ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
19 May 2016, 06:20 AM | #91 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Real Name: Mike
Location: 35000ft
Posts: 3,771
|
I've found that case diameter sizes mean less to me than lug to lug measurements and case curvature.
|
19 May 2016, 06:30 AM | #92 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Williamsville, NY
Posts: 42
|
40 is my limit, and i like that size.
i also consider the thickness of the case My Sub C / no date, is my thickest watch, but not my only 40mm watch |
19 May 2016, 06:32 AM | #93 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,759
|
Every time I put on my Dj, it feels like I put on my wife's watch accidentally.
40-44 seems to be the right size for me. |
19 May 2016, 06:32 AM | #94 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,231
|
It wasn't actually. From the 30's to the 60's when Hamilton's were 22mm wide and Omegas were 33mm wide, Rolexes were considered large, 36mm positively enormous. By the 60's the 36mm settled in as the defacto men's size, I'm guessing because no one thought anyone would want anything bigger. |
19 May 2016, 08:10 AM | #95 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SNA
Posts: 3,637
|
Quote:
I wonder if in the '60's, those 36mm Rolexes were thought to be almost inappropriately large, as are 50mm+ watches today. Of note, Panerai I believe was making 47mm watches in the '30's, with functionality/legibility as a significant design factor, and there have been similarly large pilot watches. Panerai's used for diving were worn over dive suits and I believe pilot watches were worn over flight jackets, so larger sizes were not a problem. The 36mm and smaller watches do not appear to have been designed according to what would be appropriate anatomically or functionally (legibility). I think it's hard to say what the "right" size for a watch should be. Great that we have so many options now, and can choose what suits us all best. |
|
19 May 2016, 08:32 AM | #96 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers
Posts: 7,973
|
Quote:
__________________
Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY |
|
19 May 2016, 08:34 AM | #97 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers
Posts: 7,973
|
Part of this decision was to move some things that I wasn't wearing to be able to purchase a watch or two that I WILL wear.
__________________
Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY |
19 May 2016, 08:45 AM | #98 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Watch: Root Beer
Posts: 734
|
Meh... The only reason I own a Rolex is because the Explorer II 42mm looked right and felt right on my wrist. For me (please don't forget this - my opinion only) the Sub, GMT and especially the Daytona were all too small. I have kind of turned away from considering future Rolex watches because it appears they concentrate on the 40mm and under segment. I am finding a lot to like in the Omega lineup where they seem to find their sweet spot at 42mm. I know it is only 2mm but it makes a difference for me. I just purchased a non-moon Speedmaster and am looking at either a Planet Ocean 42mm or a Speedmaster Mark II for my next watch. Different strokes for different folks.
I love this watch. (crappy iPhone photo, makes the watch look flat) For me, it's everything I wish the new Daytona was - 42mm, true Panda dial, modern update to the Daytona 6241, date complication, auto, BROAD ARROW hands!, etc. I can't take it off. My poor Polar E2 is sitting at home. Compared to this... http://lesartisansdegeneve.com/en/25...o-daytona-6241 I think it's pretty close to perfect. |
19 May 2016, 09:06 AM | #99 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Real Name: Fred
Location: NYC/NJ Metro Area
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 8,512
|
|
19 May 2016, 09:22 AM | #100 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: key west
Watch: 16610
Posts: 811
|
No More Watches > 40mm For Me.......
My favorite is 40 and below. Like many have said though, it also depends on how the watch wears. I have a 44mm Breitling Colt that is pretty thin in comparison to others. It's very comfortable. Although I do notice it in the mirror as a slightly larger watch, it doesn't feel flashy.
When the funds are available, I will be trading the watch (plus cash) for either an exp II polar, either 36 or 39 mm explorer, or a yaghtmaster blue or gray. (I have a long wish list.) |
19 May 2016, 09:23 AM | #101 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Real Name: Mitch
Location: CONUS
Watch: DSSD and others
Posts: 1,186
|
Lol...To each his own.
__________________
Sua Sponte! |
19 May 2016, 11:35 PM | #102 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 141
|
I guess I will give up on the Skydweller. It just feels and looks too big on my wrist.
|
20 May 2016, 01:10 AM | #103 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Real Name: Arnold
Location: New York
Watch: SD4K+BLNR
Posts: 849
|
Funny I have the same thoughs about selling all the >40mm watches.
|
20 May 2016, 01:45 AM | #104 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2
|
sobering moments aye? I also went through that and sold my Pam 372 and dssd, now keeping to 40mm and below, I got no regrets.
|
20 May 2016, 01:46 AM | #105 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cave
Watch: Sundial
Posts: 33,940
|
My range is 36 to 47
|
20 May 2016, 03:33 AM | #106 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers
Posts: 7,973
|
I feel the same way.......and it is unfortunate because I have REALLY warmed to the aesthetics of the Skydweller model.
__________________
Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY |
20 May 2016, 04:13 AM | #107 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,231
|
|
20 May 2016, 05:37 AM | #108 |
TechXpert
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,639
|
I own watches larger than 40mm, but I prefer 34-38mm sizes in terms of both looks and comfort.
|
20 May 2016, 05:52 AM | #109 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Real Name: Bill
Location: NJ
Watch: Always changing
Posts: 4,172
|
|
20 May 2016, 05:52 AM | #110 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Watch: of course
Posts: 8,429
|
40mm is an easy choice ( except for the super cases) in Rolex. Other brands I prefer to evaluate on an individual basis.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
20 May 2016, 07:52 AM | #111 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Seattle
Watch: 14060M 116610LV
Posts: 268
|
You know, I've been noticing that the giant watch look is really goofy. The pendulum will swing the other direction soon enough and tiny watches will be in
|
20 May 2016, 10:11 AM | #112 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: Rick
Location: LSU
Watch: Constantly changes
Posts: 3,815
|
No chance here! A regular DJ looks like a girls watch on me. I'm 6'0 230 lbs and 40 is the smallest I'll do. 42 is ideal
|
20 May 2016, 10:50 AM | #113 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Florida State!
Watch: It's just a watch.
Posts: 1,463
|
Both of mine are 40mm. I want something larger and will get it at some point.
|
20 May 2016, 01:29 PM | #114 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: N. California
Watch: Love them all
Posts: 156
|
Congratulations!
It looks like you're making your way towards wisdom.
__________________
Submariner, Datejust, Aqua Terra, Speedmaster, Chronomat, Pathfinder, Nettuno, vintage Girard Perregaud, vintage Rogers, vintage Election, etc... |
20 May 2016, 01:35 PM | #115 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Vain
Posts: 6,025
|
nope.
|
20 May 2016, 01:58 PM | #116 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Somewhere in PA
Watch: All of them...
Posts: 10,355
|
I can not wear anything under 38mm. I am comfortable all the way to 45mm. One size is definitely not for all!
|
20 May 2016, 02:07 PM | #117 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2016
Location: California
Watch: all them watches
Posts: 32
|
I used to think that way but now I like larger diameters
|
20 May 2016, 02:31 PM | #118 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Watch: ing the detectives
Posts: 3,745
|
|
20 May 2016, 03:00 PM | #119 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Real Name: Mike
Location: 35000ft
Posts: 3,771
|
Quote:
Hey I tried on the SM300 and thought the exact same thing about the U1 fully-Tegimented that I used to own. The saleswoman at the Omega boutique kept trying to convince me that it was a better watch than the no-Date Submariner that I was wearing, too. Rather off-putting. |
|
20 May 2016, 03:02 PM | #120 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Watch: ing the detectives
Posts: 3,745
|
Quote:
So, more important than pure case diameter, I think, are things like lug size, shape and perhaps weight and thickness. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.