# Choosing between 39 and 42



## DTS419 (Nov 7, 2017)

I'm trying to decide between 39 and 42 for the Ocean One GMT Ceramic. My wrist is 7". Generally I prefer the smaller watch sizes of the old days, but will 39 be too small? 

Are the Steinhart 39s the same overall size as the Rolex Submariners, even though on paper the Sub is 40? The Rolex Sub is the perfect size for me, so as long as the Steinhart 39 isn't noticeably smaller than the Sub, I think I'd be ok.


----------



## andyk8 (Jan 6, 2016)

I only recently started wearing a 40mm 114060 and my wrist is also 7". The size is perfect for me.

I have owned every 42mm Ocean watch and I'm sorry to say I will most likely never own one again, they're just too big for me.

If you like wearing a 40mm sub then get yourself a 39mm Ocean One, you'll love the size.


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

If the lugs on the 42mm curved downward more AND case side was taller/thicker, it would wear so much better. The 39mm looks and feels great on a 7" wrist size. I have one in the OVM and it's wonderful. I wouldn't be upset if the case was a tad larger, but not by much. The thin nature of the lugs (top to bottom) makes the Watch visually 'feel' smaller than it actually is. Overall I'm very satisfied with the 39 over the 42. 

And for the record, I owned a v1, v2, and SE of the 42....all sold. 

The 39mm?

It's staying. 

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

My 25 cents - the 7" wrist size is what I call "the grey area"; my own wrist is 7 1/8". I've owned a PILE of Rolex Submariners, from the 6536/1, 5508, 6538, and most recently the 14060. At least for the foreseeable future, my own "sweet spot" is 41mm-42mm - but then I'm 6'1 5/8" tall and with a reasonably athletic build, so I feel like I can "pull off" that size. Also, at 62 years old, my old eyes ain't what they used to be, LOL - the slightly larger "real estate" of the 41-42mm watch makes for quicker reading of the time at a glance...

My own personal barometer on whether or not a watch looks "right-sized" on a man is if the lugs protrude out past the wrist on either side. If not, you're in the wheelhouse of "correctness"; if they do, that don't get it...


----------



## Ard (Jul 21, 2014)

This is easy, I am 6'4" weighing 228 pounds, my wrist is about 7 3/4" circumference and I owned an Ocean One when I joined this forum. It was too big for me.

I am currently wearing a Tag Heuer Carrera Cal. 5 39mm watch and it is perfect size for a watch. I think of the size thing like this, are you buying one you'll like the look of or hoping someone else will see it on your arm? 42mm = too large


----------



## Eodtech (May 14, 2013)

I have both 39 and 42mm Steinhart's and I wear them both often and constantly vacillate between both sizes. I have no problem wearing the 42's on my 7" wrist either, but I would be lying if I said I didn't prefer the 39mm just a tiny bit more. I think its the perfect size for a daily wearer and I am actually wearing one now. 

I also have a Rolex Sea-dweller 16660 and it feels very similar to my 39's and just as easy to wear. If you are asking my advice, I would suggest getting the 39mm first and then trying a 42mm in the future if you care too. I don't think you will be disappointed in the least with the 39mm as your first choice...


Bob.


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

Another factor - it's a "Tool Watch"; as such IMHO, it's supposed to be a bit larger and more "purposeful" than a dress watch...


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

The new 22/18mm bracelet makes the 42mm much more manageable. So if you aren't sure about the 39mm, go with the other.


----------



## earl.dieta (Aug 19, 2011)

i wear watches from 36mm up to 42mm and have a 7" wrist.

wore the steinhart o1 vintage red for 6 years as only watch and had no problem with the size, but now that i started wearing 36mm-39mm I'm finding 39mm to be my sweet spot.
getting an o1 39mm would be nice but not a priority for me as steinhart hasnt made the 39mm version that I would like (no cyclops ocean 1 vintage)

and still pretty happy with my vintage red


----------



## khanhdnk (Sep 28, 2017)

Ladies, i just confused about this also. Everyone knows how is the lug of Steinhart. I did go first for an 42, but recently interested in these new 39! Personally, i feel a little bit comfortable with an 39 one, for wearing it all day! My wrist is 18,5cm ~ 7"1/4.

This is the 39GMT








And the 42 Green









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

39mm for 7” wrist


----------



## jamesezra (Mar 1, 2016)

hmmm tbh, i thought 39 would be my size (I'm a 6.75incher). But when I got the 39mm Ocean Green, my wife commented it looked like a ladies' watch.

I think 40mm would be just right but it depends on the case shape as well. The Rollie Sub's 40mm is perfect on my wrist but i would put that down to case design.


----------



## riff raff (Dec 28, 2015)

Great point, the tapered bracelet on the O1V makes the 42 mm work on my 7" wrist. I have a 39 mm Seiko diver and it's just a tad too small.



lvt said:


> The new 22/18mm bracelet makes the 42mm much more manageable. So if you aren't sure about the 39mm, go with the other.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

riff raff said:


> Great point, the tapered bracelet on the O1V makes the 42 mm work on my 7" wrist. I have a 39 mm Seiko diver and it's just a tad too small.


My wrist size is under 7" but I like wearing the 42mm to have a strong watch presence on it. Given that I used to wear 45mm G-shock watch before, I found the O1 42mm quite comfortable.


----------



## DTS419 (Nov 7, 2017)

jamesezra said:


> hmmm tbh, i thought 39 would be my size (I'm a 6.75incher). But when I got the 39mm Ocean Green, my wife commented it looked like a ladies' watch.
> 
> I think 40mm would be just right but it depends on the case shape as well. The Rollie Sub's 40mm is perfect on my wrist but i would put that down to case design.


That is one of my questions... Even though the Rolex Sub is 40 on paper and the Steinhart is 39, are they effectively the same due to case designs, or is the Steinhart noticeably smaller than the Sub?


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

DTS419 said:


> That is one of my questions... Even though the Rolex Sub is 40 on paper and the Steinhart is 39, are they effectively the same due to case designs, or is the Steinhart noticeably smaller than the Sub?


They're similar - where the Steinhart feels smaller is the thin nature of the
lugs too to bottom and side to side.

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## jamesezra (Mar 1, 2016)

Dec1968 said:


> They're similar - where the Steinhart feels smaller is the thin nature of the
> lugs too to bottom and side to side.
> 
> Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


Yes, agree on this. Visually, the Sub looks bigger due to the beefy lugs.


----------



## DTS419 (Nov 7, 2017)

jamesezra said:


> Yes, agree on this. Visually, the Sub looks bigger due to the beefy lugs.


Howbout presence on wrist?


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

DTS419 said:


> Howbout presence on wrist?


Lugs only. Otherwise same presence.

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## jamesezra (Mar 1, 2016)

Dec1968 said:


> Lugs only. Otherwise same presence.
> 
> Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


Hmmm. I think the Sub has more presence actually. Cos of the lugs. At least for me.


----------



## DTS419 (Nov 7, 2017)

If anyone has any side-by-side comparisons of Sub to an Ocean One 39 please share. I can’t find any on google.


----------



## Eodtech (May 14, 2013)

Sure, here is my 80's Sea-Dweller 16660 and my original 39mm Pepsi. They look really similar in size to me. Sorry for the few rain drops on the bottom pic, its a lil rainy here today


----------



## sticky (Apr 5, 2013)

A lot of folks complain that 42mm is to much Steinhart so I’d go for the 39mm.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

sticky said:


> A lot of folks complain that 42mm is to much Steinhart so I'd go for the 39mm.


Why complain?

You get more for the same amount of


----------



## Dogs857 (Apr 5, 2018)

Long time reader first time poster and thought I would weigh in on this one as I am going through the same dilemma.

Here is what I have come to realise after reading countless threads.

Don't take the majority of wrist shots as gospel for how a watch will look. I would assume that most of these are taken with smart phones and the like, and will therefore suffer greatly from perspective distortion. This is a aspect of photography that a lot of people don't take into consideration. The iPhone 6 for example has a 28mm lens which is a wide angle lens which will make close objects appear larger, and the background appear further away. If you want to see how something looks in real life you need to have something closer to the 50mm range so that your perspective is not altered. That is why a 50mm lens is called a normal lens, however taking wrist shots with a 50mm is very difficult due to the closeness of wrist to eye. The only way to get a really good idea of how something will look is take a photo through a mirror of your whole arm.

The differences you are looking at (as am I) are really 3mm in width (1.5mm each side) and 2.5mm in length (49mm v 46.5mm) which is 1.25mm each way. That is not a huge difference in lug width, but you do lose a bit of real estate on the watch face. Measure you wrist from side to side, circumference is not a great way to figure this out. If your wrist side to side is greater than 60mm the 42 should not look bad on you.

I have taken screen shots of both watches, scaled them to size and printed and cut them out. The 39mm looks quite crowded in comparison and quite small. I also have a cutout of the Tudor Ranger (a watch I was previously considering) which despite being a 41mm case looks a lot bigger than the Ocean One 42mm because it's basically all dial.

For me I am leaning towards the Ocean One 42mm, because the lugs don't overhang my wrist and I prefer the larger watch face. I'm not getting any younger and appreciate the slightly larger dial.

At the end of the day it comes down to what you like, smaller watch or slightly larger. If your wrists are quite narrow go the smaller watch, if they are larger go for the one which one suits you best.


----------



## DTS419 (Nov 7, 2017)

Even better than comparing digital images would be to order them both and keep the one I like best after trying them both on. Unfortunately though, gnomon charges $40 shipping for returns. Does anyone know if Steinhart charges anything for returns if buying straight from their website?


----------



## debussychopin (Feb 16, 2018)

If they both wear well (tapered lug ends and not too long lug to lug), then the 42 usually presents better.

The 39 usually is better to my mind personally, because i appreciate the same detail of complex construction but in a smaller scale.

im 7 1/4 inch wrist.


----------



## Dogs857 (Apr 5, 2018)

Two other points have made my decision for me.

I want the coke version, and Steinhart have no plans to release one for a while (I asked). Now this doesn't affect you as you are after the ceramic version.
Point two is that the bezel on the 39mm GMT is polished while the 42 is brushed. This gives the smaller watch a lot more shine (bling) which I don't like. This doesn't show in the stock photos but has been mentioned in a few Youtube reviews that I have seen.


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

I prefer the brushed bezel on the 42mm.


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

Dogs857 said:


> Two other points have made my decision for me.
> 
> I want the coke version, and Steinhart have no plans to release one for a while (I asked). Now this doesn't affect you as you are after the ceramic version.
> Point two is that the bezel on the 39mm GMT is polished while the 42 is brushed. This gives the smaller watch a lot more shine (bling) which I don't like. This doesn't show in the stock photos but has been mentioned in a few Youtube reviews that I have seen.


I bought the OVM 39 and an Esslinger brush.

No more bling.....5 minutes of work and a lifetime of happiness.

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Dec1968 said:


> I bought the OVM 39 and an Esslinger brush.
> 
> No more bling.....5 minutes of work and a lifetime of happiness.
> 
> Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


Pic please!


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

lvt said:


> Pic please!

































Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## DTS419 (Nov 7, 2017)

Dogs857 said:


> Two other points have made my decision for me.
> 
> I want the coke version, and Steinhart have no plans to release one for a while (I asked). Now this doesn't affect you as you are after the ceramic version.
> Point two is that the bezel on the 39mm GMT is polished while the 42 is brushed. This gives the smaller watch a lot more shine (bling) which I don't like. This doesn't show in the stock photos but has been mentioned in a few Youtube reviews that I have seen.


Please elaborate on the brushed vs polished bezel as I'm not sure I follow. I am aware that the print on the ceramic bezel is different from the print on the aluminum bezels. Is this what you are talking about?


----------



## edorange (Jun 17, 2016)

Dec1968 said:


> I bought the OVM 39 and an Esslinger brush.
> 
> No more bling.....5 minutes of work and a lifetime of happiness.
> 
> Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


Which tool did you use? Can you provide a link? Thanks!

Gesendet von meinem SM-T580 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

edorange said:


> Which tool did you use? Can you provide a link? Thanks!
> 
> Gesendet von meinem SM-T580 mit Tapatalk


https://www.esslinger.com/bergeon-6240-scratch-brush-fiberglass/

Fiberglass works well BUT beware of the bristles that WILL fall off with use and don't let them get trapped in your skin or carpeted area.

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

DTS419 said:


> Please elaborate on the brushed vs polished bezel as I'm not sure I follow. I am aware that the print on the ceramic bezel is different from the print on the aluminum bezels. Is this what you are talking about?


Not the insert....the metal bezel itself.

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## edorange (Jun 17, 2016)

Perfect, thanks a lot 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G920F mit Tapatalk


----------



## Dogs857 (Apr 5, 2018)

Dec1968 said:


> I bought the OVM 39 and an Esslinger brush.
> 
> No more bling.....5 minutes of work and a lifetime of happiness.
> 
> Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


Dammit man I said it had made my mind up o|

I can sympathise with the OP, I change my mind every day on this. Thinking now about buying the 39 Kermit and waiting to see if they bring out a Coke GMT later.


----------



## Dubuque (Mar 13, 2018)

I have a 7.25" wrist, and own both sizes. The 39mm does not seem excessively small, nor does the 42mm seem large. I prefer wearing the 39mm with long sleeve shirts, as it's a little easier to cover up. Both the bezel ring (the part you touch) and the crown are polished on my 39mm, so I have to use my thumbnail to adjust the bezel if my fingers are wet. In a perfect world, the 39mm would be finished the same as the 42mm. The polished surfaces are a bit inconvenient at times, but a minor annoyance overall.


----------



## Watchstein (Jan 28, 2018)

With the new trend as seen in Baselworld i think you can feel completely comfortable with the 39..


----------



## DenisL (Nov 11, 2016)

My 2 cents... Recently I was in a similar situation.
I was afraid that a 39 Diver would be too small for my 7" wrist.
I have a Hamilton viewmatic 40 and intramatic 38 that I think are perfect fit. But a 39 diver... I was not so sure, given that I also have a Seiko Turtle 44.
Last week I received my 39 green, I could not be happier. Now I fully realize that 39-40 is the perfect size for me.
I appreciate that I can easily wear this watch with a long dress shirt (which was difficult with the Turtle).


----------



## Tonystix (Nov 9, 2017)

Go with the 39mm.


----------



## DTS419 (Nov 7, 2017)

Watchstein said:


> With the new trend as seen in Baselworld i think you can feel completely comfortable with the 39..


What trend would that be?


----------



## TheGanzman (Jan 12, 2010)

So much depends on not JUST your wrist size/shape, but also YOUR size. If you're 6'+ and Medium Build+, you can easily pull off 41mm-44mm and have it look good...

Also, a Tool watch by nature is more acceptable in larger sizes than a Dress watch IMHO...


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

If your wrist size is 7" or and up, you should go with the 42mm. Especially when your wrist is flat.


----------



## MrMajestyk (Mar 30, 2018)

Finally joined the Steinhart family and can chime in here. My wrist is not only 6 inchish but I'm also a small slim guy plus oh dear not much hair left :-d
For weeks I couldn't decide which Steiny to get; I liked most the Vintage without date (yeah eye sight also not so great anymore, can't read those dang small dates), then I thought ah a gmt actually could also be nice, hmm those 39 however should fit better oh that pepsi thingy could look good too and so on and so on... when I set my emotional and rational decision to hunt a vintage 39mm this pops up, less than 3 weeks old and 340 USD, gone the emotions and fingers were faster than the brain, vintage red 4...2...m...m and oh dear a small date window. I think it's not as bad as it may suggest how it looks on 6inch, small, slim, older guy. Just played around what shoe I should get for it, I think distressed cognac or tan leather ?


----------



## mizzare (Jul 21, 2017)

There's my approximately 6.5 inch wrist with the 42 mm GMT. It looks a bit too big for me in this photo, but it is actually not and fits well.


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

I brushed the OVM 39 bezel - now it looks more like its larger version. Esslinger brushes are less than $10 and maybe 10 minutes worth of time, even for a total rookie to do if they felt like it.









Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## eagle243 (Dec 27, 2017)

My wrist is 6.5", and I have a 42mm Steinhart Pepsi GMT. It might be too big for me, but I think it's fine -- but maybe I just like big watches.

I'm considering a Squale 30 Atmos Classic Ceramica for my next purchase. It is the same size as the Steinhart.


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

eagle243 said:


> My wrist is 6.5", and I have a 42mm Steinhart Pepsi GMT. It might be too big for me, but I think it's fine -- but maybe I just like big watches.
> 
> I'm considering a Squale 30 Atmos Classic Ceramica for my next purchase. It is the same size as the Steinhart.


I have 7" flat wrists and I felt like that flat straight lug design made for a severe right angle on one side with the bracelet. The 50mm length swallowed my wrist when you factored that 3rd dimension. Looking straight on it was fine. Add the bracelet and that near-right angle....nope.

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## eagle243 (Dec 27, 2017)

Dec1968 said:


> I have 7" flat wrists and I felt like that flat straight lug design made for a severe right angle on one side with the bracelet. The 50mm length swallowed my wrist when you factored that 3rd dimension. Looking straight on it was fine. Add the bracelet and that near-right angle....nope.
> 
> Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


I think you are probably right -- the 42mm is probably too big for me. For me, 42mm was the price I had to pay to have a Pepsi GMT, which was what I have wanted for 2 decades -- both as a tribute to Magnum, p.i. and because I like GMT watches. Maybe I should look at a smaller watch for my next purchase.


----------



## Temb0 (Mar 6, 2018)

Hi guys,
long time reader but first time poster. I'm trying to decide between the 39 and the 42 ocean gmt. I have a few watches that range in size between 39 and 42mm but I find for my really flat wrist it's the length of the lugs that makes a watch too big or small for me. My speedy reduced (39mm) feels small because the lugs are so short (its only 44mm including the lugs) and my Dan Henry 1960 (42mm) feels huge because the lugs are really long (49mm including lugs). 
Do you think some kind WUS Steinhart fans measure the length of their 39mm and 42mm oceans for me please? I can't find the info on Steinhart's website and my indecision is crippling.


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

The larger watch has a 50mm lug length. 

The 39mm watch has a 46.5mm lug length. 

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

7" flat wrist and a Steinhart 39mm























Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------



## Temb0 (Mar 6, 2018)

Awesome, thanks Dec1968, just what i needed. Looks like the 39mm is coming my way!


----------



## knezz (May 26, 2015)

39, easy call. Me with 6'8" , 275lbs , 8" wrist was pulling 42 right there on the edge and now with AT which is 41.5 i feel better since lugs curve more.


----------



## daogiahieu (Feb 19, 2018)

Can you tell me about the measurement of this watch, i care about the dial measurement which is 29.5 cm in rolex sub


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

daogiahieu said:


> Can you tell me about the measurement of this watch, i care about the dial measurement which is 29.5 cm in rolex sub


How many threads are you going to post that same question?

Follow me on Instagram- @Dec1968watches


----------

