist. If it's flat, it fits a small wrist just fine. Beyond that, its personal preference.

Mine are flat 6.75, and this is my grail. I've tried it on many times, and love the visibility and how low and flat it sits on the wrist. It's a brilliant size for what it is- a watch designed for ruggedness and visibility in harsh environs. I don't think the size was a "fad-ish" choice in ROLEX's part at all. It's a brilliant, well thought out piece, size and all.

Yep, totally agree.

[BBQ BOY]

Originally Posted by Wingman244

I am at 7.6 inch wrist and I almost think that is not big enough. Ask me this same question 3 months ago and I would have not agreed, then I saw a sweet little Omega Speedmaster Automatic Reduced at about 38mm case width. I thought it was a joke when I first put it on, but it grew on me to the point at which I do not look at the 38mm case as being too small, I acutally feel it fits better than my 42mm Polar E2. Now whenever I put on my 42mm Polar E2 I feel it may be just too big... I can't believe I am saying this but maybe 40mm is the best size - but please keep the maxi hands.

BTW, my boss is a 6'5" football player type build and probably has 8+ wrists and wears a 45mm Omega OP and it looks way too big on him.

Untitled by Kurt Klimisch, on Flickr

I'm confused. First sentence you say it's not big enough, then you continue on saying that it's too big. Were you referring to your wrist not being big enough?