IMO 42mm Is The Ideal Rolex Size

[whattimeyougot]

Originally Posted by Seibei

If everyone had the same size and shaped wrist there would be an ideal sized of watch. They don't so there isn't.

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VegasPilot]

I have large wrists so even a 39mm watch looks too small. 44-45 is more appropriate so I agree. Guess I just have to buy a Sea Dweller instead of a Sub then. Ha!

[ap1]

Originally Posted by Rosex

My ideals are:

Monday to Thursday: 39mm
Friday: 42mm
Saturday & Sunday: 43mm
Holidays: 42, 43, 44mm
Formal: 36 to 42mm

Holidays could go 50

[ap1]

Originally Posted by superdog

Pretty much me too.

I like some variety. But if it were one watch, that would be the size.

Plus two

[Blansky]

Rolex needs to make the one size fits all, like this concept.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by marcellomatt5

Subjective tastes... This discussion never ends.

First response and essentially the best. Also the title of this thread is “IMO...”, that about sums it up.
For me, 40mm is perfection. If you want big watches there are plenty options, Panerai, IWC, Omega and even Blancpain to name a few.

A 42mm Submariner or Daytona while they might sell like anything Rolex makes, will be a complete atrocity to me. Plus Rolex has size options to chose from, in 42, 43 and 44mm sizes. Pick one and enjoy.

[zengineer]

As long as the concept that really big watches might be best suited to people with big wrists is too much of a puzzle for some to solve then this thread, probably the forum, possibly the human race and maybe even the entire universe...are doomed.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by mobster600

oh geez.....here comes the arguments....where is the door, im leaving LOL

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[afmars]

When I first became interested in the Explorer II I was convinced the 42mm was too big so I decided I wanted the 5 digit 40mm. Well I tried both on and to my surprise the 40mm didn’t do much for me but when I tried on the 42mm it was like I could hear angels singing! I went with the 42mm...

Moral of the story is buy the watch that feels right on your wrist and don’t sweat the number of millimeters or what anyone else’s opinion about it is.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by afmars

When I first became interested in the Explorer II I was convinced the 42mm was too big so I decided I wanted the 5 digit 40mm. Well I tried both on and to my surprise the 40mm didn’t do much for me but when I tried on the 42mm it was like I could hear angels singing! I went with the 42mm...



Moral of the story is buy the watch that feels right on your wrist and don’t sweat the number of millimeters or what anyone else’s opinion about it is.

I can see why... typically wrist shots at those distances are unflattering as the watch often appears disproportionately large. Despite this, the 16570 looks minute in comparison to the 216570 which looks much more proportionate and is probably even more so in reality

[padi56]

Originally Posted by bezler

It's so subjective. I have an 8" wrist, and I tried both the 40 and 42 Exp II at the same time - and the 40 won easily, no contest. To me, a 40 mm watch is a big watch - and this picture simply looks like pants in the era of bell bottoms - but at least not as comical as many of the pictures nowadays, which more resemble elephant pants. Again, just my perception.

We're either in the middle of the bell bottom and elephant watch fad, or the XXL sizes are the new normal. Nobody really knows.

Have to agree myself have 8 half inch wrist, yet I have no problem wearing some of my vintage watches only 30mm, and most all of my Rolex are 40mm which is a perfect size. Today the big watch thing is stereo typed by the net that bigger heavier is always better with many today thinking that a heavy watch is better than a lighter one.For some reason today many wear there watches below the wrist bone perhaps to state hay look at me I am wearing a Rolex.IMHO watches should be worn just above the wrist bone which will be fine for the many that wear large watches with smaller wrists.

[Rokoru]

Originally Posted by ftx i

the ideal rolex size for me is 40mm

+1

[zian]

Generally 42 is big, you need a big wrist to look fine, but some models like YM42 look smaller due black bezzel design

[Rokoru]

My Kermit has a perfect size 40mm but my SKX also fits perfectly. I guess for me the lug to lug size is more relevant.

[Brew]

Many of these larger pieces look like Wonder Woman's bracelets on children in some of the pics. Just because the lugs don't hang over, doesn't mean it's "perfect." What's wrong with seeing a bit of bracelet?

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Nice that it works for you. For me 42mm is too big and I don't like it when a watch completely 'fills' the wrist.

Agreed, I like to wear the watch ... not the other way around

OP, there’s no ideal size. I enjoy everything from 40 mm to 47 mm but I find Rolex 40 mm to be just about perfect.

To each their own as they say, but I wouldn’t want to see them stray from 40 mm sizes in their classic professional references (Submariner, GMT, Daytona).

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Zoomerang

42-43 is also perfect for my 7.5" flat wrist. I can swing 40mm but it takes me a few days to adjust. Thickness on the other hand, I stop at maybe 13-14mm.

I have 7.25” wrists and think 40mm is ideal, 36mm is good, and 42mm is pushing it.

I guess that 1/4” makes a big difference.

[Rado63]

The speedmaster looks great in 42mm because the Omega design of the case curves the lugs in making the watch look slimmer, It is the so called lyre lug. While Rolex use a straight lug which makes the watch look big.

[Jabbo84]

I know it depends on the individual, but I’ve seen many pics on here of 42 mm that are to big for the wrist they are on. “Your best friend should telleth”

[djgallo]

Originally Posted by Seibei

If everyone had the same size and shaped wrist there would be an ideal sized of watch. They don't so there isn't.

I thought they made adjustable bracelets and adjustable watch straps to address the wrist size issue? Why so much focus on the watch size?

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by Brew

Many of these larger pieces look like Wonder Woman's bracelets on children in some of the pics. Just because the lugs don't hang over, doesn't mean it's "perfect." What's wrong with seeing a bit of bracelet?

Exactly...but trust me it's a losing battle. Wrist clocks have somehow become normal.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[psv]

39-40 mm perfect.

[ltmgeller]

I like the bigger sizes too

[bezler]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree myself have 8 half inch wrist, yet I have no problem wearing some of my vintage watches only 30mm, and most all of my Rolex are 40mm which is a perfect size. Today the big watch thing is stereo typed by the net that bigger heavier is always better with many today thinking that a heavy watch is better than a lighter one.For some reason today many wear there watches below the wrist bone perhaps to state hay look at me I am wearing a Rolex.IMHO watches should be worn just above the wrist bone which will be fine for the many that wear large watches with smaller wrists.

Great comment, especially the point about the strange new practice of wearing the watch below the wrist bone. In this very thread, someone was commenting about how a 42 Exp II was digging into the back of his hand. I don't care if the watch is 80 mm, it shouldn't be digging into the back of your hand.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

[Vanmarsenille]

Originally Posted by marcellomatt5

Subjective tastes... This discussion never ends.

[lucid]

If you ask me i would say it's solely based on the users discretion.

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by lucid

If you ask me i would say it's solely based on the users discretion.

So not even a tiny bit based on their wrist size?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[R G]

Originally Posted by zengineer

Yes, really.

Ideally, I wear 34x32 pants. I will fit in 44x36 pants and might even squeeze into a pair of 32x30 but they will both look ridiculous.

It's not that hard. A certain size watch will look best on a certain size wrist. Once we are talking about any other wrist..measurably bigger or smaller...the ideal watch size changes.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I agree with you.

I’ve seen loads of pics posted on this forum where someone posts an image of a watch that is far, far too big for the person wearing it, and then forum members come along and compliment them on how great it looks.

A larger wrist will lend itself to a larger watch, and if you have a smaller wrist, then more times than not, a smaller piece will be more suitable.

I understand your analogy with the trousers, and again, I don’t disagree, clearly there will be one size that is generally more suitable than either of the other sizes.

However, it is a generalisation when it comes to watches.

It is possibly to have a wrist that will suit different sizes. Here is an example with a DJ36 and a DJ41 on my wrist. Both look fine, unless you wish to correct me, but the point I’m making is that whilst yes it’s a simple and non-complicated science, choice, for some people, can come in to it as well.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by copernic83

Isn't this the DJ41 (126300), which is in fact 39.5mm ?

You're right! It is a DJ39.5.... and it feels small all of a sudden.

[Chadridv]

Aside from the DSSD it’s my humble opinion that Rolex has done an excellent job designing the dimensions and proportions of their 42mm+ watches. They’re all very well made and comfortable in comparison to other watches of their size

That said, it’s only ideal if you have the right sized wrist or a strong desire for a big watch. To me 40mm is absolutely perfect. I have no need for anything bigger but do enjoy them.