# Hamilton Khaki Field vs Seiko SNZG15



## robeport (Oct 18, 2017)

Looking for a bit of help. I currently own a Seiko SNZG15 on a leather strap and looking at swapping it out for a Hamilton Khaki Field. The Seiko fits my wrist perfectly and was wondering if I should shoot for the 38mm or 42mm Hamilton. From what I Can tell the lugs are rather large on the Hamilton? Any help would be appreciated especially if you have a side by side comparison. Fore reference, my wrist is right around 7"

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Burnt (Apr 16, 2012)

Here's how my 38mm looks on my sub-7" wrist. I feel it and an Omega AT (38.5mm) are as close to the ideal dimensions of any watches I've ever worn. Owning the 38mm Khaki auto, there's no way I would buy the 42mm version. 
I also have the 38mm Khaki Mechanical, which is known for long lugs. That watch wears noticeably larger and flatter than the automatic 38mm as well as many other watches of slightly greater diameter, just because of the lug-to-lug length. 
In your position I'd go with the 38mm model, but I'm also comfortable wearing vintage pieces that are small by modern standards (34-36mm). While anything 38mm is larger than a traditional"field watch" in the purest sense of history, in this case a hair on the small side is preferable to anything 42mm. That's just my thinking, though.


----------



## Stromboli (Mar 26, 2010)

This is just my opinion, and I wish I still had the 42 mm Khaki for reference for you but I no longer do. However, I do prefer 40 mm watches but when it comes to dive watches I have no problem going up to 44 mm, nature of the beast I guess. That out of the way, I'll get to the point. My wrist is a smaller 7.5 " wrist, as stated divers will most likely be larger and for non diver watches I prefer smaller 40 mm. When I bought my 42 mm Khaki Field Officer I didn't think it would be a problem until I started to wear it more often then it finally hit me, it was too big. It was a great looking watch but it just didn't settle down, meaning it was always in the forefront of my mind that it was fitting too large for my taste. I gave it awhile and sold it with no regret, then I got the 40 mm Khaki Field and for the watch that it is which is "not" a diver I couldn't be any happier. My point and I do hope this might help you, is that I am a person who is used to dive watches being larger but when it came to the Hamilton comming in at 42 mm it just seemed to be to big, I'm not sure if it fit's bigger than a 42 mm or if I'm just more content with my dive watches being larger. I really hope that my 2 cents help you out. Sincerely, Stromboli. :-!


----------



## robeport (Oct 18, 2017)

Thank you both. I had the feeling from pictures that the 42 would wear too large. I am intrigued by the Khaki King as well coming in at 40mm. It seems that the lugs on these Hamiltons really make them larger than what they read on paper..


----------



## sticky (Apr 5, 2013)

I've got a 38mm Khaki and when I wear it on my admittedly slim 6.75"wrist I never think it's too small - I leave that job to the 38mm Chris Ward C60.


----------



## rosborn (Oct 30, 2011)

Stromboli said:


> This is just my opinion, and I wish I still had the 42 mm Khaki for reference for you but I no longer do. However, I do prefer 40 mm watches but when it comes to dive watches I have no problem going up to 44 mm, nature of the beast I guess. That out of the way, I'll get to the point. My wrist is a smaller 7.5 " wrist, as stated divers will most likely be larger and for non diver watches I prefer smaller 40 mm. When I bought my 42 mm Khaki Field Officer I didn't think it would be a problem until I started to wear it more often then it finally hit me, it was too big. It was a great looking watch but it just didn't settle down, meaning it was always in the forefront of my mind that it was fitting too large for my taste. I gave it awhile and sold it with no regret, then I got the 40 mm Khaki Field and for the watch that it is which is "not" a diver I couldn't be any happier. My point and I do hope this might help you, is that I am a person who is used to dive watches being larger but when it came to the Hamilton comming in at 42 mm it just seemed to be to big, I'm not sure if it fit's bigger than a 42 mm or if I'm just more content with my dive watches being larger. I really hope that my 2 cents help you out. Sincerely, Stromboli. :-!


Same for me. I used to be a 43/44MM dive watch guy. Then I got my 40MM Ginault Ocean Rover and EVERYTHING changed. I tried a 42MM Scurfa Diver One but it felt like a plate on my wrist. Last week I purchased a 40MM Khaki Field mechanical and love it. Like my Ocean Rover, it fits my 7" wrist perfectly. You may want to consider a 40MM watch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Burnt (Apr 16, 2012)

Here's my Seiko SNK807. At around 37mm it's smaller than the Hamiltons we're talking about but it fits my wrist, which is most important to me. It wears noticeably smaller than the 38mm Khaki auto because of the bezel width and short lugs.


----------



## jswing (Dec 1, 2006)

Here is the 38" Khaki Mechanical on my 6.75" wrist. The lug to lug length is 48mm, which makes it wear larger than the specs suggest. I was a little skeptical ordering the 38mm, since my other watches are in the 40-42 range, but I'm glad I did, I think the 42 would be too large, and I'm not wild about the 40mm version.


----------



## robeport (Oct 18, 2017)

Well, I'm officially out on a 42mm. Looking at pictures of 40mm Hamilton's on the wrist make them look quite large as well. Tougher decision then I originally anticipated...


----------



## chirs1211 (Sep 29, 2009)

I have both the Seiko and 42mm Khaki and while diameter is almost identical, Seiko is 0.3mm smaller, lug to lug is a different story.
Seiko comes up @ 49.4mm but Khaki is a bit more @ 52.1mm. 
Now 2.7m may not sound a lot but visually it is very noticeable due to the Hammys long lugs, and between that the lack of chapter ring like the Seiko, so the dial appears larger, and the larger crown it does look a bigger watch.
So i agree i would be worth looking at the 40mm's
But also i don't see why you couldn't pull off the 38mm too.


Chris


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

robeport said:


> Well, I'm officially out on a 42mm. Looking at pictures of 40mm Hamilton's on the wrist make them look quite large as well. Tougher decision then I originally anticipated...


Absolutely do not get the 42mm. The 38mm is perfect. Do not get anything else. Trust me.


----------



## robeport (Oct 18, 2017)

The reason 40mm came in to play is I like the look of the Khaki King compared to the 38mm Field. The toss up is between these now. Leaning towards the King...



Vlance said:


> Absolutely do not get the 42mm. The 38mm is perfect. Do not get anything else. Trust me.


----------



## Vlance (Apr 12, 2014)

robeport said:


> The reason 40mm came in to play is I like the look of the Khaki King compared to the 38mm Field. The toss up is between these now. Leaning towards the King...


The king is a nice watch. The lugs are kinda long on it though. The 38mm is definitely more proportionate imo.

Seems to fit my 7.25" wrist decent.


----------



## robeport (Oct 18, 2017)

I think that looks great! Think I will pull the trigger on the king. If it doesn't work out I'll swap for the 38. Everyone's input has been very helpful.
Thank you!


----------



## oztech (Apr 30, 2015)

Khaki 38 on 7.5 wrist works for me comfortable and I like the look of the watch.


----------



## samnk (May 13, 2016)

I had the 42mm Khaki Field and found that because it is relatively flat and not all dial, it did not look ridiculously large at all. In fact, i tried the 38mm and found it to be too small. For reference, I have a 7.5" wrist 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

jswing said:


> Here is the 38" Khaki Mechanical on my 6.75" wrist. The lug to lug length is 48mm, which makes it wear larger than the specs suggest. I was a little skeptical ordering the 38mm, since my other watches are in the 40-42 range, but I'm glad I did, I think the 42 would be too large, and I'm not wild about the 40mm version.


Hello, 
Where did you get the 38mm from, i can not find one anywhere....that is the new one? IT looks fantastic.


----------



## chirs1211 (Sep 29, 2009)

I think a 7.5in wrist is kind of the tipping point on these, anything under definitely go 38mm, over go 42mm mine is 7.8in and the 42mm fits great.
But it can be a difficult choice @ 7.5in wrist, i think the King could be a great choice here or one of the newer 40mm Khakis  


Chris


----------



## Dan3612 (Jun 18, 2017)

I'm a 7.5 inch wrist and I think the 42mm is the better fit for me, but it is just personal preference I guess! 


chirs1211 said:


> I think a 7.5in wrist is kind of the tipping point on these, anything under definitely go 38mm, over go 42mm mine is 7.8in and the 42mm fits great.
> But it can be a difficult choice @ 7.5in wrist, i think the King could be a great choice here or one of the newer 40mm Khakis
> 
> Chris


----------



## chirs1211 (Sep 29, 2009)

Oh i agree 7.5in and up 42mm is the best fit, looks much better than some give it credit for, tbh i think it's really well proportioned 

Chris


----------



## jswing (Dec 1, 2006)

Carl.1 said:


> Hello,
> Where did you get the 38mm from, i can not find one anywhere....that is the new one? IT looks fantastic.


I got it from an AD in Japan, but they're available direct from Hamilton now I believe.

Sent from my LG-K425 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcartw20 (May 7, 2016)

For some reason the crown always looks oversized on the 38mm version to me.


----------



## Lucien369 (Nov 4, 2014)

jcartw20 said:


> For some reason the crown always looks oversized on the 38mm version to me.


That's one of its main qualities in my opinion as it is a manual mechanical watch.

And I love the look of it.


----------



## jcartw20 (May 7, 2016)

Lucien369 said:


> That's one of its main qualities in my opinion as it is a manual mechanical watch.
> 
> And I love the look of it.


I should've specified. I was referring to the automatic version. The mechanical version is nice especially with it's matte finish and slim profile.


----------



## john.kelly.pdx (Dec 17, 2017)

Looks great. What strap is that?


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

Great watch, I dig it









Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Premise (Jul 31, 2016)

I have the 42mm version and there are times I find it to be too big. My smallest watch is a SARB033 and it wears well. I'm sure the 38mm would likely wear better on my wrist, but for the time being the 42mm's 22mm lugs play well with my current collection of straps.


----------



## scottf (Feb 19, 2018)

I've got both the 38mm Khaki field models..and although I've traditionally worn 39-42mm watches, the 38mm khaki's wear more like 40-42--I think because of the taller than usual lugs on them. I love the 38mm though..


----------



## grayfox8647 (Apr 1, 2016)

I'd say go for the 42mm. I have a 6.5 inch wrist and found the 38mm a little too small, even though I like smaller watches.


----------



## triumphrox (Nov 22, 2014)

I think it's probably a moot point by now, but I'm also in the camp that thinks the 42mm is too big on my 7.5" wrist. I originally got a 42, returned it almost immediately for the 38mm. Weird, since most everything else I have is 40mm on up. But on the Khaki the 38mm works for me. Go figure. YMMV.


----------



## 94rsa (Dec 5, 2016)

Would go 38mm if I were you, just based on your wrist size.


----------

