# My mathematical Watch Sizing guide!



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

I'm sure that some mathematician has worked this out before but I worked out the following ratio system for assessing the appropriate size for a watch on a wrist.

Its pretty simple
* 
1/ Convert wrist size into mm

2/ Divide total wrist size in mm by the size of the watch

eg A 7 inch wrist and a 38 mm watch = 178mm divided by 38mm= Ratio of 4.7*

This brings me to the controversial part. What is an acceptable ratio? I think using this formula, that an acceptable ratio falls between *4.0 and 5.0. *Anything below 4.0 is too big and anything above 5 is too small.

_Here is an example using a 44mm watch which should be too big for some with smaller wrists

6.5 inch ( 165 mm) Ratio=3.75 Too big
7.0 inch (178mm) Ratio=4.0 Just ok- acceptable
8.0 inch (203 mm) Ratio=4.6 Great fit_

This brings me to interesting observation that wearing a 39 mm watch on a 7 inch wrist has a a very similar Ratio as wearing a 44mm watch on an 8 inch wrist. That is, a ratio of about 4.6.

For reference, here are the conversions for wrist size
6 inch = 152.5 mm
6.5inch = 165mm
7inch = 178mm
7.5inch= 190.5mm
8.0inch = 203mm
8.5 inch = 216mm

I realize I am opening myself up to ridicule for being too analytical but I think it's a pretty useful way to work out a rough guide and obviously does not take into account lug shape etc. What do you think? Has someone worked this out before? Have I got too much time on my hands? Can this concept be improved on?

Cam


----------



## wristclock (Jul 5, 2010)

Wow you know your a WIS when you make a mathematical watch sizing guide!


----------



## averagejoe303 (May 7, 2011)

This is possibly one the greatest discoveries in human history....man has progressed


----------



## woodsworth (Apr 26, 2011)

wristclock said:


> Wow you know your a WIS when you make a mathematical watch sizing guide!


Hahaha... That cracked me up.

Nonetheless, awesome contribution Camb66!


----------



## brandon\ (Aug 23, 2010)

Interesting...

I like it!

I did it for my watches and there may be some truth to it.

My wrist size: 7.25 inches = 185 mm

Ratios:
Seiko Monster - 4.40
Citizen BN0000-04H - 4.51
Bulova Precisionist Claremont - 4.20
Casio G-Shock Mudman - 4.02


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Apr 30, 2005)

Makes sense to me. Let's assume the human wrist is approximately an ellipse with major axis say twice the minor axis (ie twice as wide as thick.)Then assume that the watch diameter is approx the same as the width of the wrist (major axis). Then if you work out the circumference of the ellipse you'll find that the ratio of circumference to major axis is approx. 5. You'd probably want the ratio to be less than that as you don't want the watch to overhang your wrist.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

averagejoe303 said:


> This is possibly one the greatest discoveries in human history....man has progressed


i knew it would rock your world!


----------



## majikat (Jun 12, 2011)

I think you have too much time on your hands !!! you need another hobby or part time job !! Haha !


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

I like it. 

A 4.5 ratio on my 7 1/8 inch wrists puts me at a 40-41mm watch which is exactly what I prefer. 

Furthermore your upper and lower range would equate to 36mm to 45mm, which would be extremes for me.

Well done.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

cedargrove said:


> I like it.
> 
> A 4.5 ratio on my 7 1/8 inch wrists puts me at a 40-41mm watch which is exactly what I prefer.
> 
> ...


i was just in the shower where i do all my best thinking and it dawned on me that dividing the total wrist by the ratios 4 and 5 gives you a minimum and maximum ! You just beat me to pointing that out!

eg 7 inch (178mm) gives me a minimum of 35.6mm and a maximum of 44.5 mm


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

majikat said:


> I think you have too much time on your hands !!! you need another hobby or part time job !! Haha !


On holidays and a bit bored!!!


----------



## 00Photo (Jan 4, 2008)

No No No No!!! It's Length times diameter plus weight over girth............


----------



## timothyday (May 6, 2011)

I like all of this. 




Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk


----------



## WnS (Feb 20, 2011)

I think you can impose certain conditions to account for various watch styles.

1. Dive watches should use bezel diameter should be used instead of case diameter. Some divers have tapered cases so a 44mm Oris Diver wears like a 40mm due to the 40mm bezel.
2. Cushion cased watches should use vertical case length rather than the formal 4 to 10 measurement for case diameter.


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

for a 6.5 inch wrist (165.1), the max is 41mm, minimum is 33. The minimum feels a bit small, but maximum is dead on. I prefer anything between 36-41.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

But . . . What about watches that wear bigger or smaller than what their measurements would indicate? ;-)


----------



## 3th3r (Jul 20, 2011)

What about rectangular watches?


----------



## ericxd (Mar 27, 2011)

I have a 7.5 wrist and I should prefer 45-50. I dont like it when the case diameter is too small.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

3th3r said:


> What about rectangular watches?


didn't think about them- let me think about that one!


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

ericxd said:


> I have a 7.5 wrist and I should prefer 45-50. I dont like it when the case diameter is too small.


According to the theory your range is from 38 to 47.5mm. If you show me a wrist shot of you with a 50mm watch and it looks like it fits, id be happy to to proved wrong. ;-) But you wear what you like, this is just a guide.


----------



## triplekia (Dec 11, 2010)

00Photo said:


> No No No No!!! It's Length times diameter plus weight over girth............


Lol, that was the first thing that popped into my mind. Adjusted wrist size or TMI.


----------



## Seele (Jan 9, 2010)

Hmm... I suspect the thickness of the watch also has something to do with that as well.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

Seele said:


> Hmm... I suspect the thickness of the watch also has something to do with that as well.


No doubt


----------



## Haf (Aug 9, 2009)

Lug to lug length also pays a crucial role, some watches have long lugs and tend to hang or occupy the whole wrist without necessarily being attached to a large diameter case. A refined algorithm should take into the account even the angle of the lugs.

Also, as a European and software developer thinking with an analytical mind most of the time, I chuckled a bit when I saw this thread:-d


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

camb66 said:


> didn't think about them- let me think about that one!


Stop wasting water ;-)


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

Haf said:


> Lug to lug length also pays a crucial role, some watches have long lugs and tend to hang or occupy the whole wrist without necessarily being attached to a large diameter case. *A refined algorithm should take into the account even the angle of the lugs.*
> 
> Also, as a European and software developer thinking with an analytical mind most of the time, I chuckled a bit when I saw this thread:-d


You are entering territory that is out of my league now!


----------



## Brisman (Mar 10, 2011)

I thought this was how you judged sizing.

1. Put it on.
2. Look at it from different angles, including in mirror.(angles, mathematical?)
3. Do you like it?
4. What will others say? 
5. Bugger them.
6. Buy it.
7. Enjoy it.

Maths was never my strong point. Have a good one.


----------



## Sodiac (Dec 6, 2008)

I like it. What happens with weird shapes, like this:


----------



## Bleh (Dec 6, 2008)

Sodiac said:


> I like it. What happens with weird shapes, like this:
> 
> View attachment 523796


you get into integral calculus.


----------



## Blowfeld (Aug 9, 2011)

No ridicule from me, this should be a stickie!!!!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner


----------



## Daboryder (May 11, 2011)

Read the children's book "Stephanie's Ponytail" by Robert Munsch and apply that philosophy to buying and wearing watches, or anything else for that matter.

"it's my ponytail and I like it."


----------



## Daboryder (May 11, 2011)

Read the children's book "Stephanie's Ponytail" by Robert Munsch and apply that philosophy to buying and wearing watches, or anything else for that matter.

"it's my ponytail and I like it."


----------



## WnS (Feb 20, 2011)

For weird shaped watches, I propose that we calculate the area of the watch case and find the circle that has the same area.

A = pi*r^2
A = pi*(d/2)^2
A = pi*d^2/4

d^2 = 4*A/pi
d = sqrt(4*A/pi)

So a 40mm x 40mm square watch would be the equivalent of a circular watch with diameter:

d = sqrt(4*(40*40)/pi)
d = 45mm

I realise that the area of a Panerai watch is very hard to calculate.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

camb66 said:


> didn't think about them- let me think about that one!


I think you'd have to measure them diagonally, since that tells a truer story of the size than straight across. I think my Monaco is 38mm across, but it wears WAY more like 42 than 38.

Anyway, here are my ratios (197mm):
Hamilton Jazzmaster: *4.47727273
*Hamilton Sunset: *4.2826087*
Hamilton Scuba: *4.69047619*
Omega Speedmaster: *4.69047619*
Marathon JSAR: *4.22746781*
Chase-Durer UDT: *4.47727273*
Tawatec H3 Ti: *4.47727273*
Halios Bluering: *4.47727273
*Helson Shark Diver: *4.37777778
*Seiko Sumo: *4.47727273*
Seiko 6309-7040: *4.47727273 *(This is deceiving, since it wears so much smaller than this)
Tag Heuer Monaco: *4.69047619 *(Estimated at 42)
Glycine Officer: *4.47727273
*Bernhardt Officer: *4.47727273

*Um, I think that's everything. So I've identified what I think are a few flaws with the system. The case measurement doesn't tell the whole story. I think you'll need to run a similar ratio for lug to lug as well to get the entire picture. The square watch thing has already been addressed, so we're good there. I've always said my range is 42-48mm. According to this equation, my true range is:

39.4mm to 49.25mm


----------



## lostguy (Sep 20, 2011)

I'm wearing a 44mm watch right now with only a 6.5" wrist. That gives me a ratio of 3.75, which should be too big according to your theory. I'd say the watch just about fits (no hanging lugs either). Judge for yourself.
(slightly blurry pic)


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

Your formula is too simple and is missing several important criteria including: shape of lugs, lug-to-lug distance, height of the watch, how the strap/bracelet fits, shape of the case(round, square, rectangle, how the individual likes the look of the watch, etc.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

John MS said:


> Your formula is too simple and is missing several important criteria including: shape of lugs, lug-to-lug distance, height of the watch, how the strap/bracelet fits, shape of the case(round, square, rectangle, how the individual likes the look of the watch, etc.


i wanted t keep it relatively simple or else it becomes useless to most people. You are correct though, there are other factors you could consider if you really want a watch that fall out of the range.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

lostguy said:


> I'm wearing a 44mm watch right now with only a 6.5" wrist. That gives me a ratio of 3.75, which should be too big according to your theory. I'd say the watch just about fits (no hanging lugs either). Judge for yourself.
> (slightly blurry pic)
> 
> View attachment 523876


No problem, Im not saying you shouldn't have it. the fact that you just said it "just about fits" sits nicely with the system to me. Perhaps large pilots watches are supposed to be on the larger side of things. Having said that i just tried on an IWC pilot on a 7 inch wrist at about 40mm and it fitted like a glove to me.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

Works well for me and I think it's a great formula for use as a general guide. For watches that come close to the upper or lower end of your range you'd need to consider the other factors such as lug to lug length, dial diameter, case shape and thickness etc. Perhaps some of these variables could be included in the equation (I'm no mathemetician!) but provided you have at least some experience in wearing different types of watches I think you can make your own conclusions regarding their influences.


----------



## DPflaumer (May 12, 2010)

I love it. All the watches I own fall between 4.45 and 4.68.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

DPflaumer said:


> I love it. All the watches I own fall between 4.45 and 4.68.


In my opinion, thats pretty much perfect!


----------



## bluloo (Nov 24, 2008)

Interesting.

I think I'd have to use width, rather than diameter to calculate my optimal ratios. 

The diameter of my wrist doesn't have as much bearing on what does, or doesn't, look 'right', as much as the visible width of wristmeat sitting just beneath a timepiece.


----------



## Watchalex (Oct 9, 2011)

camb66 said:


> I'm sure that some mathematician has worked this out before but I worked out the following ratio system for assessing the appropriate size for a watch on a wrist.
> 
> Its pretty simple
> *
> ...


This is fantastic work. I tried it out with my 170mm wrist. 34mm watch is exactly 5. 42mm watch is quite exactly 4. And it is indeed within these parameters that I can pretty much safely wear a watch. If it gets smaller or bigger it depends on the watch. I have a little more leeway to the bigger side as my wrist is flat with a 56mm wrist top.

It would be also good to make the same chart with wrist top size, how large your wrist is, and the lug-to-lug size of the watch. Basically the lugs shouldn't overhang the wrist. If both are given, then it will most likely look at least OK.


----------



## GuySie (Jan 14, 2008)

Cool!


----------



## Loddonite (Jun 15, 2008)

This is great stuff - pushing the boundaries of WISdom.
I am attracted to camb's theory as modified by WnS, 4 and 5 seem to be the golden numbers.

I will be looking at wrist-shots in future to see if there is an arm-hair modifier.


----------



## sf_loft (Nov 22, 2011)

camb66 said:


> didn't think about them- let me think about that one!


How bout square watches? I just picked up a BR 03-51 GMT and I have a very small wrist 6.8 wrist and the case is 42mm. Looks big at first, but I'm getting used to it and actually like the look. I think as long as the case does not over hang and that you like the look, go with it. My friends think it's too big, but I like the look.


----------



## redkelpie (Oct 8, 2010)

This formula actually worries me; the danger is that a bureaucrat in government somewhere will be reading this, and will be cooking up some way to profit from it. This has dire ramifications for skinny guys like me, who love massive watches on our scrawny wrists. I wake in fright at the thought that laws could be passed, making a 'correctly' sized & fitted watch compulsory. 'Watch Police' would patrol streets & public transport; I could be arrested & charged for enjoying my 51mm monster on my 6.5" wrist - a clear violation of all that is fit and proper in the guidelines. Further charges would be laid due to the overhanging lugs; yet further charges would arise due to excess bracelet length. The fact that I love my big watch to overpower my wrist would carry no weight as a defence in court. There is a formula for correct watch/wrist ratio, and it must be adhered to.
Or perhaps I should be taxed for wearing a watch that is palpably excessive, in the same way that is proposed for owners of SUV's. Big, heavy watches would be taxed so heavily that we would all be rushing to the nearest service station to pick up a plastic digital. My post is made tongue firmly in cheek, but all the same you just never know, especially in these perilous economic times.... Take care brothers!


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

redkelpie said:


> This formula actually worries me; the danger is that a bureaucrat in government somewhere will be reading this, and will be cooking up some way to profit from it. This has dire ramifications for skinny guys like me, who love massive watches on our scrawny wrists. I wake in fright at the thought that laws could be passed, making a 'correctly' sized & fitted watch compulsory. 'Watch Police' would patrol streets & public transport; I could be arrested & charged for enjoying my 51mm monster on my 6.5" wrist - a clear violation of all that is fit and proper in the guidelines. Further charges would be laid due to the overhanging lugs; yet further charges would arise due to excess bracelet length. The fact that I love my big watch to overpower my wrist would carry no weight as a defence in court. There is a formula for correct watch/wrist ratio, and it must be adhered to.
> Or perhaps I should be taxed for wearing a watch that is palpably excessive, in the same way that is proposed for owners of SUV's. Big, heavy watches would be taxed so heavily that we would all be rushing to the nearest service station to pick up a plastic digital. My post is made tongue firmly in cheek, but all the same you just never know, especially in these perilous economic times.... Take care brothers!


Victoria is the "Nanny" State so watch out! ;-)


----------



## donoharm (Nov 23, 2011)

the problem with this thread is that the human wrist is not an ellipse. a rectangular model is most applicable with the ratio being the length of the side.


----------



## Scottish Steve (Sep 7, 2010)

This is great. Though I would say a ratio of 4.5 to 5.2 is ideal. I have a 190mm wrist, so this gives me between 36mm and 42mm, which is my preferred sizing bracket for analog and steel watches. Having said that, my Vector looks good on me at FIFTY TWO MILLIMETRES, which is a ratio of 3.6. I think this is a special case, due to the nature of the piece


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

So pleased to see this thread pop up every now and again. I look back on the original post and wonder what on earth was on my mind when I developed that formula!


----------



## AngryBaconGod (Nov 11, 2011)

Having a background in mathematics, and also being kinda ... intent... on formalizing systems, I really like this approach.

I do believe that lug to lug would tell a better story than watch face diameter. That's from the perspective of a watch looking to big on a male wrist if it tends to overhang the wrist. Men can get away with big blocks of metal on their wrists in general.

It goes without saying that it's a guide, not an absolute. Dress watches should generally be smaller than pilot watches, for example.

There's no substitute for putting a watch on your wrist and looking at it, but something like this can help when one is internet shopping, with no opportunity to try before one buys.

Great work!

ABG

EDIT: your calculation gives me a watch range between 38mm and 47.5mm. I have a watch with a 44mm width which seems about as large as I should go, so that's a pretty good correlation.


----------



## ron swanson (May 27, 2012)

Thought I'd dig this up for my first post. Cracking idea by the way. Its basically spot on for me. 6.4" wrists. My mums are wider and she lets me know it! 

34mm is my bottom limit which I could get away with with a dress watch. 42mm is my top limit which is as big as I'd go, for a diver mind you. Not a pilot watch as it would look massive. 38-39mm is around my ideal size for something like the Sinn 556. 

I usually prefer shorted lug-lug watches with a low height.

Cheers.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

ron swanson said:


> Thought I'd dig this up for my first post. Cracking idea by the way. Its basically spot on for me. 6.4" wrists. My mums are wider and she lets me know it!
> 
> 34mm is my bottom limit which I could get away with with a dress watch. 42mm is my top limit which is as big as I'd go, for a diver mind you. Not a pilot watch as it would look massive. 38-39mm is around my ideal size for something like the Sinn 556.
> 
> ...


Some of my best work!!!! Welcome to the forum!


----------



## Bubblemunche (Apr 27, 2006)

Two thumbs up, and this is definitely a thread worth reviving. Your ratio is generally true for most of the watches I own.


----------



## LesserBlackDog (Jun 24, 2011)

This formula may work well for people with "average" sized wrists but I feel like it gets a little out-of-whack for people on either side of the spectrum. For example, as a 6-inch-wrister, my ideal watch size would evidently be somewhere between 30 and 38mm. I've got a few 34mm vintage watches and they feel like a great size, but I would hesitate to wear anything smaller - especially anything that wears small. The vintage pieces I have are dress watches that wear bigger than their size, if anything. On the other hand, I feel like I can pretty easily wear a 40mm watch without looking silly, especially if it's something sporty like a diver. 

For the other extreme, I'm pretty sure a 50mm watch will look disproportionately on any wrist, even an 8-incher, even though this formula puts a 50mm watch into the "normal" size range.

I don't know if it's just that the ratios get skewed at the extremes or what, but I think people on the smaller end can wear slightly larger watches, and people on the larger end, slightly smaller ones, than these ratios would indicate.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

LesserBlackDog said:


> For the other extreme, I'm pretty sure a 50mm watch will look disproportionately on any wrist, even an 8-incher, even though this formula puts a 50mm watch into the "normal" size range.


I don't know about that. There are a few guys on this forum with 8" to 8.5" wrists, and I was quite surprised how small a 40mm to 42mm watch looked on them. I think these guys could easily wear 50mm. And don't forget that 50mm would be at the upper end of the 8" wrist size.

This is coming from someone who generally thinks large watches are silly. I have been recently convinced that there is a place for large watches - on large wrists.


----------



## forsberg (Feb 14, 2011)

What about the shape of the wrist?

My wrist measures 6.5, but my bone is very wide and flat, and not in a circular. So looking top down, my wrist width measures 55mm at the narrowest point, and the height is 40mm.


----------



## jay1 (May 31, 2012)

I'm going to disagree with this I have a 6 inch wrist which would mean I could only wear a 30.5-38mm watch, but I am currently wearing a 47mm (3.2 ratio) watch lug to lug (face is 41mm (3.7 ratio)) and it looks completely average, it is definitely not too big. 

I measured the long diameter of my wrist and it is about 57mm and I actually think that is the size that matters, not the whole circumference.

You definitely just can't have a 'magic ratio', it depends on the person and the watch.


----------



## gouverneur (Jun 7, 2012)

ron swanson said:


> Thought I'd dig this up for my first post. Cracking idea by the way. Its basically spot on for me. 6.4" wrists. My mums are wider and she lets me know it!
> 
> 34mm is my bottom limit which I could get away with with a dress watch. 42mm is my top limit which is as big as I'd go, for a diver mind you. Not a pilot watch as it would look massive. 38-39mm is around my ideal size for something like the Sinn 556.
> 
> ...


I'm in the exact same boat, though I think even a 32mm watch is perfectly fine -- that was probably the average men's watch size 80 years ago.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

jay1 said:


> I'm going to disagree with this I have a 6 inch wrist which would mean I could only wear a 30.5-38mm watch, but I am currently wearing a 47mm (3.2 ratio) watch lug to lug (face is 41mm (3.7 ratio)) and it looks completely average, it is definitely not too big.
> 
> I measured the long diameter of my wrist and it is about 57mm and I actually think that is the size that matters, not the whole circumference.
> 
> You definitely just can't have a 'magic ratio', it depends on the person and the watch.


I agree that a big part of this is the lug-to-lug measurement compared to the width of the wrist. This is why for example a Panerai wears reasonably well on smaller wrist sizes in spite of the 44mm case diameter, because it has extremely compact lugs.


----------



## marchone (Dec 20, 2007)

I think perhaps one element being overlooked here is what we are accustomed to. Men's watches have become larger over the last decade and we have become used to seeing them.

The formula presented here puts 42mm on my 170mm wrist at 4.047 which would suggest 42mm to be the largest I should wear. While I am not a fan of very large watches, two I own are 43mm and that is the largest I am comfortable with. The formula gives them a value of 3.95, under the formula's ideal.

The last point I wish to make is wrist size does not tell the whole story. A person's height and build impacts it. I am 6'-4" and 195lbs and I have a thin 170mm/6.7" wrist. I personally feel that a 36mm watch looks tiny on me. The value for that is 4.7.


----------



## akasnowmaaan (Jan 15, 2012)

Thinkin' too hard.

What we need is a formula to translate the watch itself to that 4.0-5.0 ratio, based on a few factors.

Like, I know without a shadow of a doubt that taller watches wear smaller than shorter watches of the same diameter. So, height should be an inverse function.

Square watches wear bigger because they literally cover more surface area, so they could probably be converted to a raw area (L x W) then coverted to the same area in a circle, then figure out the ratio of how much bigger they appear.

I...I could have turned this into a thesis in college.


----------



## Doboji (Dec 21, 2011)

Doesn't really work for mammoth wrists.. My wrists are somewhere around 9" and this suggests I should be wearing 48-50mm watches... And while I can pull it off... I think I can't really. Also it suggests that anything under 46mm looks too small and they don't. You need a way to curve the calculation at the upper and lower ends... Maybe subtract or add 10-15 to the wrist size to adjust if you exceed 8" or fall below 6.5?


----------



## Nephro (Jun 17, 2010)

This formula is great! With my 6.75 in wrist, my max size is 43mm. A 44mm is a bit big but I can usually get away with it. For any larger watch I will have to wait till I get my wrist implants and then I'll be just fine!


----------



## Vivian886 (Dec 6, 2008)

Great work! Even such a basic formula has proven very accurate for me. My 5.45 inch wrists have a minimum of 29.5mm and a maximum of 34mm according to the ratio formula. Amazingly, the smallest watch I own in my collection happens to be 29.5mm with the largest at 34mm (any smaller than 29.5mm looks lost on my wrist, and any bigger than 34mm in many cases either feel too bulky or has lug overhang), so the formula is spot on for me.

I'd like to point out though that the shape of the wrist is also a huge factor, as flat wrists can wear watches larger than their max calculation. The formula doesn't take wrist shape into account, and assumes the same wrist shape for everyone. For eg., my flat wrists can pull off a 37mm watch as long as the lugs are no longer than 42mm.


----------



## LaPeBe (Feb 28, 2012)

Interesting for sure. Will see if I can agree when the Armida A1 arrives. 

Skickat från min GT-I9100 via Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-ST8 (Nov 12, 2012)

You have the best username on this board. I always had a suspicion that Ron Swanson was a WIS in addition to master woodworker.



ron swanson said:


> Thought I'd dig this up for my first post. Cracking idea by the way. Its basically spot on for me. 6.4" wrists. My mums are wider and she lets me know it!
> 
> 34mm is my bottom limit which I could get away with with a dress watch. 42mm is my top limit which is as big as I'd go, for a diver mind you. Not a pilot watch as it would look massive. 38-39mm is around my ideal size for something like the Sinn 556.
> 
> ...


----------



## millenbop (May 23, 2012)

Good rule of thumb! Glad I found this. I'm currently debating if I should buy a 40 mm or a 44 mm watch next. The 40 mm version, that I ordered, is out of stock, but not the 44 mm. 170/4 = 42.5 mm, so I think I should stick to my original order. My biggest watch I have right now is 45 mm and I think it's a tad too big. 

Also, for square watches, I would use the diagonal instead och just measuring across (sorry if it's been suggested, just skimmed through the last pages).


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Sheesh.

For my 210mm wrists, a factor of 4 would be 52mm, and a factor of 5 would be 42. I wear watches ranging from 34 to 45mm.

Now, who's wrong? _It's my ponytail and I like it._

The issue here is that we like what we train our eyes to like. I wear smaller watches and have thus not allowed myself to forget what they look like on my wrist. I can wear my 36mm vintage Ebel or Longines and both are just perfect--for dress watches. I don't wear them at casual outdoor events. But I really don't want to wear anything bigger than my Ebel Sportwave Aquatica or Classic Hexagon, both of which are 45mm, because those already push the boundaries of what I have trained my eyes to appreciate.

Watches don't look feminine on masculine wrists, no matter how small they are. Max can complain that a small watch looks stupid on his 9" wrists, but even if it were so (and I don't think it is), nobody is going to mention it. But undefined wrists on men who look as though they could use some time with a set of barbells do indeed look silly when wearing ultra-masculine behemoths. Sorry, that's my opinion. Given my current thickened state, I'm not going to wear a watch that looks like it belongs on Sergeant Rock. But I have done enough real work in my life so that my arms don't look like my wife's.

Then, there are the confident among us to can also wear large watches because of the way they carry themselves. You know who you are. For them, a really large watch is a statement not of masculinity--that isn't in doubt--but as a conversation piece. Conversation pieces take confidence.

The advantage Max and I have is that we are free to wear large watches if we choose to. We can also wear small watches if we choose to, and if we train our eyes to appreciate them.

That said, style is important. My 34mm dress watches don't looks as small as my 35.5mm Zodiac Aerospace GMT on a bracelet. That watch has a bezel, and it just looks like it ought to be bigger. On a strap it would be fine, I think. (Experiment forthcoming when I find the right strap for it.)

The first requirement of an empirical mathematical model is to include the relevant factors and exclude those that are not relevant. Figuring out which is which is the tricky bit.

Rick "is that an ant hill I just stepped in?" Denney


----------



## ev13wt (Oct 21, 2013)

Need to factor in the flatness of a wrist!?


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

your math is flawed....

it's all about the Lugs and Case!!!! a 46mm bulova precionist doesn't wear the same as a 46mm Panerai or a 46mm g-shock

/thread


----------



## incontrol (Sep 11, 2010)

Great post! I am enjoying the scientific discovery of my wrist size and watch size ratio! So intriguing.


----------



## Archer7 (Nov 21, 2013)

OK. Curiosity got the better of me. The formula gives me a range of 35-43mm. Pretty darn close. Pretty much 37 - 41mm always looks good on me. I haven't tried smaller than 37. At 42, it depends on the lugs.


----------



## fredrick (Oct 3, 2012)

John MS said:


> Your formula is too simple and is missing several important criteria including: shape of lugs, lug-to-lug distance, height of the watch, how the strap/bracelet fits, shape of the case(round, square, rectangle, how the individual likes the look of the watch, etc.


+1
Also wrist shapes vary. Two people can have a 7" wrist; Yet, one could be large boned and skinny with a wide wrist and the other one short and a more rounded wrist.

A better formula would be: (w-l=0 or >0) Wrist width minus Lug to Lug width equals Zero or greater than Zero to not have the watch be wider than the wrist)


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

how about no math... wear what you like...


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

Memphis1 said:


> how about no math... wear what you like...


That would eliminate almost half of the threads on this forum!


----------



## maverickmonk (Nov 27, 2013)

I think that for extremes, a bit of a bell curve distribution should be applied. For instance. With a 6" wrist, the suggested range would be 30mm to 38mm. I like my 38mm watch but I don't think I'd get any arguments if I said that 30mm on my 6' frame would look ridiculous. Conversely, a gentleman with a very large wrist would be 'limited' to pie plates. Now, this is all just mental exercise since no one here is suggesting the formula be an end all of information. I like the idea on the elipse. Perhaps a formula approximating the wrist as an elips, becoming more eccentric as it shrinks, would be more effective...hmmm I'll get back I you all on that one 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David8b (Feb 16, 2013)

Sorry, but you guys have WAAAAY too much free time on your hands!!!


----------



## maverickmonk (Nov 27, 2013)

Nope, this is significantly more fun than studying for my physics exam 


David8b said:


> Sorry, but you guys have WAAAAY too much free time on your hands!!!


----------



## Quotron (Dec 6, 2013)

9 pages and not a single mention of fibonacci numbers or the golden ratio?


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

It's all quite simple actually...:



I can't believe it's taken 9 pages before a couple of memes.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

Haha - cannot believe that this thread never dies.


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

My calculation of simpler:

W = wrist circumference in inches
D = diameter of the watch in millimeters

D = W x (1/W) + 37


----------



## millenbop (May 23, 2012)

You should replace 37 with preferred diameter


----------



## Shutterbug57 (Nov 15, 2013)

The formula does not work too well for me. I have an 8" wrist, so the recommended range, per the formula, is 40.64mm to 50.8mm. In reality, I wear from a 35mm vintage Seamaster










to a Sub @ 40mm










to a Breitling @ 43mm










I feel that the Breitling is pretty much at my upper end and it is roughly 8mm lower than the top end of the formula. FWIW, when I mic my wrist, it is 69mm wide where I wear my watch.

I pretty much have not gotten into the dinner plate on my wrist fashion statement. I remember when I got my Sub thinking it was absolutely HUGE. It is 13 years old and current trends have moved toward larger watches, but I wonder how long that will last. The classic vintage watches still look great IMHO.


----------



## BGPT23 (Feb 26, 2013)

This thread is hilarious, I wish I had found it sooner!

I noticed the question had been raised of how to factor square/rectangular watches into the equation, and I think I may have an answer:

Calculate the area (length X width) of the square or rectangular case, and then find what size circle would have approximately the same area*. Once you have calculated the diameter of a circular watch that would have approximately the same area as the square/rectangular watch, use the circular watch diameter you found, not the diameter of the original square watch, to see if the square watch is within your wearable range.

*There are circle area calculators readily available on the web, for those who do not wish to deal with the slightly more complicated circle area formula.

Using this method, you can find that a 42mm X 42mm square watch will have about the same area as a 47mm circular watch, and, in theory, should appear about the same size on wrist. I'm not saying that this method is perfect, but I think it works to an extent, as I think we can all agree that square watches appear much larger than round watches of the same diameter: I would wear a 42mm round watch without hesitation, but a 42mm square watch would look massive on my wrist, just like a 47mm round watch with the same area would.

The Time Bum's recent review of the Lew & Huey Riccardo compares the 42mm round watch to the Tag Heuer Monaco, a 38mm square watch, and states that the two appear quite similar in size, despite the difference in diameter, due to the difference in case shape. I've included a picture from the review so that you can see for yourself that the two indeed appear very close in size. When you use my method of comparing the area of each watch, you will find that the two watches are indeed very close in area. I recognize that other factors such as lug-to-lug length, case height, dial colour, dial width, etc, all play a part in the perceived size of a watch as well, but I think that this method can be used to determine approximately how large a square watch is, compared to a round one.


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

millenbop said:


> You should replace 37 with preferred diameter


My calculation, I get to choose the constants.....


----------



## millenbop (May 23, 2012)

lysanderxiii said:


> My calculation, I get to choose the constants.....


Doh! Atleast name it K, where K=37


----------



## d2t (Mar 19, 2013)

This is awesome. How did I miss this thread?

The ratio for all my watches is between 4.2 and 4.5, so this is dead-on.

For non-circular watches, I supposed we could use the diameter of the circumscribed circle and this formula will work nicely.

I wonder if we can put up a poll/survey where-in we can provide the wrist diameter and the min and the max values of this ratio based on watches owned/liked.
It might actually make a nice article for some Watch/Horology magazine.

Being stuck with skinny wrists, I hope such a survey will provide some cue to the watch makers to produce more (and affordable) watches for the small-wristed like me. 

Cheers.


----------



## WatchTheTime7 (Feb 20, 2013)

great thread. bumping


----------



## Gatis (Apr 15, 2012)

OP! Two things not considered if you want to be really precise with a coefficient like this.

*"Flatness" of wrists' ellipse*. Generally more leaner, fitter person is, more flatter is the ellipse of wrist. And opposite - more obese one is - more round is a wrist. Watch to be in a visual proportion actually is visually measured to the flat part of ellipse.

In your calculation flat or round wrists get the same proportion just from circumference. This is how it comes to 50mm or more being Ok for round wrists when its not and often skinny but flat wrists can afford larger diameters, just because the wrists are flat and watch does not sit too large, but again your formula restricts that.

This is easy correctable, by implementing height/width coefficient of the wrist.

*Lug length* - that often plays major role of being too big/small or not. Lug to lug distance is also answer to non round watches.


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

Gatis said:


> OP! Two things not considered if you want to be really precise with a coefficient like this.
> 
> *"Flatness" of wrists' ellipse*. Generally more leaner, fitter person is, more flatter is the ellipse of wrist. And opposite - more obese one is - more round is a wrist. Watch to be in a visual proportion actually is visually measured to the flat part of ellipse.


i have 5% body fat and round wrists, my flexor and extensor carpi lunaris and extensor digitorum are big enough to roundout the top of my wrists


----------



## bk201 (Aug 27, 2013)

majikat said:


> I think you have too much time on your hands !!! you need another hobby or part time job !! Haha !


... or another 4.6 ratio sized watch


----------



## bk201 (Aug 27, 2013)

people are giving me weird looks at work, while I wrap the USB cable from my computer mouse around my wrist and measure that with a ruler. But this really works!


----------



## Drumguy (Jun 24, 2014)

I like your idea but I have to agree with the lug to lug crowd. Also, the dial to case ratio will change how the watch wears. My Citizen Perpetual Chrono is 45mm but does not look as large as my Tissot Tradition 42mm as the latter is more dial than case. The same can be said for my Visodate 40mm verses my Intra-Matic 38mm the Visodate has a beveled case and the Intra-Matic is all dial so it looks and wears like a 40mm.


----------



## pyiyha (Aug 9, 2006)

Ray MacDonald said:


> Makes sense to me. Let's assume the human wrist is approximately an ellipse with major axis say twice the minor axis (ie twice as wide as thick.)Then assume that the watch diameter is approx the same as the width of the wrist (major axis). Then if you work out the circumference of the ellipse you'll find that the ratio of circumference to major axis is approx. 5. You'd probably want the ratio to be less than that as you don't want the watch to overhang your wrist.


With this premise, the ratio should be about 1.58*pi = 4.96... but as you have noted, you probably want the ratio to be a bit smaller so that the watch doesn't overhang, so probably about 4.5 is ideal.


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

Memphis1 said:


> i have 5% body fat and round wrists,* my flexor and extensor carpi lunaris and extensor digitorum* are big enough to roundout the top of my wrists


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2015)

Gatis said:


> OP! Two things not considered if you want to be really precise with a coefficient like this.


I don't think the point is to be precise, but rather to quickly and easily estimate the wearability (in terms of watch size) of a candidate watch.

FWIW 40-46mm case dia. are definitely my limits, with 42-44 being best on my 7.5" wrist, based on experience which also validates the OP's method.

Posted from a clumsy, buggy app that isn't much better than a mobile browser.


----------



## MCT (Nov 12, 2013)

Nice guide. I'm taking a screenshoot of ur chart for future reference 

But I think sometimes the problem of oversizing depends on the lug lengths as opposed to the dial size. Sometimes the lugs go past both sides the wrist, which is aesthetically unsound.


----------



## MCT (Nov 12, 2013)

this belongs to the ugly watch thread   


Bleh said:


> you get into integral calculus.


----------



## Bill Adler (Oct 4, 2013)

I like that formula. While there's no substitute to trying out a watch on your wrist, sometimes you just have to mail order . Your formula seems on target for my wrist size.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2015)

camb66 said:


> What is an acceptable ratio? I think using this formula, that an acceptable ratio falls between *4.0 and 5.0. *Anything below 4.0 is too big and anything above 5 is too small.


Here's an historical question for you: What would have been the "acceptable ratio" in past decades? I personally agree that 4.0-5.0 works best in the here and now, but what about then?

Posted from a clumsy, buggy app that isn't much better than a mobile browser.


----------



## luth_ukail (Jun 23, 2014)

thanks for posting. 

my wrist is 7.25 or 185mm. 

according to the favourable size, 4.6 is the best thus 40mm is most suitable. 

and now im looking into Cartier Ballon Bleu 39mm. Veli nice!


----------



## thenewcollector (Oct 26, 2013)

Thanks for the great post. My wrist is just under 6.5 inches, however, I think my orient looks great on it (a 41.5mm watch)










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## .I.AM.LEGEND. (Apr 2, 2015)

I love your formula. But I believe that a more accurate measure is using only the width of the wrist instead of the whole circumference since different people have different wrist thickness.


----------



## zdfhzgh (Apr 2, 2015)

Wow you know your a WIS when you make a mathematical watch sizing guide!


----------



## fozzie bear (Mar 23, 2015)

.I.AM.LEGEND. said:


> I love your formula. But I believe that a more accurate measure is using only the width of the wrist instead of the whole circumference since different people have different wrist thickness.


I agree with this thought. It would also be a bit more intuitive. The proportions everyone looks at when they take a wrist shot or look at their wrist is watch case diameter as a proportion of wrist width. In which case you'd do something like

wrist width in mm / case diameter in mm - with an acceptable range something like 0.5 to 0.8?

Although I will say the original formula does work pretty well for me. 7.25" wrist considering a 45.5 planet ocean. Just above 4.0 with the math. About as big as I could handle. My wrist is a bit wide on top for its circumference, though, so that's where considering width rather than circumference would help things.


----------



## SiNzz (Mar 29, 2009)

I hate to bring this thread back from the dead, but I finally stumped upon it after YEARS of reading all kinds things on the subject and it's proceeded to blow my mind. Of course, it could also be because it's 3:40 in the morning and I can't sleep...but still! Well done.


----------



## Pride (Apr 19, 2014)

In 2016 I can't help but bring this back too...why isn't this starred? so for a 40mm...I have 4.125 which is okay but ALMOST too big and I definitely agree.


----------



## kgtardiff (Jul 16, 2011)

Pretty cool work you have done on this. It seems to be accurate for me. Thanks for posting.


----------



## walt hamm (Nov 25, 2011)

I have to disagree with a blanket formula because it assumes the wrist is a cylinder and not oval-ish. Most people have a wrist more flat than round. I believe the best measure is the width of the wrist. One of the metrics of watch diameters is the lug to lug length and I believe that metric is the most important. The side to side diameter (9 and 3 ) is not as important given one has one's entire arm to take up the width of the watch.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

walt hamm said:


> I have to disagree with a blanket formula because it assumes the wrist is a cylinder and not oval-ish. Most people have a wrist more flat than round. I believe the best measure is the width of the wrist. One of the metrics of watch diameters is the lug to lug length and I believe that metric is the most important. The side to side diameter (9 and 3 ) is not as important given one has one's entire arm to take up the width of the watch.


I agree, and made a similar comment a while ago when this was first posted.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

walt hamm said:


> I have to disagree with a blanket formula because it assumes the wrist is a cylinder and not oval-ish. Most people have a wrist more flat than round. I believe the best measure is the width of the wrist. One of the metrics of watch diameters is the lug to lug length and I believe that metric is the most important. The side to side diameter (9 and 3 ) is not as important given one has one's entire arm to take up the width of the watch.


+2
The only way I know of to determine if a watch fits is to try it on. There are too many variables missing from that simplistic formula.


----------



## inferno9898 (Sep 11, 2015)

Also notable (and probably mentioned several times already in 12 threads) is that the actual dial diameter can have just as much influence on how big a watch looks as case diameter. My Le Locle is only 1mm bigger than my SARB035, but it looks huge in comparison due to the difference in bezel width.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

Its easy to knock true genius.


----------



## qcjulle (Jun 5, 2013)

Probably mentioned a couple of times in this thread already but lug-to-lug distance and lug curvature are more relevant than dial size. For my 6.25" wrist anything over 48mm L2L is almost certainly too big, even if the dial size is 40mm.

Unfortunately 98% of watch manufacturers do not report lug-to-lug distance.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

camb66 said:


> Its easy to knock true genius.


Let's just put it this way, you're not going to win the Fields Medal for this work.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

The problem with the approach proposed is that it is far from an optimal predictive tool. While wrist diameter is certainly positively correlated with how large diameter a watch one can comfortably wear, but other factors provide more reliable predictions (or at least more broadly applicable), like the width of one's wrist relative to the lug-to-lug length.


----------



## walt hamm (Nov 25, 2011)

mleok--I guess I am the Elisha Gray in this thread.


----------



## Los Endos (Mar 12, 2016)

Pride said:


> In 2016 I can't help but bring this back too...why isn't this starred? so for a 40mm...I have 4.125 which is okay but ALMOST too big and I definitely agree.


I agree. This is a pretty good baseline for those who need advice on a selecting a watch in this era of big watches. Nevertheless, it is a guide, not a rule. Personal taste and fashion still play a role, and well they should. This formula validates my 38mm as not being too small for me, but tells me that my 46mm (which results in 3.9ish according to the formula) is too big for me. Yet my wife and my daughter who are my "fashion consultants" (which means they basically dress me) like the 46mm more than the 38mm by a long shot. Math may be a hard science, but taste is still in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## 1afc (Mar 19, 2014)

OK So now you have got that sorted. 

Now we need to work out a formula for how long the straps have to be for each of those watches so there is enough strap left to tuck into the retainer loops. This problem to me is more frustrating that working out what watch size you want.

This is taken directly from the Einstein school of watchmaking and fashion 

Speed of light = 190mm (actually Wrist Diameter)
Cosmological constant = 40 (actually median watch distance lug to lug) 
Age of the universe = 190 + 40 = 230mm (actually total length of watch band)

For the buckle to meet at the bottom the buckle end should be half your wrist diameter minus half the lug to lug. But the manufacturers usually move it around from the bottom so it doesn't scrape on everything. Our beautiful formula takes care of this as well.

so buckle end length = speed of light/2 = 190/2 = 95 

Then the other length will be total length - buckle length +10mm 
this is 230-95 +10 = 135mm 
Why the extra 10mm? Because it looks better.

For every mm your watch is shorter than 40 then add that to the band length.
For every mm your watch is longer than 40 then subtract that from your watch band.
OR you can just put up with the different length. 

With this technical effort we'll be able to land a watch on Mars shortly.


----------



## SolomonSmith (Apr 17, 2013)

I don't usually agree with systems that try to quantify aesthetics, but I do think you're on to something here. Well done!


----------



## Tater99 (Feb 5, 2016)

I never thought about it like that!


----------



## whiskey golf (May 25, 2015)

Can we call this the coefficient of wearability, or CoW?


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Sure, ignoring different wrist shapes and lug length.


----------



## _XII_ (Jan 15, 2012)

Square watches have been mentioned in this thread.

Everything else being equal, the sides of a square watch with sharp 90 degree corners need to be about* 84,089641525371454303112547623321%* of the diameter of a round watch. To wear as big.

It should go without saying, that this ratio can't come from nowhere: It is fourth root of 2 = 1,1892071150027210667174999705605. Inversely 0,84089641525371454303112547623321. With this ratio The diagonal of a square drawn around the round watch / The diagonal of the square watch = The diagonal of the square watch / The diameter of the round watch (or the diagonal of a square drawn inside the round watch). A / B = B / C.
EDIT: And A^2 / B^2 = B^2 / C^2, if you want to think in terms of surface areas.

Simply matching the surface areas (using ratio of square root of Pi / 2 = 0,88622692545275801364908374167057) makes the square watch wear bigger.


----------



## busmatt (Aug 5, 2012)

Brisman said:


> 1. Put it on.
> 3. Do you like it?
> 4. What will others say?
> 5. Bugger them.
> ...


This X 1000

Matt

Brought to you by HYPNOTOAD


----------



## DanteX (May 2, 2016)

Well... looks like I buy watches too small or too big 

Is there a different sizing ratio for g-shocks?


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

1afc said:


> OK So now you have got that sorted.
> 
> Now we need to work out a formula for how long the straps have to be for each of those watches so there is enough strap left to tuck into the retainer loops. This problem to me is more frustrating that working out what watch size you want.
> 
> ...


It looks like you scienced the **** out of it.

David


----------



## VicLeChic (Jul 24, 2013)

What a great idea!

Damn it, my maximum watch size according to your calculations is 42.5mm (ratio 4). Does it mean I should get rid of my watches: 46mm SOH, 45.5mm PO, 45mm Perrelet Seacraft, 45mm Seawolf, 44.5mm Crepas Cayman...? Oh dear, I'm doomed. 

Wait a minute, shouldn’t lug to lug distance be more relevant than case size? If we use it in your equation and adjust the limit ratios accordingly, a ratio of 3 could be the absolute minimum to consider the size wearable, i.e when lugs don’t overhang. 
eg. Wrist size 170mm, lug to lug distance 55.5mm (SOH46), ratio 3. Anything below 3 is just too big (lugs overhang). In other words, the maximum lug to lug distance I can just about pull off without looking like a clown is 55.5mm.

Phew!!! I feel much better now J. I love maths.


----------



## Stoshman (Jun 26, 2015)

My watch sizing method is much simpler:

If the lugs extend past the edges of my wrist, it's too big. I want to see at least a little strap or bracelet above and below the watch without turning my wrist.


----------



## TLN (Jul 21, 2015)

This math works for me, however it does no cover longer or shorter lugs.


----------



## anton561 (Jul 23, 2014)

this seems to be pretty accurate but the shape of a wrist should also be a determinant, someone with a flatter wrist can wear a larger watch than someone with a narrower wrist but the same circumference.


----------



## Alastor (Sep 6, 2012)

Just my opinion, but this confirms what I've always thought.
My only watch is 40mm, my wrist is 6.5 inches. According to your guide it's a little above acceptable. I always thought it was just a TAD too big but science!


----------



## tunky996 (May 27, 2016)

pretty darn good... they'll always be watches that wear 'bigger' or 'smaller' but otherwise very good


----------



## JimBass (Aug 16, 2016)

Applying the formula I fall right in the center range 4.43 - 4.76. However, my Seiko SNE 329 and 331 make my Victorinox look small even though they have the same diameter cases (43 mm) due to the bezel/dial differences.


----------



## oztech (Apr 30, 2015)

I have a wrist that measures 7 3/8 to 7.5 depending on weather and swelling for the most part my wife said watches 38 to 40mm look the best.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

Its a neat little formula but should only be taken as a general guide, not as a hard and fast rule. What appears good to the human eye is a complex and inexact science. 

Issues like wrist shape and lug shape or lengths aside, different watch types look better in different sizes. For example dive and tool watches look more 'correct' and therefore better in slightly bigger sizes than an equally sized all-dial dress watch. Not to mention that perceptions vary according to current trends. What was considered standard watch sizes a few years ago is not today.


----------



## LikeClockWork (Jun 7, 2016)

this is a cool and interesting way to think about it, and probably works in most cases. however, there are a lot of situations where the lug to lug size of the watch is more important than the diameter, so as a general rule of thumb this is worth trying out, but won't always work


----------



## Micro (Apr 20, 2016)

The formula just confirms what I already know. That is a 43 mm watch is at the upper limit and a 36 mm watch is at the lower limit for my wrist, and the stated size range is where all my watches fall within.

Of course there are modifiers to this formula that I have not examined mathematically, such as lug length and width, watch height, case style, etc. So, the formula gives you a good base to work from and experience will provide the rest. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JTAbrams (Apr 28, 2016)

I have a 6.25 inch wrist. Which puts me between an ideal size between 32-40 mm watches. I have to say the formula is truly impressive, as 40mm is the upper limit for me to choose a watch without it appearing too big.

Amazing discovery


----------



## dapurdie (Jul 17, 2016)

Haha, Perfect. I think there is an app opportunity here somewhere...


wristclock said:


> Wow you know your a WIS when you make a mathematical watch sizing guide!


----------



## Alex De Large (Jun 20, 2014)

The greatest phenomenon since the invention of the car meant that you could visit the in laws and come back on the same day. Naturally there will be people who say its obvious isn't.


----------



## Alex De Large (Jun 20, 2014)

PS. you have rendered all those threads about is my watch too big for my wrist obsolete. Pity.


----------



## Tickstart (Oct 30, 2015)

There's nothing "mathematical" about this guide, it's not based on anything but arbitration. Why is a ration between 4 and 5 acceptable?


----------



## brodo (Jul 25, 2015)

Does strap/bracelet type and size affect how a watch wears too? My GS seems to overhang a tiny bit at times because the bracelet is a little too loose, but if I try to remove one more link it'll be too small.


----------



## Sub4 (May 5, 2009)

This formula does not take into account the type of watch. i.e: Sports watch, dress watch, fashion watch, smart watch, etc. Sports watch (pilot or divers watch) is often big for legibility purposes, and they often still look appropriate on a smaller to medium sized wrists.

Regards,
Louis


----------



## Robbie Steadman (May 26, 2016)

This is an awesome guild!


----------



## Smokeshopp (Dec 9, 2016)

I think it's a good formula, and in many cases could be quite useful. However, as stated above, it does not take into account the type of watch. A thick bezel can make a large watch look much smaller, as is the case with my Breitling Superocean Heritage 46. It should look massive on my 6.25 inch wrist, but the bezel reduces the size of the dial, and I can pull it off without issue.


----------



## Overwound (May 15, 2013)

I love this! Should we call it the Cam Ratio?


----------



## guccimanilla (Jul 23, 2016)

This would work a lot better with lug to lug length than case size.


----------



## Astropin (Dec 13, 2008)

Here is a 47.5mm on my 6.5" wrist. Should be WAY too big according to this. It's big but for a sporty diver I think it works just fine. Lugs do not extend outside my wrist.


----------



## yankeexpress (Apr 7, 2013)

Astropin said:


> Here is a 47.5mm on my 6.5" wrist. Should be WAY too big according to this. It's big but for a sporty diver I think it works just fine. Lugs do not extend outside my wrist.
> 
> View attachment 10868721
> View attachment 10868729


Those lugless watches are a special case, as the L2L is short for the bezel diameter.

BTW, it looks great on you.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Which just goes to show that this is an unnecessarily complicated formula that is full of fudge factors that yields inaccurate answers when either the watch or the wrist fails to satisfy the implicit assumptions about aspect ratios. I'm a professional mathematician and I cringe every time mathematical reasoning is applied so sloppily.

The relevant measurement is simply the lug-to-lug length relative to the width of the wrist. Put another way, don't let the lugs overhang your wrist.


----------



## 1afc (Mar 19, 2014)

camb66 said:


> i knew it would rock your world!


Maybe you'll get the Nobel Nato Strap prize for your contribution to horology.


----------



## TJMike (Jan 30, 2014)

Even lug to lug is not a perfect measurement if the lugs are curved such as on the Breguet Marine.


----------



## lgh0525 (Sep 23, 2016)

The range is a little big. But I suppose the range is of min-max and not appropriate size.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk


----------



## murokello (Aug 3, 2012)

guccimanilla said:


> This would work a lot better with lug to lug length than case size.


Yes. No formulas needed. Just make sure the lug to lug is less than wrist width.


----------



## Don Nghia (Mar 18, 2016)

Awesome


----------



## PeterAndersson (Jan 27, 2017)

Basically all those maths examples make the same misstake. They only consider wrist size.

If you have larger wrists doesnt make it good to use supersize. Basically everyone looks best on a size between 38 to 42. Noone should have larger watches than 45 mm watches no matter size of wrist.


----------



## TheSanDiegan (Jul 8, 2008)

mleok said:


> Which just goes to show that this is an unnecessarily complicated formula that is full of fudge factors that yields inaccurate answers when either the watch or the wrist fails to satisfy the implicit assumptions about aspect ratios.* I'm a professional mathematician and I cringe every time mathematical reasoning is applied so sloppily.*
> 
> The relevant measurement is simply the lug-to-lug length relative to the width of the wrist. Put another way, don't let the lugs overhang your wrist.


I'm a professional mathematician and I cringe every time a professional mathematician comes off so sanctimoniously (unless it's me, of course).

As I don't see any six sigma black belts rushing to the thread to set up any 2^k factorial experiments anytime soon, given the level of (and forum for) this discussion, IMHO the insights and discussion within this thread are worthy of praise and encouragement, not admonishment. As someone said upthread, no one is awarding the OP the Fields Medal, but there are many more constructive tacts you could have employed to constructively guide the discussion other than simply condemning its existence.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

TheSanDiegan said:


> I'm a professional mathematician and I cringe every time a professional mathematician comes off so sanctimoniously (unless it's me, of course).
> 
> As I don't see any six sigma black belts rushing to the thread to set up any 2^k factorial experiments anytime soon, given the level of (and forum for) this discussion, IMHO the insights and discussion within this thread are worthy of praise and encouragement, not admonishment. As someone said upthread, no one is awarding the OP the Fields Medal, but there are many more constructive tacts you could have employed to constructively guide the discussion other than simply condemning its existence.


I stand by what I said, not everything requires a mathematical solution, and in this instance, the mathematics added absolutely nothing in elucidating the issue at hand. The essential idea was obscured by irrelevant and unnecessary mathematical complications, when the criteria could have been succinctly expressed as not letting the lugs overhang the wrists.


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

mleok said:


> I stand by what I said, not everything requires a mathematical solution, and in this instance, the mathematics added absolutely nothing in elucidating the issue at hand. The essential idea was obscured by irrelevant and unnecessary mathematical complications, when the criteria could have been succinctly expressed as not letting the lugs overhang the wrists.


 This all started as a bit of fun, I am certainly not a mathematician and never sold the concept as the be all and end all. My area of expertise is Earth Science and Geography- i dont want to start world war 3 here, however, I think there is a bit more to sizing the right watch than whether the lugs overhang the wrist or not. I think a lot of people like the concept in this thread.


----------



## TheSanDiegan (Jul 8, 2008)

mleok said:


> I stand by what I said, not everything requires a mathematical solution, and in this instance, the mathematics added absolutely nothing in elucidating the issue at hand. The essential idea was obscured by irrelevant and unnecessary mathematical complications, when the criteria could have been succinctly expressed as not letting the lugs overhang the wrists.


I appreciate your perspective, but along with it is the erroneous implication that *a)* there is no objective, quantitative component to aesthetics (Nonsense. See: the Golden Ratio), and even more egregious, that *b)* by your arbitrary criterion, some things are not worth mathematically modeling - or at least attempting to - for the sheer pleasure of it (again, nonsense).

IMO it is nothing short of faux elitism, which is neither constructive to the discussion nor helpful to the general perception of people on our field in general. I have to shoot down enough "blah blah elitist blah blah" accusations without people in our field acting holier than thou in response to an altruistic attempt to add value to the the general discussion of horology.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

TheSanDiegan said:


> I appreciate your perspective, but along with it is the erroneous implication that *a)* there is no objective, quantitative component to aesthetics (Nonsense. See: the Golden Ratio), and even more egregious, that *b)* by your arbitrary criterion, some things are not worth mathematically modeling - or at least attempting to - for the sheer pleasure of it (again, nonsense).
> 
> IMO it is nothing short of faux elitism, which is neither constructive to the discussion nor helpful to the general perception of people on our field in general. I have to shoot down enough "blah blah elitist blah blah" accusations without people in our field acting holier than thou in response to an altruistic attempt to add value to the the general discussion of horology.


We'll have to agree to disagree, by all means attempt to model something mathematically for the fun of it, but that doesn't mean that the attempt adds anything to the discussion. Mathematical modeling made on the basis of nonsense assumptions leads to nonsense, it's really as simple as that.


----------



## Kanewu (Apr 13, 2017)

I think we need to incorporate chest measurements to the formula now...


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

PeterAndersson said:


> Basically all those maths examples make the same misstake. They only consider wrist size.
> 
> If you have larger wrists doesnt make it good to use supersize. Basically everyone looks best on a size between 38 to 42. Noone should have larger watches than 45 mm watches no matter size of wrist.


That is at best a vague generalisation. Why not 37 to 41? Or 39 to 43? Human perceptions of what looks good or not is a complex thing. It wasn't so long ago when 33-35 mm was the norm and 38 was huge. Big bell bottom pants, suits with big lapels, 3" wide neckties and baggy pants belted above the navel all used to look really good at some time or other.


----------



## obomomomo (Nov 4, 2014)

double post deleted


----------



## TheSanDiegan (Jul 8, 2008)

mleok said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree, by all means attempt to model something mathematically for the fun of it, *but that doesn't mean that the attempt adds anything to the discussion.* Mathematical modeling made on the basis of nonsense assumptions leads to nonsense, it's really as simple as that.


Seventeen pages over six years would disagree.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

TheSanDiegan said:


> Seventeen pages over six years would disagree.


Knock yourself out. For me, I prefer to avoid doing mathematics that is neither useful nor beautiful.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

We should remember that the Golden Ratio is not a law, but a model, and a rather limited one at that (it is, after all, usually limited in practice to two dimensions), rather like the "rule" of thirds in photography.

When we turn models into rules, sanctimoniousness seems to be part of the expression.

Aesthetic models and style models are not the same but are strongly interdependent. Fashion sometimes marks extremes, and those become self-correcting after usually a short time. But the dominant aesthetic objective for most decorative objects is a lively balance of elements, not conformance to a particular mathematical relationship. There is much boring design that follows the Golden Mean religiously.

I'm happy to develop mathematical models, but it seems to me models of human preference should be empirical rather than theoretical, and thus should be supported by mountains of data. But then we end up with the bland "usual suspects"--watches apparently designed not to offend in order to appeal to, if not excite, the broadest possible audience. The watches most often recommended on this forum demonstrate the principle of following models, rather than setting trends.

Setting trends is risky, of course, and is thus the domain of smaller producers who are happy to appeal to a more specialized audience, such as those who own many watches and don't feel compelled to keep them all close to the average.

I routinely wear watches ranging in size from 34-48 mm on my 8.3-inch wrist. I've probably posted these pictures in this thread.



















All models are false, though some are useful. But they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Rick "ironic that accusations of sanctimoniousness often demonstrate it" Denney


----------



## TheSanDiegan (Jul 8, 2008)

Rdenney said:


> We should remember that the Golden Ratio is not a law, but a model, and a rather limited one at that (it is, after all, usually limited in practice to two dimensions), rather like the "rule" of thirds in photography.
> 
> When we turn models into rules, sanctimoniousness seems to be part of the expression.
> 
> ...


Maybe you missed my caveat:



TheSanDiegan said:


> I'm a professional mathematician and I cringe every time a professional mathematician comes off so sanctimoniously (*unless it's me, of course*).


Great post BTW and I happen to agree with everything you said. IMO it serves as a consummate example as to how one can speak from a position of authority on a given subject and qualify a point of discussion without sounding douchey.

With reference to my own dimensional contributions, I have 7.5-inch wrists on a 6'1, 200-lb frame, and am comfortable wearing anything between 35-43mm. According to the OP, my 'range' would be 38-47mm, though I maintain that all else equal, 43-44mm is the absolute upper-limit in case size I am comfortable wearing, regardless of where lugs may hang.

So does this 'model' even apply to me? Not really. But that doesn't keep me from applauding both the OP's effort and the discourse within the thread, which IMO has more to do with common courtesy than it does mathematics.


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

Why is it that people who support the concept of keeping a watch in some consistent ratio with wrist size are called sanctimonious, but people who claim that no one needs a watch over 36mm and that anything over 40mm is a fad, are given a pass?

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

*Double doh! Post*


----------



## pinkybrain (Oct 26, 2011)

Alysandir said:


> Why is it that people who support the concept of keeping a watch in some consistent ratio with wrist size are called sanctimonious, but people who claim that no one needs a watch over 36mm and that anything over 40mm is a fad, are given a pass?
> 
> Regards,
> Alysandir


I think you may be creating a straw man. The most common sentiment I see is not that 44 mm watches are a fad, but that average-sized men wearing 44 mm watches is a fad. (I think it's now the norm and no longer a fad).

I summed it up in another thread:

_"I'm glad big guys have more large watches to choose from. Some people do look good wearing large watches, but - according to my subjective tastes - they're a minority of the population. Some people look good wearing size XXL shirts, but again, minority of the population. 
_
_For [many] in Generation X or older that aren't keen to new trends, it's like waking into a mall and finding that most of the shirts are size XXL or larger with few shirts in size M or smaller, and then looking around and seeing a bunch of 5-10, 170lb White dudes buying all the XXL shirts."_

I do not think so-called oversized watches are a fad because they've been popular for too many years now. As far as my personal, subjective taste goes, I prefer slightly smaller watches by today's standards. I have a small-ish 7.0 inche wrists and also prefer a more traditional aesthetic. Anything outside of 37-41 mm on my wrist looks odd to me. On the other hand, I also find that many vintage pieces can look too small, so I'm not a pure traditionalist. Personally, I don't want to go back to 1960's sizing either.

Put another way, I like my clothes and watches to fit a certain way, but if I see someone of my size wearing clothes that seem a size too small or two sizes too big, and a 46 mm watch, I'm at least going to try hard not to pass judgment on their personal sense of style. After all, I'm sure that same person would look at me and see a lame, Brooks Brothers, middle class office worker fast approaching middle age with a lame "old-man's" watch. (OK, I do own a couple larger divers&#8230;.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)




----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

pinkybrain said:


> I think you may be creating a straw man. The most common sentiment I see is not that 44 mm watches are a fad, but that average-sized men wearing 44 mm watches is a fad. (I think it's now the norm and no longer a fad).
> 
> I summed it up in another thread:
> 
> ...


When I shop for shirts, all I find are "tailored", and even the "traditional" cuts are skinnier than a decade ago. I often have to wear one size too large just because of that. Your mall analogy resonates, but not for the reason you suggest.

There are lots of watches in the 38-41mm range, in all styles, and from many respected brands. The complaint I see is that particular currently popular models are not in the desired range--whatever that happens to be.

Rick "who has known a number of guys of average size who can rock a big, showy watch" Denney


----------



## csu87 (Feb 5, 2016)

seems pretty accurate for my tastes. 

7.25-7.5 wrist

36 Just barely too small imo
40 perfect
44 on the big end but acceptable
46 too big imo

If only @BaronVonXander had this formula, he may not have created the best thread of 2017


----------



## TheSanDiegan (Jul 8, 2008)

Rdenney said:


> When I shop for shirts, all I find are "tailored", and even the "traditional" cuts are skinnier than a decade ago. I often have to wear one size too large just because of that. Your mall analogy resonates, but not for the reason you suggest.
> 
> There are lots of watches in the 38-41mm range, in all styles, and from many respected brands. The complaint I see is that particular currently popular models are not in the desired range--whatever that happens to be.
> 
> Rick "who has known a number of guys of average size who can rock a big, showy watch" Denney


Your monogram must cost a small fortune.


----------



## hanshananigan (Apr 8, 2012)

mleok said:


> Knock yourself out. For me, I prefer to avoid doing mathematics that is neither useful nor beautiful.


A quick-n-easy formula (or table made from it) is a very useful, if not very precise, tool.

Someone new to buying watches, and has an interest in actually doing research, is going to start on the internet. Clothes manufacturers provide size charts for a rough estimate, so why not a table/formula for watches?


----------



## hanshananigan (Apr 8, 2012)

hanshananigan said:


> A quick-n-easy formula (or table made from it) is a very useful, if not very precise, tool.
> 
> Someone new to buying watches, and has an interest in actually doing research, is going to start on the internet. Clothes manufacturers provide size charts for a rough estimate, so why not a table/formula for watches?


And here's another reason it is useful.

Affordable watches like the beloved Casio MDV106 often are packaged in a way that rules out trying them on in the store. A formula /table gives a noob a place to start.

Not dismissing the impotance of lug-to-lug measure, watch thickness, roundness of the wrist, and other factors. I suppose all factors could be included in a formula to improve precision, but given the hassle, it may not be too useful.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

hanshananigan said:


> And here's another reason it is useful.
> 
> Affordable watches like the beloved Casio MDV106 often are packaged in a way that rules out trying them on in the store. A formula /table gives a noob a place to start.
> 
> Not dismissing the impotance of lug-to-lug measure, watch thickness, roundness of the wrist, and other factors. I suppose all factors could be included in a formula to improve precision, but given the hassle, it may not be too useful.


The formula would be more broadly applicable if it used as its variables the wrist width instead of the wrist circumference and the lug-to-lug instead of the case diameter.


----------



## hanshananigan (Apr 8, 2012)

mleok said:


> The formula would be more broadly applicable if it used as its variables the wrist width instead of the wrist circumference and the lug-to-lug instead of the case diameter.


I agree that a formula requiring wrist width and lug-to-lug would likely provide a better estimate of good-fitting watches (p < .05  ). Of course, the problem is that manufacturers (and storefronts) report case diameter but almost never lug-to-lug, bringing us back to the issue of what would be "useful."


----------



## hanshananigan (Apr 8, 2012)

double post


----------



## SamaelStrings (Apr 17, 2017)

Completely incompetent equation. Too many factors. Not all bones twist the same or ride at the same height. Not all are as far or flat or round or think it thin. Not all case geometries are the same either.

You cannot create an algorithm for this. Wear what you want and done what you don't. Solution.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lark (Jun 16, 2016)

If everyone used this guide then we'd miss out on all the "is this watch too big for my wrist" threads.


----------



## Rusty427 (Jan 3, 2009)

Maybe thin wristers don't like the math.


----------



## ffritz (Jun 16, 2013)

mleok said:


>


^^ This.

In general, I'm a huge fan of collecting data and turning them into helpful information. However, this only works if there is a clear correlation between what we measure and what we perceive. And in the world of watches, there are so many different styles and designs that the case diameter alone isn't nearly enough to make any meaningful assumption on how it will look on a wrist.

Here is a direct comparison of two dress watches that both look well sized for my wrist in my opinion.









Well, the Hamilton has a 42.5mm diameter case, the Genesis only 38.5mm. That's quite a difference in the numbers, but I don't see that much of it in the picture or on the wrist. When comparing different styles of watches, the numbers say even less in my opinion.


----------



## knebo (Jun 13, 2017)

Hi guys,

Good and fun formula!

Here's another example: 170mm wrist / 41mm watch = 4.15. 
Should I get this one, or do you think it's too large "subjectively" (despite "objectively" being within the 4-to-5 range)??

Besides: to account for lug-to-lug length, the formula can be very easily adjusted...probably a bit like this:
- minimum wrist/lug-to-lug ratio (i.e. large watch): 3.4 (e.g. 170mm wrist / 50mm lug-to-lug)
- maximum wrist/lug-to-lug ratio (i.e. small watch): 4.5 (e.g. 170mm wrist / 38mm lug-to-lug)

The wrist/lug-to-lug ratio should probably used in addition to the wrist/watch ratio. Not instead. Both conditions need to hold.




















What do you think about this example of 4.15 ratio ;-)


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Raza said:


> I think you'd have to measure them diagonally, since that tells a truer story of the size than straight across. I think my Monaco is 38mm across, but it wears WAY more like 42 than 38.
> 
> Anyway, here are my ratios (197mm):
> Hamilton Jazzmaster: *4.47727273
> ...


Wow. How things change with time. I only have like two of these watches (the Speedmaster and the Monaco) still. Everything else is gone. I barely even remember the Tawatec. Are they still in business?

Although, this range still seems to be a bit true. I tried on a couple 39mm watches and some felt too small (Explorer, for one) or just about too small, but passable (OP39). Just bought my first 40mm watch in years, and I love it.


----------



## aestus_usa (Apr 29, 2017)

wow this is great! Thank you for posting this


----------



## TpaBayFlyFisher (Jul 13, 2017)

As a new member, I just found this and found it very helpful. I have a 200mm wrist, and seem to like the "fit" of 42-46 watches. Thanks to Raza for starting this discussion.


----------



## Stoshman (Jun 26, 2015)

wristclock said:


> Wow you know your a WIS when you make a mathematical watch sizing guide!


...or you're single and living in your parents' basement.


----------



## Stoshman (Jun 26, 2015)

The problem with posts like this is that they're snapshots in time. I remember trying on a friend's Ebel Sportwave several years ago and saying that I could never wear a watch that big (it was 36mm). Today I wear 46mm watches with no concerns.

It's like posting a chart on proper tie widths: any chart will be out of date in a few years. I currently wear watches sized from 32mm (and even smaller vintage ones) to 46mm, depending upon what I like about them.

And you should too


----------



## Stoshman (Jun 26, 2015)

camb66 said:


> I'm sure that some mathematician has worked this out before but I worked out the following ratio system for assessing the appropriate size for a watch on a wrist.
> 
> Its pretty simple
> *
> ...


I'm really disappointed that you didn't take the Golden Mean into account.

'Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare.'


----------



## mystvearn (Apr 4, 2018)

I am just wondering how does lug length fit into this equation. I think it affects the way watch is worn as well.


----------



## OvrSteer (Feb 17, 2014)

mystvearn said:


> I am just wondering how does lug length fit into this equation. I think it affects the way watch is worn as well.


Some people feel that fixating on the case size is not really the best measurement, and there's more to it than that, but it's as good of a mathematical solution as possible without introducing too many variables.

Long lugs have a risk of overhang on a small wrist, but that should be on watches that are towards the larger size on the formula (towards 4.0) If they overhang = too big.

Long lugs also *help* a small watch look less tiny, but that's only going to help if you're close to being OK size wise. They're not a magical solution.

Likewise short lugs on a larger watch helps it to wear smaller.


----------



## mystvearn (Apr 4, 2018)

OvrSteer said:


> mystvearn said:
> 
> 
> > I am just wondering how does lug length fit into this equation. I think it affects the way watch is worn as well.
> ...


I have a 175 mm or 6.88 inch wrist. This means that the seiko snk809 to the seiko SNZG15 is my limit. I tried the SNZG15 on, and it feels big. The snk809 is nice though looks small. Tried the seiko SRP625, feels nicer than the SNZG15 even though it is bigger and outside of this 4-5 equation.

Having lug length alone is also not enough. Since the curvature of lugs will also influence the fit. Not a lot of manufacturers actually tell this. Need to rely on YouTube videos really, especially if you are buying something you cannot try.

Here is an example of a timex explorer 40 mm. The lugs are not standard. Then there is the curvature of the lugs as well. My wrist is about 50 mm on the flat end where the watch sits. If people have bigger flatter wrist, this watch will not fit. However, if people have big round wrist provided the wrist does not exceed 50 mm, then this will fit nicely.

On another note. The L2L of the orient defender is 48 mm face watch is 42 mm, it just barely fits my wrist. However since the lugs are flat and not curved, this watch will look big on my wrist. Any ideas of a smaller size orient defender with a big date complication and day as well?


----------



## pickle puss (Feb 13, 2006)

I generally divide the case size by my wrist circumference (in 3 locations,then averaged). I take that number and multiply it by the amount I don't care what anyone else thinks about the way it looks. Problem solved.
Now if I could only solve the problem of replying to 7 year old threads I'd be golden.


----------



## Flex Luthor (Mar 28, 2018)

pickle puss said:


> I generally divide the case size by my wrist circumference (in 3 locations,then averaged). I take that number and multiply it by the amount I don't care what anyone else thinks about the way it looks. Problem solved.
> Now if I could only solve the problem of replying to 7 year old threads I'd be golden.


I think you have solved the equation. Good work sir.


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

mystvearn said:


> I am just wondering how does lug length fit into this equation. I think it affects the way watch is worn as well.


Lug length and lug to lug length are certainly important components of fit. Whether the variables that determine fit can be reduced to a reliable formula is questionable. Other things like lug shape and spacing, case height, case shape, case side design, strap/bracelet design, appearance, etc., also affect how a watch feels and looks on the wrist.


----------



## OvrSteer (Feb 17, 2014)

mystvearn said:


> I have a 175 mm or 6.88 inch wrist. This means that the seiko snk809 to the seiko SNZG15 is my limit. I tried the SNZG15 on, and it feels big. The snk809 is nice though looks small. Tried the seiko SRP625, feels nicer than the SNZG15 even though it is bigger and outside of this 4-5 equation.


Yeah this guide is old, can't take into account every sizing variable and it's not clear that "exactly 4" and "exactly 5" are the right numbers for outliers on the ratio. I have a 205mm/8" wrist that's also very flat, distorting the ratio further. By the numbers that means 41-51mm watches for me.

I can wear a 51mm watch. It doesn't overhang and if I were 20 again, I might actually wear a watch in the 50mm class. I tend to prefer 42mm up to about 45mm and those don't typically fill my wrist. On the low side, I can wear 40mm watches *most of the time* but at that point I look at all of the secondary factors to see if they'll wear large *enough*, not be too big.


> The pointer day-date subdial is a hard complication to find, but you could also look at watches that use the Miyota 9122. The Melbourne Portsea is probably a better size option as one example: https://www.melbournewatch.com.au/products/portsea-calendar-classic
> 
> Used, the prices will be higher than the Orient Defender but not massively higher.


----------



## Tool Watch Co. (11 mo ago)

Love this!


----------



## NickTheGreat (Feb 24, 2017)

This is a fun rule of thumb. But at a 8.25" wrist, I feel like 42mm being the minimum is too big. 

I realize rules of meant to be broken. 

Carry on


----------



## James Haury (Apr 10, 2008)

I like my 35 mm and 36 mm watches. 35-40mm is the sweet spot.


----------



## Qweevox (Apr 2, 2007)

Interesting, the ratios work for me. 199.39mm wrist. 

There are a lot of smaller vintage watches I like that I've always felt looked like a child's watch on my wrist. 40mm is about the absolute smallest watch size I think looks ok, but I prefer 44mm and up. My Omega Railmaster XXL which I think is 49mm (can't remember) is around the upper limit on the upside I would go. So this formula works for me.


----------



## JTK Awesome (Apr 4, 2018)

James Haury said:


> I like my 35 mm and 36 mm watches. 35-40mm is the sweet spot.


Craaaaab People, Craaaaab People


----------



## camb66 (Jan 25, 2010)

After all these years, this thread keeps popping up!


----------



## Mauric (Dec 19, 2015)

camb66 said:


> After all these years, this thread keeps popping up!


I've never seen it before, but i would say your methode is oversimplified. I would rather considered lug to to lug instead of watch diameter and and the width lenght of th wrist (upper part) instead of wrist circunference. 

And I'm pretty sure that the ratio of these values would give you a good estimation about how the watch wears on the wrist.


----------



## Qweevox (Apr 2, 2007)

camb66 said:


> After all these years, this thread keeps popping up!


Some threads NEVER die.


----------



## Qweevox (Apr 2, 2007)

James Haury said:


> I like my 35 mm and 36 mm watches. 35-40mm is the sweet spot.


I have some old Omega Seamasters in my collection in the 35mmish range that I love but don't like wearing because they look tiny to me.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

I think it looks like you want to be around 4.5 +/-. Below 4 makes it seem like saying 4-5 is too broad a range, IMO. 

I’d say more like 4.3-4.7.


----------



## Beechcreekgary (3 mo ago)

NickTheGreat said:


> This is a fun rule of thumb. But at a 8.25" wrist, I feel like 42mm being the minimum is too big.
> 
> I realize rules of meant to be broken.
> 
> Carry on


My wrist size is very close to yours and I consider 42mm to be the largest watch I’d wear, typically that would be a diver. My sweet spot for a diver is 40mm and 36mm for dress/field watches.
It irks me when someone says 36 mm watches are small. They are not. For many many years 34-36 mm watches were the norm. This jumbo watch thing is a fad that will go away when the fashion pendulum swings back.


----------



## dfwcowboy (Jan 22, 2017)

Qweevox said:


> Some threads NEVER die.


The reason this one won't is because there's too many people who believe watch sizing is no different than shoe sizing.


----------



## Spiffy (Mar 7, 2013)

You are a life savior. This is amazing!


----------

