What is big?

  • Please add our email support@horologyboard.com and/or domain horologyboard.com into your whitelist to make sure emails are not filtered or blocked. If you have registered but have not received your activation email, please check you spam/junk folder. If you still cannot find your email to activate your account, please Contact Us. Thank you.

Timnic54

NWBIG
Horologist
Jan 16, 2018
1,117
1,747
163
Bangkok
Having worn the JLC MUT Moon for about the last week, the watch is 39mm. It is making me question why over the last few years we seem to thnk we have to fill the whole top of our wrists with a watch which pretty much takes up all the space. I think i have discovered a very good reason why our watches should perhaps be a little smaller .
I have quite big wrists, and it isn't just the circumference of the wrist which matters. The shape of the wrist matters too, as in how flat the top of the wrist is and how a watch fits when sitting on the wrist.
The problem with the watch taking up all the wrist is that you cant see the whole thing. You cant see the relationship between the watch and the strap/bracelet and the way they connect.

I have some quite small watches, a Piaget, for example at 34mm. Yes when I put it on after a BPFF or SD 43 it does seem small. But the way it sits on the wrist and shows the whole relationship, visually between watch and strap, looks to my eyes to be a much better look over all.

Of course what is ultimately "big" will depend on the size and shape of the wearers wrist. But do we need to re-think the whole thing?

Are we obsessed with size and filling the whole wrist?

Should we step back towards smaller watches and enjoy seeing the whole picture?

What do you guys think?






Here are some examples;

SD 43
26866034007_08b250ec9e_b.jpg

34mm Piaget
35391398023_62cc064f38_b.jpg

Big Parmigiani taking up the whole wrist
27097990738_843e5ba500_b.jpg

Smaller 114300 allowing full view of the strap
40691561651_91eaf7ac16_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MrE

Nivka

Content Contributor
Feb 19, 2018
235
375
63
36-40mm (+/-2mm) is perfect for my 6.75 wrist.
36mm DJ
bff34c42606b8760ddbcc600d4474545.jpg

37mm 15450
792c6ab7861bcb68e0e6c99b93652348.jpg

39mm FOIS
725281a71ce30d1438cee84e7636cf1a.jpg

40mm Sub-c
9e279ffa5371604eb371360d24a1374e.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rush and MrE

MrE

Content Contributor
Feb 27, 2018
281
559
93
I fully agree. Great topic @Timnic54

Even my Submariner and Daytona seem at times too thick/bulky.

AP 15202 quartz is on the way.

I asked our TD's if they could source other quartz watches which would come with the required thinness.
 
Last edited:

PlanetZoom

Active Enthusiast
Ambassador
Jan 20, 2018
1,271
1,319
163
CONUS
I think there's a lot to be said for enjoying the whole picture.

Smaller watches generally look more classy and elegant.

Here's a cool pic highlighting the visual difference between a smaller and larger watch:

Big-Small-Watches.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrE

Rush

Content Contributor
Jan 28, 2018
170
169
43
Great post! I got into this hobby a few years ago wearing nothing but big gauge Panerai, and AP Offshore. I got rid of those, and wear mostly 40mm subs now. The big watch trend looks rather silly now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrE
OP
Timnic54

Timnic54

NWBIG
Horologist
Jan 16, 2018
1,117
1,747
163
Bangkok
We hear a lot of talk about 6.5 inch wrist or 7.25 inch wrist etc. However I am becoming convinced that the wrist circumference is not the useful measure.
Of course it is useful with regard to fitting the whole watch and strap around the wrist. With regard to how the watch sits on the wrist a measurement of the lateral diameter is more useful. The circumference relates equally to the the vertical diameter, which isn't relevant
If when discussing watch and wrist size relationship we talked about lateral diameter there would be less confusion and ambiguity.

It is very easy to measure as shown here;

41480810140_a239227bf8_n.jpg


The lateral diameter of my wrist is 7 cm.

If I know this and I also know the Lug tip to lug tip measurement of the watch I plan to buy. For example the JLC MUT Moon is 4.5 cm
Then I have immediately an image of how the watch will sit on my wrist.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MrE and Rush

MrE

Content Contributor
Feb 27, 2018
281
559
93
We here a lot of talk about 6.5 inch wrist or 7.25 inch wrist etc. However I am becoming convinced that the wrist circumference is not the useful measure.
Of course it is useful with regard to fitting the whole watch and strap around the wrist. With regard to how the watch sits on the wrist a measurement of the lateral diameter is more useful. The circumference relates equally to the the vertical diameter, which isn't relevant
If when discussing watch and wrist size relationship we talked about lateral diameter there would be less confusion and ambiguity.

It is very easy to measure as shown here;

View attachment 24106


The lateral diameter of my wrist is 7 cm.

If I know this and I also know the Lug tip to lug tip measurement of the watch I plan to buy. For example the JLC MUT Moon is 4.5 cm
Then I have immediately an image of how the watch will sit in my wrist.
Wow!!!

Never thought of it this way but now I see.

That indeed would be very useful!