Why do I think 42 mm is too big?
Why do I think 42 mm is too big?
Author
Discussion

jpf

Original Poster:

1,340 posts

300 months

Monday 6th April
quotequote all
Being an average sized kind of guy, I find the 42mm too big and the 39mm a better fit. I'm not sure why there is such a push for bigger watches.

I know it's a matter of taste but 42mm seems too big.

Thoughts?

gregs656

12,144 posts

205 months

Monday 6th April
quotequote all
Personally I don’t think you can judge a watch by one measurement. I’d take a 42mm diameter with a short lug to lug over a 38mm with a long lug to lug for example.

My impression is that the Panerai hype is long behind us and watches are trending smaller not bigger.

dave123456

3,767 posts

171 months

Monday 6th April
quotequote all
Some people have smaller hands and wrists so it’s horses for courses.

Flying machine

1,252 posts

200 months

Monday 6th April
quotequote all
That was my view for a long time, but as greg says above, sometimes it's the lug-to-lug that makes the difference. For example, I have a Moser Endeavour perpetual and that is more or less 42mm, but it has short lugs and is beautifully profiled (caseback sapphire and lugs), and those features make it much more wearable than many 40mm dial with integrated bracelets, at least IMO. It probably comes down to the individual watch - were there any watches you were thinking of specifically?

Generally though, I agree - I have ALS and GS watches that are less than 40mm and they wear very nicely.

darreni

4,387 posts

294 months

Monday 6th April
quotequote all
Wear what’s comfortable for you. I wear a 44mm daily, but if I’m wearing a long sleeved shirt/ double cuff etc, I’ll wear my old seamaster which in think is a 40/41mm.

jpf

Original Poster:

1,340 posts

300 months

Monday 6th April
quotequote all
I was thinking about the Hodinkee Seafarer...

GravelBen

16,375 posts

254 months

Monday 6th April
quotequote all
As said there are more factors than just the face diameter to whether a watch looks/feels bigger or smaller, and different styles suit different looks.

There is also significant variation in wrist size so don't assume what suits you is the same for everyone else, my wrists are on the chunkier side and most watches below 40mm look a bit lost on me while 41-44mm is generally good.

Doofus

33,389 posts

197 months

Monday 6th April
quotequote all
I can't go lower than 39mm. I have ne or two of those, but they don't feel quite large enough.

42 is a sweet spot for me but, as above, case style and shape, and lug length and width play their parts.

fflump

3,127 posts

62 months

Tuesday 7th April
quotequote all
jpf said:
Being an average sized kind of guy, I find the 42mm too big and the 39mm a better fit. I'm not sure why there is such a push for bigger watches.

I know it's a matter of taste but 42mm seems too big.

Thoughts?
Quite the opposite. Over the last 10 years or so the fashion for large watches has declined significantly. As for size it really depends on the style of watch. For an average wrist a 42 is pretty good for a sports watch but smaller than that for something dressier. Many 42 sport watches have large bezels so need to be a decent size to house a reasonably sized dial. It’s all a matter of preference of course and if you like smaller watches they tend to be a little cheaper on the used market.

Ninjin

1,365 posts

99 months

Tuesday 7th April
quotequote all
jpf said:
Being an average sized kind of guy, I find the 42mm too big and the 39mm a better fit. I'm not sure why there is such a push for bigger watches.

I know it's a matter of taste but 42mm seems too big.

Thoughts?
The push and trend for bigger watches was at its peak between 2005-2015. It plateaud between 2015-2020 and since then the trend point has been around 40mm +/- 2mm. During the big watch trend it was 45mm+. I'm guilty myself of buying many 43mm+ during that period but luckily have off loaded most to just have one left, which I love and most hate. (see if you can work it out!)

For me as I've gotten older and closer to 60 than 50, I find thickness is my concern now, prefering watches under 11mm thick. I have 4 tudors which I barely wear now for this reason. I can and do wear watches above 11mm but the case sides must be round rather than slab sided (tudors and Rolex GMT) and the feel smaller for this reason (Rolex OP41, Daytona etc).

Lug length comes into play also and a 42mm from one manufacturer can wear totally different from another. Example would be the Omega SMP300, its 42mm but due to short lugs, wears more like 40/41.


-Cappo-

20,565 posts

227 months

Tuesday 7th April
quotequote all
As someone said above, the wearer’s physical size makes a significant difference to any discussion/comparison.

I bought a second Planet Ocean recently which was 42mm vs my existing 45mm, but returned it because it just looked too small to me. However, my wrists are 8 1/4”, so the larger watch doesn’t look out of place (IMO, and that’s all that matters!).

Harris_I

3,317 posts

283 months

Tuesday 7th April
quotequote all
Your own perception has a part to play. When I tried on a Pelagos 39 vs the full fat 42mm in the shop, the assistant told me the 39 was far more suited (6.5 inch wrist).

She was right of course, but the heart wants what the heart wants. I got the 42mm and it's a proper chunky watch. I don't care. I love it and I'm used to the size now. I know I would have regretted the 39 - the 42's vibe is more masculine and toolish, and that's what I was after.

For those with skinny wrists, it helps if they're flat so the lugs stay within the edge of the wrist surface. I can just about get away with the big Pelagos.

I own all sizes down to a 34mm vintage Omega. No need to feel constrained to one size all the time.

CrippsCorner

3,297 posts

205 months

Tuesday 7th April
quotequote all
39mm is my size too... I do have very skinny wrists! I wanted a Longines and tried on the Legend Diver & Spirit Zulu Time. Found the SZT to have a much bigger lug-to-lug and therefore didn't suit me nearly as much. Went with the LD and am well happy, perfect size for me. I would be tempted to try a 40mm though, as there's so many nice watches in this size.

Richard-390a0

3,311 posts

115 months

Tuesday 7th April
quotequote all
I love my 46mm Planet Ocean, it's easy to read for my old tired eyes, at some point I expect to go full Flavor Flav & wear a wall clock around my neck to be able to read it!

fflump

3,127 posts

62 months

Tuesday 7th April
quotequote all
Richard-390a0 said:
I love my 46mm Planet Ocean, it's easy to read for my old tired eyes, at some point I expect to go full Flavor Flav & wear a wall clock around my neck to be able to read it!
Always thought he should have the watch upside down like nurses do in order to actually read it!

Deep

2,517 posts

267 months

Tuesday 7th April
quotequote all
Richard-390a0 said:
I love my 46mm Planet Ocean, it's easy to read for my old tired eyes, at some point I expect to go full Flavor Flav & wear a wall clock around my neck to be able to read it!
Don't believe the hype.....

craigjm

20,674 posts

224 months

Tuesday 7th April
quotequote all
Richard-390a0 said:
I love my 46mm Planet Ocean, it's easy to read for my old tired eyes, at some point I expect to go full Flavor Flav & wear a wall clock around my neck to be able to read it!
hehe



snuffy

12,571 posts

308 months

Wednesday 8th April
quotequote all
I've got dinky hands and wrists in proportion and 42mm looks like a ladies watch to me. I've a Breitling Aerospace, which is 42 mm, and I never wear it because it looks so small.

The two I wear the most are a Bulova Precisionist (46mm) and a Citizen Promaster Navihawk (48mm). To me, neither of those look stupidity big.

craigjm

20,674 posts

224 months

Wednesday 8th April
quotequote all
I think this thread is useless without pics to drag up an old phrase. Take the post above about having dinky wrists and hands and then saying a 48mm looks best. In many minds that does not compute at all.

snuffy

12,571 posts

308 months

Wednesday 8th April
quotequote all