# Pilot 45 vs Pilot 42



## Psmith. (Jul 18, 2009)

I am leaning towards the 45 'Frankfurt' but am concerned about the 11 mm height. Seems rather thin for a relatively large watch. The 42 'Karlsruhe' seems to be better proportioned at 13 mm high.

What do the 45 owners think? Or does anyone have both? It would be great to compare them on the wrist, but this is not possible for me. I don't want to buy a 42 and wish it was a 45, or vice versa.

(my wrist is just under 7")


Many thanks


----------



## fluppyboy (May 24, 2009)

Psmith. said:


> I am leaning towards the 45 'Frankfurt' but am concerned about the 11 mm height. Seems rather thin for a relatively large watch. The 42 'Karlsruhe' seems to be better proportioned at 13 mm high.
> 
> What do the 45 owners think? Or does anyone have both? It would be great to compare them on the wrist, but this is not possible for me. I don't want to buy a 42 and wish it was a 45, or vice versa.
> 
> ...


With a 7" wrist, I would go for the 42mm. (And in fact I did - I have a 7" wrist, just over, and 42 mm is as large as I dare to wear with this type of watch). I wouldn't worry about it being too thin though - if you think you can pull of the 45mm, by all means go for it! Be careful though - watches with thin bezels will wear larger than their measurements would indicate. It's all dial!


----------



## paveiv (Apr 8, 2010)

My wrist is 7,5"



















It is about personal preference. I love both but right now I would recommend Mannheim (42mm). 45mm has slightly wrong dial, they are working on a new one but who knows when it will be availible. It might even not be ready this year. You can always change it later but why do that if you can get the perfect 42. No worries about the 45 being thin, it is ok in my opinion. If you want those two seen in another position, let me know.

Oh and btw, with 7,5" wrist, standard L strap is too short so if your wrist is around 7" I would suggest asking Laco for XL strap.


----------



## LH2 (Oct 25, 2009)

I think thin is a good thing... But the 42mm is a better fit for your wrist size. These watches wear large - lots of glass and not much case making up the diameter.


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Personally I think a thinner watch can work better if you have a smaller wrist. I don't own a 45 mm - YET! - but I do have a 48 mm Glycine KMU that is roughly the same height and I don't think it looks overly thin. In fact, its low profile is a boon at times like when you're wearing a jacket. My other big watches that have thick cases usually get caught up in the sleeve. As always it's about personal preference; at least you know you can't go wrong with either choice!


----------



## Psmith. (Jul 18, 2009)

Thanks for the comments and pictures, much appreciated 

This is going to be tricky (short of buying both models), but as Uwe W noted there is no wrong choice. Might just have to flip a coin... :-d


----------



## kubelwagen (Apr 14, 2011)

Barring the wrist-size factor, another consideration is how / where you intend to wear it. My work requires me to be in long sleeved shirts and tie, so the 45mm's low profile works well for me. Casual days, its the 42mm on the wrist. Hope this helps. Cheers


----------



## thomas69 (Mar 9, 2010)

I would prefer the 42mm was 11mm in height rather than 13mm.


----------



## Psmith. (Jul 18, 2009)

thomas69 said:


> I would prefer the 42mm was 11mm in height rather than 13mm.


I know what you mean... I think that 12-13 mm is plenty high enough for a 42 mm watch.
I've decided not to worry about the height of the two models, but to consider the lug-to-lug measurement. I'll probably go for the the 42 mm as I think it will wear better on my < 7" wrist with straight lugs. If the 45 mm had curved lugs, then I would likely go for it instead.


----------



## thomas69 (Mar 9, 2010)

The 45mm case with the 11mm height might be more well proportioned than the 42mm with 13mm height.

But this is a matter of taste

Case with 13mm height makes sense in a diver watch but not much in a pilot one.I read that Laco used this case so that both 2824 and 2801 movements would fit in as the first one is thicker from the other due to the rotor presence.The 2824 movement can fit in smaller cases so i suppose it is more a matter of design.

How the straight lugs will wear on my wrist is a fact that bothers myself too

I had a 45mm pilot with curved lugs and still the lugs were a little bit out of my wrist which measures 6,5 inches


----------



## Psmith. (Jul 18, 2009)

thomas69 said:


> The 45mm case with the 11mm height might be more well proportioned than the 42mm with 13mm height.
> 
> But this is a matter of taste
> 
> ...


Yes - after all, a Rolex Sub is ~12 mm high... Btw, there is a YouTube vid that shows a 42 mm Laco Pilot on a 6.75" wrist. I don't think that a link would be allowed... but if you search for 'Laco watch' or 'Laco pilot watch' you shuld find it...


----------



## fluppyboy (May 24, 2009)

This is the 42mm "Karlsruhe" on a (just over) 7" wrist, FWIW *(EDIT: 7.25 inch wrist - I just re-measured)*:


----------



## Psmith. (Jul 18, 2009)

fluppyboy said:


> This is the 42mm "Karlsruhe" on a (just over) 7" wrist, FWIW:


Thank you, that's a really useful photo 

Looks like I'll be going with the 42 mm

How comfortable is it to wear? Any problems with the straight, high lugs snagging?


----------



## fluppyboy (May 24, 2009)

Couldn't tell you. I don't wear long sleeved shirts often... and I only got the watch this morning.  The 45mm would definitely be a problem, even if I could somehow wear it. That one would definitely snag on shirtsleeves, etc.

P.S. (Just because I can :-d):


----------



## Psmith. (Jul 18, 2009)

fluppyboy said:


> Couldn't tell you. I don't wear long sleeved shirts often... and I only got the watch this morning.  The 45mm would definitely be a problem, even if I could somehow wear it. That one would definitely snag on shirtsleeves, etc.
> 
> P.S. (Just because I can :-d):


LOL - understood! And congrats - looks fantastic. You take great photos.

Does the standard strap fit OK or did you order a longer one?

Sorry for all the questions... ;-)


----------



## fluppyboy (May 24, 2009)

The standard strap fits OK, but only just. With the two keepers together, as close to the buckle as they will go, the end of it protrudes by only 7mm or so (just under 1/4 inch). I wouldn't want it any shorter, put it that way. My wrist is currently just over 7.25 inches (must be fattening up for winter ;-)).


----------



## Psmith. (Jul 18, 2009)

fluppyboy said:


> The standard strap fits OK, but only just. With the two keepers together, as close to the buckle as they will go, the end of it protrudes by only 7mm or so (just under 1/4 inch). I wouldn't want it any shorter, put it that way. My wrist is currently just over 7.25 inches (must be fattening up for winter ;-)).


That's useful info, thanks. My wrist is a little under 7" so the standard strap should be about right. Will have some others made though - Toshi, GSD, etc...

Hope you are enjoying your new watch this weekend


----------



## fluppyboy (May 24, 2009)

Psmith. said:


> That's useful info, thanks. My wrist is a little under 7" so the standard strap should be about right.


Yep. That extra 1/4 of an inch will make all the difference.



> Hope you are enjoying your new watch this weekend


I am! It really is so much better in the flesh...


----------



## Laxntiga (Jul 28, 2011)

I just got the 42mm in a b dial (manual wind) yesterday. Beautiful watch, absolutely love it love it love it. First day, watch ran -7. I'm going to keep an eye on this, hope it's just "breaking in". I hope for a watch that's > +/-5.

Back to the topic, I couldn't decide which to get, the 42, or the 45. Chose to go with with the 42. I keep having the haunting of the 45........ so I ordered the 45mm today.
So far from observing the 42mm, its very well proportioned. Has a very good solid build feel to it, nothing against it. I had to get the 45 because I feel like a B dial should be a bit bigger (55mm is WOW, but my wrist couldn't wear it). Now, if I was getting the A dial which has a less cluttered face, 42mm with curved lugs would be ideal, but in the absence of curved lugs (unless going with the Miyota movement) I would still opt for the 45mm. I have approx a 7-3/8" wrist. Just a few mm shy of a 7.5".

I'll post a few pics after I get them side by side.


----------



## Ryan Alden (Nov 19, 2008)

I choose 42mm, it is now flown from USA. My reason is I think 42mm will be look properly. Not to say that big Pilot is uncool [ I have Steinhart 47mm Nav B Chrono].


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Ryan Alden said:


> flown from USA.


Was the Laco Shop out of stock? Good choice (well, they all are really); the 42 does wear large and variety keeps things interesting. Did you go with the A or B-Muster? Let us know when it arrives...


----------



## markdeerhunter (Sep 11, 2006)

I would go 42.


----------



## Ryan Alden (Nov 19, 2008)

Uwe W. said:


> Was the Laco Shop out of stock? Good choice (well, they all are really); the 42 does wear large and variety keeps things interesting. Did you go with the A or B-Muster? Let us know when it arrives...


I haven't had any convs. with Laco online shop. I ordered it from t*mequest watch because US dollar is cheaper towards my country currency [Indonesian Rupiah] than to EUR. I choose A muster by the way. Can't wait to post the pic as soon as that bad boy arrive!


----------



## Laxntiga (Jul 28, 2011)

I took a few snaps when my 45 cam in. Hope it helps in your decision making process.

*After receiving my 45, the 45 is really a great size. However, the 42 just seams more proportioned, the face just seems more wholesome if you will. To each their own, hoorah!







45 on right







45 on left







45 on left


----------



## Tomaski33 (Aug 25, 2008)

LACO Pilot 45 looks more eye-catching to me than 42
Not to mention 45 looks bold
Good shots of the 45 vs 42 side by side 
Bro Laxntiga


----------



## Laxntiga (Jul 28, 2011)

I just noticed today why the 42mm seams more "complete". It's in the dial. The 42mm dial looks like it has thicker paint on the inner dial. You have to look very closely. Also, since the 42mm dial is smaller, everything seams more "whole"some vs the 45, everything is a bit more spread out. 

Either or, to each their own. I'm thinking about putting the 42 on a bracelet. Starting to explore some strap options =) If anyone can give me ideas, I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## mikev (Jul 31, 2011)

imo it wont look as good on a bracelet. however, it will look great on a black leather strap


Laxntiga said:


> I just noticed today why the 42mm seams more "complete". It's in the dial. The 42mm dial looks like it has thicker paint on the inner dial. You have to look very closely. Also, since the 42mm dial is smaller, everything seams more "whole"some vs the 45, everything is a bit more spread out.
> 
> Either or, to each their own. I'm thinking about putting the 42 on a bracelet. Starting to explore some strap options =) If anyone can give me ideas, I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Laxntiga said:


> Starting to explore some strap options =) If anyone can give me ideas, I would greatly appreciate it.


Have you looked through the "Show your Laco" thread? There should be some interesting straps on display in there. Otherwise, you could always go with any vintage leather strap; those with twin rivets at the lugs are a more traditional looks, but distressed straps in either brown or black generally look really good too.

I recently tried a greyish strap on my 55 mm and liked the result. I was attempting to compliment the matte grey case; typically the strap contrasts it. I still have to swap out that Pre-V buckle which has no place on the strap of a flight watch.


----------



## Clockwork Blue (Apr 19, 2011)

Wrist shot, Uwe! Nice strap!


----------



## fachiro1 (Jan 24, 2007)

Is it just me, or does the 45mm look thicker than the 42mm? Maybe someone can post a side by side pic of the side profiles of the watches. I'm thinking that the 11mm measurement is just the case height not inclldign the the bezel/crystal and the case back? In the pics above, the 45mm looks thicker if not at least the same as the 42mm.


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Clockwork Blue said:


> Wrist shot, Uwe!


I'll have to work on that. It's on a different strap at the moment, but I'll get to it soon.



fachiro1 said:


> Is it just me, or does the 45mm look thicker than the 42mm?


I see your point, but mind you there isn't a huge difference between the two to begin with. I too would like to see a side-by-side profile shot.


----------



## Laxntiga (Jul 28, 2011)

I was going to bust out the camera and what not's, but as I am starring at these two... the side profiles are nearly the same, if not identical. I cannot tell the difference.
If one IS thicker... I would have to say it is the 42mm. The 42 just seams more "wholesome" of the two, probably because of it's more compact size, everything fits together very well.

If you're wrist is right around 7" I would recommend the 42mm. Any bigger, go with the 45.


----------

