What's new

I Hate Big watches

I pretty well disdain the larger watches and I'm a fairly big ol' boy who could pull off wearing one. I'm happy with some of my vintage 32mm watches and about 38mm is as large as I'm interested in wearing. Big watches? I don't like 'em at all but I don' have to wear 'em. Others can wear 'em if they so choose.
 
I like watches up to 50 mm...I might even have one that is 52 mm, I cannot remember off the top of my head. I also like watches as small as 30 mm. It's all a matter of preference.

As far as finding smaller watches, there are plenty of brands that carry smaller watch faces, so I'm not particularly sure where you're having trouble finding them?
 

Space_Cadet

I don't have a funny description.
$Day Clock.jpg
 
Whenever I find one, on the net, I like it is way too big. living where I do the watch selection is limited to Walmart, so I have to look on the net.
 
For me, I tend to be in the 40-42mm range most often. I will say that some people can pull larger watches off well. Also, I feel it depends on how flashy the watch itself is. Some designs look terrible.
 
I am an old snot who likes em rather large 44. smaller watches just don't do it for me. I might have been born in the forties but I don't live there anymore.
 
Whenever I find one, on the net, I like it is way too big. living where I do the watch selection is limited to Walmart, so I have to look on the net.

http://www.worldofwatches.com/menswatches/index.asp?ndd=2&&obgOverrideParam=|||||||27||

Sizes under 38 mm.

I'll also add that it may seem like you are only finding bigger watches because you like the styling of bigger watches. They can fit a lot more into the face when it's bigger, especially at lower price points.
 
42 mm is about the largest I can wear without looking a bit clownish. If the watch is thin maybe 43 would be OK. It's a pity - there are some nice watches that I would probably buy if they were smaller (Cali dial Radiomir for example) but they are off limits.
 
My largest watch is 41mm and I like it, I wouldn't want to go any bigger. I'm sure in 10 years time my styles and tastes regarding watch size will have changed.
I look at some of the watches I wore 15 years ago and they seem so small.
 
I pretty much agree. Anything over 42mm is in pocket watch/wall clock territory.

Some of you will argue that a 40mm watch looks like a women's watch on your wrist. However, keep in mind that the following men's watches have been around for a long time before the current clown watch fad took hold:

Patek Calatrava (32mm)
Rolex Date (34mm)
Rolex Air King (35mm)
Rolex DateJust (36mm)
Rolex Explorer (36mm)
Rolex Daytona (39mm)
Rolex Submariner (40mm)
Omega Speedmaster Professional (42mm)

Further, some infantry (field) watches from WWII were as small as 28mm.

For me, 36mm (diameter) x 18mm (lug width) x 9mm (thickness) would be the perfect size for a metal band sport watch. Smaller (say 32mm and thinner) for a leather band dress watch.

</rant>

Thanks,
Mike
 
I have a Dakota 50 (50mm) that I bought on impulse a few months ago. It is done in the Submariner style, which I like, but I'm starting to view it as craigslist material. The case of the Orange Monster is about as big as I want to go.

The first time I was ever even aware of the big watch craze was 2005 in Iraq. Local vendors ("Haji Shops") sold a bunch of huge watches. I couldn't believe any man would be seen with such ridiculous, tacky things. I ended up buying a counterfeit blue Aquaracer. Haven't seen it in ages. Hoping it'll turn up.
 
40-42mm, with an occasional 44mm. I'm a big guy, so smaller watches look....small. I had a Vixa Legionnaire 46mm that I stupidly sold. It was big but it wore nicely. More than that though is just too big.
 
Sometimes I wonder how the big watch fashion trend happened. Was it:

  1. Bigger must be better. e.g. an indication of luxury or wealth. Like how bigger cars, houses, etc. are "better" than small.
  2. Bigger denotes more strength and masculinity, along with evolving social trends
  3. Bigger means it is not some cheap quartz watch.

My pet theory not based on much is that #3, the quartz watch revolution was a key step, making it easier to produce smaller and thinner watches. Since mechanical watches needed to be bigger to hold their movements, what started as a small size difference over time became exaggerated to help show others that the watch wearer has a "real" watch on their wrist. With the other factors helping once the trend started.

There is some minimal dial size needed for readability but in most other aspects the smaller the watch, the easier it is wear at all times. Maybe some manufacturer will develop a new small movement to show off their horological prowess and there will be a revival to smaller and lighter watches. But it may take a new generation of smart watches to make that happen.
 
Today I saw a 2009 photo of Oscar de la Renta, who died this week. He was wearing a classic modest-sized tank watch that looked just like mine. A big watch would look clownish on me.
 
I'm not a fan of the hockey puck sized watches myself, and I have wrists that could pull it off. I used to love my rectangle faced ultra slim late 80s Seiko, never knew it was there until you wanted to check the time. It never interfered with shirt cuffs or jacket sleeves either. I was bequeathed three Seikos from that era about two years ago, I had new batteries installed and enjoy wearing them all the time. They're smaller than the Fossil watches that my wife seems to be addicted to. My biggest watch is my Eco-Drive that I bought off of one of you gents a while back, I enjoy it, but I'm constantly aware of its presence.
 
With my wrists, 40mm is the prudent limit. 36-38mm is the preferred range, although I have one or two at 34mm.

I find the trend towards 42+ utterly baffling and frustrating since I can't wear some of the watches I would like to.
 
My watches range from a tiny 28mm vintage to a 40mm Canal St special. I don't see myself buying anything bigger than 40. Most of mine are in the mid-30's range.
 
Top Bottom