I can no longer wear the 40mm Rolex Models...

[BLACKHORSE 6]

Originally Posted by Starbucksboss

I thought the reason for removing the rings was to be able to wear headphones over the cap?
Cheers...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's why Billy Mitchell and most aviators from the Army Air Corps serving in the Pacific and Europe removed the rings. For most of his career, MacArthur altered his uniform as he saw fit because he wanted to stand out among his peers and because it fit with his flamboyant, cocky personality and his vanity. George Patton did the same, for many if the same reasons. It became a tradition in the south Pacific theater to remove the rings from service caps, where many Army officers from all branches copied MacArthur's style. This wasn't the case in other theaters, except with aviators as previously mentioned.

I guess this thread is hitting on both of my hobbies; military history and watches.

I'll shut up now. Please resume the discussion on watch sizes.

[007Sub]

Originally Posted by 007bond

Agreed.

+2 cool username btw! ;)


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[zama]

It is all in one's head. I flew with a guy once who was a man mountain and could have worn a 60mm watch like most would wear a 36mm. I currently have my PP Aquanaut on and if honest think it looks to big on my 7.25in wrist. If you want your watch to stand out and be something substantial on your wrist (like a piece of furniture) then 44+ is the way to go (Unless you have an 8.5in+ wrist in which case it is right sized). I believe for 90% of the population a 40mm should more than suffice and I enjoy wearing my DJ and Piaget that are in the dress dimensions at 36mm.

Again if you love something big on your wrist then that is great, I don't see the big watch trend continuing but I don't see big watches going away either. Ladies are wearing 40mm watches casually but few do it as a going out watch.

Life is about choice. Enjoy whatever you want.

[FTE2014]

Originally Posted by tedscott3

Not even close. IMO very few people should be wearing anything over 42mm. I am really turned off by large watches on small-medium sized wrists. The size of the watch is only relevant in context to the person wearing it.

I feel pretty much the same. The watch sizes have been growing every year for the past 10-15 years. 40mm which was once considered a gigantic size just suitable for a "tool watch" is now the minimum size for most sports watches. Many high end brands even launched watches with 46 - 48mm sizes over the past few years or formal dress watches at 42mm or above.

Most major brands seem to using the size changes to create additional demand / differentiate their offering over the past few years. I think Rolex, Zenith and IWC are good examples. Given your wrist diameter is the natural cap for how large a watch can go and we seem to have already approached this limit with the sports watches, I would not be surprised if this trend for larger watches reverses at one point over the next 5 - 6 years.

For me 38 - 39 mm is the size limit for a formal watch and 40mm for a sports watch.
All the best,

[Fenster]

Originally Posted by elcompa

36mm-40mm is just right. 42mm and up begins to look silly to me.

What he said

[ttomczak]

I get what you mean, I have been with the Omega 42's and a UN 43mm... I just started wearing my 40mm sub again, and it looks small, but I'm sure I will get used to it...

[Passionata]

I can t wear anything over 40mm.

[locutus49]

Me either. The downside to having thin, aristocratic bone structure

Originally Posted by Passionata

I can t wear anything over 40mm.

[Fenster]

Originally Posted by locutus49

Me either. The downside to having thin, aristocratic bone structure

Congrates, this was your 1000th post ;)

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by Passionata

I can t wear anything over 40mm.

That is my ideal size range (give or take a mm) too.

[applebook]

Opposite problem here.

I no longer care for watches over 42mm. The 40mm Maxi case is virtually perfect for average sized wrists in the 6.75 to 7.5 range.

Unless you have 8 inch wrists, why would you think that 40mm is small?

It seems to me that many WIS who prefer large watches (44mm and over) have really small wrists. I mean smaller than average.

[macduffi]

Originally Posted by Urosfan

I was never a 40mm fan until the new subc came about

ditto!

[DVR]

Yep, same here, I keep going back to my Datejusts 36mm.
I have had 40mm Rolexes for a very long time but since I 'tasted' the 36mm around 2009 the '40mm and over' simply won't do anymore.
Mind you, I still wear them occasionally but some time later the desire for a perfect Datejust is too big to resist.

[locutus49]

There are a number of cultural aspects to big watches, IMO. First, Asian and other smaller boned citizens have taken a liking to large watches like Panerai's. Can't blame them, watch companies market to them heavily. But the watches don't fit the wrist in the traditionally accepted way.

Then there is, in the US and maybe UK, the gangsta rapper and wannabe's who wear huge watches as part of their kit. Street culture. And that sets the trend for middle American kids.

And then there are big guys with large wrists, who finally have watches big enough to look good on them.

Just some night time thoughts.

Originally Posted by applebook

Opposite problem here.

I no longer care for watches over 42mm. The 40mm Maxi case is virtually perfect for average sized wrists in the 6.75 to 7.5 range.

Unless you have 8 inch wrists, why would you think that 40mm is small?

It seems to me that many WIS who prefer large watches (44mm and over) have really small wrists. I mean smaller than average.

[Rolexpharm]

Lol don't worry they are still a good size and just as manly

[Jeffa32]

I have been in two minds about the 40mm sizing. Having just bought a 114060, I love the design but another 1 or 2mm would work for me. Again this is purely subjective. I am 6ft 2 and 220lbs so not a small guy. What I have found is the 40mm watches look great with a long sleeve shirt but with t-shirts or short sleeves, the 40mm look a bit small on me and the 44mm watches work better. Just depends on your wrist size (mine is 7.5 inches), wrist shape etc.

Do not also overlook the overall dimensions of the watch. Case width alone is misleading. The proportions of the watch are very important. For example, I think the DSSD is out of proportion with the thick case side and skinny bracelet, yet my PAM and Breitiing which are comparable just work for me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!!!!!

[bighaole]

I think 40mm, particularly the Rolex sport watches, do a great job of bridging the gap between casual and dressy. You can wear most 40mm sport rolexes just as easily with jeans as you can with a suit (and I know, there was a LONG forum discussion on wearing a sub with a suit). That's one of the things that lead me to my first Rolex, the 40mm ExpII white. It went with everything.

Above 40mm, you start to enter sport/casual range and the translation to a suit is not as easy. I recently picked up a Tudor Black Bay (41mm), but it's also noticeably taller than my ExpII or Daytona. While it's great for casual settings and would even work in business casual, I would not choose to wear it with a suit. And I'm 6'6" and have an 8" wrist, so it's not a proportional thing. I just don't think it has the professional look that I would want, with a suit. My Daytona and ExpII can both slip under a suit sleeve with no problem. I also have a 44mm Boschett Cave Dweller dive watch, which is fun to wear in very casual settings, but at 16.5mm tall, it looks very out-of-place anywhere else.

[boogiebot]

Not at all for me. In fact I started with much bigger watches. In the past I have had a breitling Bentley motors t speed and a super avenger. I actually worked my way down to a 40 mm subc. To me and for my wrist size it's the perfect fit. Unless your wrist size is 9 inches flat I can't see a 40 mm watch being small.

[Passionata]

Originally Posted by applebook

Opposite problem here.



I no longer care for watches over 42mm. The 40mm Maxi case is virtually perfect for average sized wrists in the 6.75 to 7.5 range.



Unless you have 8 inch wrists, why would you think that 40mm is small?



It seems to me that many WIS who prefer large watches (44mm and over) have really small wrists. I mean smaller than average.

Looking great on his wrist he may can go with a size up!:-)

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Jeffa32

Do not also overlook the overall dimensions of the watch. Case width alone is misleading. The proportions of the watch are very important. For example, I think the DSSD is out of proportion with the thick case side and skinny bracelet, yet my PAM and Breitiing which are comparable just work for me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!!!!!

With you on that Jeff, my Steelfish is at 44mm but with its small dial wears pretty similar to my subc only its thicker. Whereas the DSSD was too top heavy and not for me.

The Nautilus is another at 40mm but with its square shape and wide lugs wears like a 42mm and my subc.

[Johny]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

got a wrist-shot?

this.

[Castor]

I have the 42mm Polar Explorer. It is a large watch but it is sooo easy to read & that's why I bought it over the Explorer II (3-6-9). When trying on watches the Explorer II was easily the most comfortable watch I ever wore, but the hands were too small & I couldn't read it easily: so I opted for the Polar. I wish the Explorer II had the Polar's hands...

I don't think that the trend toward bigger watches (especially high-end watches) was driven so much by fashion as by practicality. Often those who can afford high-end watches are a little older & the close-in vision is beginning to fail (need reading glasses) & so easily reading a watch becomes more of an issue in your late 40's & early 50's: so a larger watch is simply easier to read. I prefer the look of a smaller watch on my wrist, but there's no point in spending so much money on a watch that you can't use because you can't see it! That's the way it was with me anyway.

I've always wondered how older ladies, with traditional tiny ladies watches, functioned with them. When I was younger I sometimes wondered why they asked me for the time when they clearly had a watch on their wrists? Now I know.

[Castor]

I have the 42mm Polar Explorer. It is a large watch but it is sooo easy to read & that's why I bought it over the Explorer II (3-6-9). When trying on watches the Explorer II was easily the most comfortable watch I ever wore, but the hands were too small & I couldn't read it easily: so I opted for the Polar. I wish the Explorer II had the Polar's hands...

I don't think that the trend toward bigger watches (especially high-end watches) was driven so much by fashion as by practicality. Often those who can afford high-end watches are a little older & the close-in vision is beginning to fail (need reading glasses) & so easily reading a watch becomes more of an issue in your late 40's & early 50's: so a larger watch is simply easier to read. I prefer the look of a smaller watch on my wrist, but there's no point in spending so much money on a watch that you can't use because you can't see it! That's the way it was with me anyway.

I've always wondered how older ladies, with traditional tiny ladies watches, functioned with them. When I was younger I sometimes wondered why they asked me for the time when they clearly had a watch on their wrists? Now I know.

[Castor]

Why did my post get duplicated?

[Progman2000]

It always amazes me how fired up the "smaller size" guys get over this topic, never quite got it - wear what you like.

I wore a Ball Engineer Hydrocarbon Chrono for years - that thing was @41mm and I always thought it was too small (probably because it was disproportionate with it's 18mm height). Now I wear a Planet Ocean (45.5) and Tudor Heritage Chrono (42) and am getting ready to pull the trigger on a Explorer II (42). I am 6'2" and have 7.25 wrists, so I am not an ape, but always just prefer the slightly larger size.

I think it's just a tool/sport watch thing. If I had to wear a suit all day I would probably snag myself something smaller (probably a Reverso). However my job is ultra casual so it is all tool watches for me - that simply means a larger watch and I'm fine with that :)

[DVR]

Originally Posted by Johny

this.

If you want a wrist shot see here : http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=204178

The OP seems to have a real desire to say the 40mm is too small for him. Even in 2011 he was on about it. Would have thought he would have been over it by now.

And looking at the wrist shots I think his mind is playing tricks on him.
That wrist would look good with 36mm as well. Let alone a 40mm sub.

But as always , we are all different and if that is what he needs than why not.
Just do not understand the need to tell the world again and again.

Originally Posted by Castor

(need reading glasses) & so easily reading a watch becomes more of an issue in your late 40's & early 50's: so a larger watch is simply easier to read. I prefer the look of a smaller watch on my wrist, but there's no point in spending so much money on a watch that you can't use because you can't see it! That's the way it was with me anyway.

Aa 36mm DJ and a 40mm Sub have the same dial size and hands. Don't think the bigger case will improve reading the dial

[gaopa]

Count me in as one who likes a 40mm case. I do fine with up to 43mm, but after that the case is simply too big for my 7.5" wrist. Cheers, Bill P.

[RICHARD_LEWIS]

I think 40 mm is pretty much perfect with respect to sizing. I love my Sub-C and would consider a DJ II as a second purchase down the line as it's a very similar size and has great wrist presence. I've yet to be sold on the idea of a watch bigger than 45 mm. All comes down to personal taste!

[Nidal]

Originally Posted by elcompa

36mm-40mm is just right. 42mm and up begins to look silly to me.

Agree


Nidal

[scranger]

Well, there's always Invicta....