# Omega Aqua Terra 38.5 mm or 41.5 mm: Which Will Stand the Test of Time?



## Generation (Oct 28, 2011)

I am going to be making my most expensive watch purchase soon. I have decided on the Omega Aqua Terra Master Co-axial. Now I only need to decide what color and what size to get. I am finding the hardest decision is deciding on the size: the 38.5 mm or 41.5 mm? Particularly, I would like to know which size will likely stand the test of time--i.e. which size will seem more in style in 10 years, 20 years, etc. This is a watch I plan on owning and wearing for a long time so this is important to me.

In answering this question, I think it's important to look at the sizes of similar watches by Omega and other brands that have been released recently. For example, when Omega released the Aqua Terra > 15,000 Gauss last year it was available in 41.5 mm only:








 *Omega Aqua Terra > 15,000 Gauss (2013): is 41.5 mm the future of the Aqua Terra?*

I'm not sure what the direct competitors are for the Aqua Terra, but I have read about some people deciding between the Aqua Terra and Rolex Datejust (36 mm) or Datejust II (41 mm). Also, the Tag Heuer Carrera Calibre 5, announced this year, seems similar in style to the Aqua Terra. It is only available in 39 mm (though they do make a day-date in 41 mm): 








*[SUB]Announced at Baselworld this year: the Tag Heuer Carrera Calibre 5 (2014). Is 39 mm here to stay?
[/SUB]*[SUB]

The Watch Snob (from AskMen.com) continually sites 39 mm as the "perfect size for a man's watch." Daniel Craig wore a blue 38.5 mm Aqua Terra in the most recent James Bond film, _Skyfall_. Additionally, in a recent thread I started, someone posted a picture of Prince William wearing a Seamaster Professional Bond in 36.25 mm.

The Master Co-axial Aqua Terra 38.5 mm is also available in ladies styles, whereas the 41.5 mm is strictly a men's watch. The Constellation is 38 mm and the De Ville (and Hour Vision) is 41 mm (the gents' De Ville Prestige comes in 36.8 mm and 39.5 mm).

Thanks to anyone who can help. My wrists are 7.5" (although I'm not sure how much that matters). _Edit: I did a more accurate measurement of my wrists and found they are closer to 7"._[/SUB]


----------



## Sappie66 (Dec 20, 2007)

Well, for your first expensive watch, and one that you are concerned about "standing the test of time", I certainly would NOT get that Bumblebee 15000 Gauss!!!! Best to go with a teck-dial 8500 in grey or silver 

I know that was not your question, but I couldn't resist!

About size, I think both sizes are timeless enough. 38.5 is not overly small, and 41.5 is not overly big. And your wrist size I think matters in this equation too. I would go with the one that fits your eye best and what you are inclined to go with at this time, rather than hope that it would work in some unspecified time later down the road.

Also, my guess is that you will acquire more "expensive" watches in the future (always happens here at WUS!)  By the time your post-count reaches 1000+, the Aqua Terra will be one of many in your stable .

Oh, and say "NO" to Tag.  Unless it is a Steve McQueen Monaco chrono.


----------



## SEASIDER (Nov 4, 2013)

I have the 38.5mm grey dial, and I have 7" wrists. I tried a 41.5mm on and to me it looked too big. The AT does wear quite a bit bigger than it actually is, if that makes sense.
I think the 38.5mm looks just right on my wrist.
The current craze seems to be for very large watches. I'm not too sure that will last, but who knows.
I would pick the one which you think suits you the most, and I wouldn't worry too much about the latest style or fashion.
Either one of the AT's will stand the test of time IMO.
Whichever one you choose, you will have a beautiful, very versatile watch.


----------



## SEASIDER (Nov 4, 2013)

Forgot to add - Stand about 6 feet away from a full length mirror, and try both watches on. It helps to get that view rather than just looking down at your wrist.


----------



## Sappie66 (Dec 20, 2007)

SEASIDER said:


> Forgot to add - Stand about 6 feet away from a full length mirror, and try both watches on. It helps to get that view rather than just looking down at your wrist.


Yes, that is good advice. Looking just at your wrist is like looking at it with a wide-angle camera lens -- the watch would always looks bigger than it is!


----------



## TitanCi (May 14, 2010)

The 41.5 really isn't that big...


Sent from my brain using my fingers.


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

Agreed. The large size PO is big. Large size AT not so much. I'm more on the timeless and conservative size when picking my watches.! I'd go 41.5 AT without a second thought. The PO though, that's another story.


----------



## Betterthere (May 23, 2011)

with a 7.5 inch wrist IMO go for the 41.5 ... I have 7.25" and anything less than 40 is small (and no I am not into large watches). Prince William's watch doesn't count in this discussion since I vaguely remember it was a gift from his Mom.


----------



## yhng (Jan 19, 2014)

All depends on how it looks on your wrist. I picked the 38.5mm myself as it fits my 6.5" wrist better. I reckon the 41.5 mm would fit you fine

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

they're both about middle sized, as nobody would call 41mm big or 38.5mm small. The little bit difference will come down to which one seems more 'fitted' on your wrist. If your wrist is 7 inches or below, most likely the 38.5, and if above 7.5, than the 41. Anything in between, and its a toss up based on style.


----------



## dyims (Apr 22, 2014)

Goto your local AD and try it out to see for yourself which size/style fits best on YOUR wrist. Some watches may look nice on others but not on ourselves and vice versa. I cannot stress enough on the importance of trying out watches first before attempting to make any purchases online. I have a relatively small wrist, and even I consider 39mm a bit small. Of course, that is just IMHO.


----------



## WatchesinIL (Mar 24, 2014)

Id get a 38.5 mm but that's just me. Either is a very middle of the road size but I prefer my watches < 40 mm. I think anything over 40 looks like a clock. But get what you like best. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## solesman (Dec 3, 2009)

The one that looks and fits your wrist best will be the one that stands the test of time. 

Go try them all on in all colours and sizes and make that informed decision. Oh and post lots of photos for us on here too 

For the record I have a wrist a touch over 7inches and I went with the 38.5mm Skyfall blue. 

Good luck.


----------



## Muddy250 (Jul 20, 2011)

What Dan said.

Another trick in the absence of a mirror is to put the watch on the underside of your wrist to check the view. 
The arm bones rotate as you look at your watch making your wrist physically shrink by about 1/2" in that position. It never looks like that when you're wearing it.
Good luck choosing! Also consider the current model AT, I like it better than the new version. 

My 41.5mm AT on my 7 1/4 to 7 1/2 wrist (depending on how warm I am. )


----------



## imagwai (Feb 23, 2013)

You must try on both at an AD. When I did that, I was surprised that I could get away with wearing the 41.5mm quite easily on my 6.5" wrist. But the 38.5mm looked far better proportioned and more classy so that's what I went with. It wears bigger than the size would suggest anyway and has good wrist presence. I think it will stand the test of time. I don't think there is an evolutionary trend towards larger wrists right now anyway.

As for colour, I would recommend the blue obviously since that's what I bought. The opaline silver/white might be a good choice for the long-term too and is just as beautiful. Somehow, the black doesn't really do it for me with this watch.


----------



## solesman (Dec 3, 2009)

I also echo what Chris said, if the anti magnetic isn't important to you, save yourself a grand and pick up the soon to be discontinued current AT with the lovely date border. Just makes the AT in my opinion


----------



## Vanquished (Feb 9, 2014)

Both the 41.5 and 38.5 seem to well proportioned. I think it depends on your wrist size. I would assume bigger wrists would opt for the bigger watch and vice versa.


----------



## logan2z (Sep 23, 2012)

I've got a 7" wrist and just picked up a 41.5mm Aqua Terra 'Skyfall'. It doesn't feel large at all - if anything it wears a bit on the small side on my wrist, which admittedly is relatively flat. Given the proportions of my wrist/hand I wouldn't even consider the 38.5mm. Your best bet is to try both on and decide which you prefer.


----------



## OBB1044 (May 5, 2012)

1,5 year ago I was in same shoes and I decided to go with 41,5mm. Never regretted... But you must make that call by yourself.


----------



## TitanCi (May 14, 2010)

They'll both stand the test if time for wrists that fit each one accordingly. I can't imagine this watch ever losing its appeal, regardless of size. 

You're gonna get opinions for both camps. A lot of traditionalists and a lot of modern thought. Don't go with what the internet consensus is. Go try them on. 

Both will be beautiful in later years. 


Sent from my brain using my fingers.


----------



## Andy K (Jan 13, 2010)

I think you're over-thinking this, and I wouldn't take anything the Watch Snob writes seriously. Also, remember that Daniel Craig is a heavily paid actor wearing something he was paid to wear. Try on both sizes and buy the one you like best. We're only talking about 3 millimeters here, so 10, 20, 30 years from now both will be fine.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

I'll bet Omega couldn't even decide, which is why they make both sizes.


----------



## wronghand (Mar 30, 2012)

My vote go to 41.5 for AT. It looks smaller somehow. I guess probably the thickness of 8500 movement make the 41.5 proportioned perfectly. But 38.5 look small and too thick. That's the impression on my 7" wrist.


----------



## khoalety (Feb 2, 2013)

Sorry for asking this... Does Omega use the same size 8500 movement for both 41.5mm and 38.5mm? I think Omega did a great job for both 41.5mm and 38.5mm designs. Sometimes I get confused which is which until I put them on.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

khoalety said:


> Sorry for asking this... Does Omega use the same size 8500 movement for both 41.5mm and 38.5mm?


They do, I'm sure. Simpler to manufacture. The date window is pushed outboard on the 38.5 because the date wheel in the movement is the same as on the bigger watch.

Once I saw that small difference, I couldn't un-see it. The 38.5's window is aligned with the outer edge of the hour markers, while the 41's window is aligned with the inner points. I like the 38.5's alignment a little better.


----------



## fmracer (May 11, 2012)

OP,

You've demonstrated excellent taste and refinement choosing the Omega AT.

As as others have already suggested, going to an AD or OB is the best way to make your final choice.

Good luck and enjoy wearing it.

BTW, expect to get lots of compliments.

Drift

Here's mine.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Making an excuse to show an A/B comparison on my wrist:


----------



## logan2z (Sep 23, 2012)

BarracksSi said:


> Making an excuse to show an A/B comparison on my wrist:
> View attachment 1488974
> View attachment 1488975
> 
> View attachment 1488977


As a woman with arms that hairy have you thought about waxing? 

I prefer the 41.5mm on you, but both look good.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Ha! Yeah, that was the boutique rep's hand, but my wrist. 

The funny thing about the pics is that the angle and distance make the 41mm version look smaller.


----------



## MikeCfromLI (Jan 6, 2012)

Love my 41 but it does wear larger here it is next to a full sized Smp


----------



## JKolmo (Aug 25, 2012)

Another parameter to factor in is the ability to use straps instead of the bracelet. The 41mm AT has 20mm lugs whereas the 38.5 has 19mm lugs. So with the 38.5 you're restricted to the not so common 19mm strap size. Quite annoying for someone like me who likes to change straps more frequently than changing underwear...


----------



## nick_sixx (Apr 15, 2012)

I would go for the 38.5mm for someone with wrists under the 7.5" mark, and 41mm for those over 7.5". 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## balzebub (May 30, 2010)

Try both size if possible and decide. I personally would go for the 38.5mm, it's the sweet size for my 6.75" wrist. 

Sent from my Hongmi


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

I would not deign to suggest a size to you, other than to echo others who have strongly recommended going to an AD with a good selection and trying everything on.


However, I will share MY experience: I have 7.8" wrists. When I bought my first AT, I went with the 41.5mm in grey teak. Within a week I knew that was a mistake. Every large mirror I passed mocked my selection of such a large-appearing watch. So I traded it for a 38.5mm model in opaline silver. Much better! Then I got the Skyfall bug, so I flipped the opaline and bought the Skyfall (which, for the record, is 38.5mm ... DC did not wear a 41.5mm AT in the film).


The Skyfall looked so perfect on my wrist that I sold my Sub-C, which now seemed too bulky for everyday wear (and too dang expensive for only occasional wear). Then I started realizing that the Daytona I was alternating with the AT appeared too large for my tastes, especially compared to the Skyfall. So I sold it and bought a new Datejust. I LOVE that watch! And within a week or so, the Skyfall had fallen out of favor as too large. So I sold it and bought a blue dial Oyster Perpetual and, after a period of adjustment (the relative sedateness of both the AT and the OP compared to the blingier DJ), I have embraced it as much or more than even the Skyfall. For me, only 36-37mm makes sense for everyday wear.


Incidentally, a few years ago I bought a Datejust II (after I had bought and flipped the grey AT). The 41mm DJ II was slightly more proportional than the 41.5mm AT, but still wore much too big on my wrists, so it eventually went to another buyer.


One word of caution - re: trying on watches before making a decision - is that you still likely will choose something that will not become that "forever" watch you covet. You'll likely buy and sell many watches before settling on the "one." There are quite a few members here who belong to what I call the Century Club ... those of us who have bought and sold at least 100 watches in our quest for the perfect watch(es). So don't feel bad if you find perfection is a moving target. ;-)


And now some pix of my own: The 41.5mm AT; the DJ II; the Skyfall; the new 36mm DJ; and the 36mm OP


----------



## Betterthere (May 23, 2011)

nick_sixx said:


> I would go for the 38.5mm for someone with wrists under the 7.5" mark, and 41mm for those over 7.5".
> 
> Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


An opinion of mine: I think 7.25" is approximate divide point. Mine are 7.25" of course. Flatness of the wrist also enters into the equation. Less than 40mm for me looks small. Older now but wore the 41mm Seamaster for 20 years so that size is a reference also.

I agree with iinic that it's not abnormal to go through many watches to find "perfect". I was lucky on the Omega 41mm. When I started new quest few years back.. 45 or so have come and gone... currently the 41.5 AT reminds me the most of my old choice. Age also enters into it for me. Not as muscular now as once was...

all above is opinion....


----------



## Bugsy (Nov 30, 2006)

I Spent a lot of time on this topic myself. For me I wanted to wear more classic and on leather so I went 38.5. My wrist is 7 1/4, both sizes worked but at the end the 38.5 just looked more right. 






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Chainring (Jun 19, 2012)

I tried on both at an Omega boutique. I thought both looked good on my 6.5" wrist. I preferred the 41.5 but knew the 38.5 looked better so that's what I eventually bought. 20 years from now I think we'll still be having the size debate so I think both will stand the test of time. My only knock on the 38.5, as has already been posted, is the 19mm lug width.


----------



## Chainring (Jun 19, 2012)

Unfortunate double post.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

In spite of advices of those who suddenly saw the light I think that 41.5 is good for all but extremely small wrists. Especially in dark colors like deep blue or grey.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Deanster (Feb 5, 2008)

38.5mm is getting awfully small these days. I think the era of giant watches will end, but at the same time, we're not going to see a return to 36mm for men's watches, perhaps ever. 

I'd say that under 7" wrists can look seriously at the 38.5, but over that, 41.5 is pretty much a no-brainer. It's just not a big watch - not small, for sure, but I'd argue that 41mm is the new 'standard' size. 

42+ starts looking big on smaller wrists, and 44-45mm is big on almost everyone, unless you have 8"+ caveman wrists like me. 

At your 7.5" measurement, I think 38.5 is off the table, and 41.5 is perfect. You could probably wear up to 44-45mm without it looking stupidly big.


----------



## Bugsy (Nov 30, 2006)

Here is my 38.5 on leather, my wrist is 7 1/4. I also wear a 44mm PAM.










Bugsy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Betterthere (May 23, 2011)

They all look good!


----------



## MattPap (Jun 17, 2006)

I have a 6.3 inches wrist, but since it's quite flat I really can't make my own decision too. For every pic I see with the 38.5 or the 41.5 I change my mind, and at my local AD I think they both suit me fine.


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

There is one other thing to consider in the "test of time" category: Omega has an abysmal record when it comes to sticking with a design for decades. Only the Speedy Pro really stands out. The SMP, now approaching 20 years, is another contender. But in the short history of the Aqua Terra, the line is now on its third major design revision. I think that the AT will not even be part of Omega's lineup in 10 years time.

Omega has demonstrated that they have "Design ADD," whilst Rolex still offers watches that have been around for a half century or more (albeit with significant tech improvements). So, if the OP is wondering if his AT will still be fashionable in 20 or 30 years, check out the SM120s of the 90s (the forerunners of the AT) or the pre-Bond equivalents of the 80s.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

iinsic said:


> I think that the AT will not even be part of Omega's lineup in 10 years time.


I think that the AT will exist in the future, because it fills an important gap in the Omega lines: universal sporty-dressy watch which is possible to wear anywhere.


----------



## nick_sixx (Apr 15, 2012)

Alex_TA said:


> I think that the AT will exist in the future, because it fills an important gap in the Omega lines: universal sporty-dressy watch which is possible to wear anywhere.


Agreed. Fills the gap between a Deville and an SM300, much like a datejust or explorer 1

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## TitanCi (May 14, 2010)

I don't think Omega did MAJOR revisions with the upcoming release, just questionable ones... Err... One. 


Sent from my brain using my fingers.


----------



## Vicious49 (Mar 8, 2012)

MattPap said:


> I have a 6.3 inches wrist, but since it's quite flat I really can't make my own decision too. For every pic I see with the 38.5 or the 41.5 I change my mind, and at my local AD I think they both suit me fine.


I have about a 6.5-6.75" wrist that's relatively flat and I tried both on at an Omega boutique. The 38.5 seemed way too dainty on my wrists so I'll definitely be going with the 41.5 when the time time comes.


----------



## billyblue (Jun 14, 2012)

I have 6.25" wrists, so naturally I thought I'd go for the 38.5mm. But the limited strap options (even from Omega themselves) in 19mm threw me off and I bought the 41mm one. And it also fits very fine.


----------



## Marendra (Mar 2, 2010)

I visited the AD yesterday to check out a few 'his/hers' options.... With the AT being an obvious option (the other potential option _for us_ is the new Tudor Style, but they hadn't received their Basel order yet).

I was very keen to try on the 38.5mm model, but when I did, it looked quite small to my eyes, while the 41mm model looked too large.... Hmmmm.

I have 7 inch wrists, so figured the 38 would work well, but my wrists are quite flat..... Almost 60mm across as near as I can tell..... So maybe that was the reason.

Oh well, time to think this through some more. :think:


----------



## douglasf13 (Aug 17, 2013)

Oddly enough, my wrists are around 7", and also very flat, and I was trying to decide between the 36mm and 39mm AT 2500. The larger model never really crossed my mind. I went with the 39mm, but sometimes I wonder if this type of watch would be better in the smaller 36mm size, like my old Datejust. It just depends on your style.


----------



## MikeCfromLI (Jan 6, 2012)

Look at vintage ppl go crazy for a larger watch the norm has gradually grown larger.... Who wants a 34m now? The 41 is perfect


----------



## douglasf13 (Aug 17, 2013)

I think it's important to remember how large the dial is on the AT relative to the rest of the watch, and I think the AT 8500 41mm is meant for those who would also go with the PO XL 45mm. I'm 6'2" with a really flat, 7" wrist, and I wouldn't consider either of those two larger watches, myself, as I see those watches as being designed for people with larger than usual wrists. The trend of the last few years is already going in the direction of smaller and a little less ostentatious. 

Granted, I chose the AT 2500 over the AT 8500, because I preferred its thinness, and I think the design will stand the test of time better than the AT 8500, but it all really just depends on one's taste. Just go with the one you like.


----------



## yinzerniner (May 28, 2014)

I'd have to agree with the consensus in that you should definitely try both on before deciding, but also want to add a few things.
Wrist size/shape is important, but also consider your hand size. I've seen people with very large wrists but smaller hands/palms wear large watches and it looks completely absurd. On the opposite end, I have modestly sized wrists (7.25") but quite wide hands and palms, so anything below about 40mm looks quite out of place.
Also consider how you'll wear the watch. Given that this is an AT, I'm guessing it'll be on the dressier side of the clothing range, so a more subdued look (either through watch design or size) is probably warranted. 
And yes, a lot of watches wear different then their actual case size, so it's imperative to try before you buy. Best of luck with the search.


----------



## wolfevrn (May 7, 2013)

yinzerniner said:


> I'd have to agree with the consensus in that you should definitely try both on before deciding, but also want to add a few things.
> Wrist size/shape is important, but also consider your hand size. I've seen people with very large wrists but smaller hands/palms wear large watches and it looks completely absurd. On the opposite end, I have modestly sized wrists (7.25") but quite wide hands and palms, so anything below about 40mm looks quite out of place.
> Also consider how you'll wear the watch. Given that this is an AT, I'm guessing it'll be on the dressier side of the clothing range, so a more subdued look (either through watch design or size) is probably warranted.
> And yes, a lot of watches wear different then their actual case size, so it's imperative to try before you buy. Best of luck with the search.


+1


----------



## Adam007 (May 17, 2014)

although typically i would recommend the smaller, with a 7" flat wrist, I would guess going with the 41.5.

that said - trying it on in the store is the best advice.


----------



## hchj (Jul 9, 2011)

I had the 38.5 grey and now own the 41.5 blue AT.

Putting them side by side, I feel the 41.5 mm has better proportion. Size matters so does color. The white dial AT appears larger on the wrist than the black, grey and blue. 

7"wrist can pull off both well. Just get the one that looks best in your own opinion. I couldn't be happier for choosing the bigger size.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tompj (May 2, 2013)

I have an opaline AT 41,5 mm. I don't like watches that are too big and even own a 35mm Longines dresswatch. But I still feel the 41,5 is perfect, also in white. It never seems too big to me and it has just enough presence to make an impression.


----------



## douglasf13 (Aug 17, 2013)

Here are a bunch of opinions about this from last fall: https://www.watchuseek.com/f20/aqua-terra-38-5-41-5-a-927489.html


----------



## Sharpgator (Feb 15, 2014)

As you get older, it sure is nice to be able to read your watch without reading glasses. My 2 favorite watches are both 42mm (Speedy Pro and Explorer 2). 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Sappie66 (Dec 20, 2007)

Just a minor point, but a couple of posters have pointed out that the 19mm lug-width of the smaller AT is restrictive. I suggest that it is not. I have a watch with a 21mm lug width, and I have used 22mm straps with no issue whatsoever. It does not look pinched or forced. I suggest that it is a non-issue. Cheers.


----------



## OmegaCard (Mar 20, 2014)

douglasf13 said:


> *I think it's important to remember how large the dial is on the AT relative to the rest of the watch*, and I think the AT 8500 41mm is meant for those who would also go with the PO XL 45mm. I'm 6'2" with a really flat, 7" wrist, and I wouldn't consider either of those two larger watches, myself, as I see those watches as being designed for people with larger than usual wrists. The trend of the last few years is already going in the direction of smaller and a little less ostentatious.
> 
> Granted, I chose the AT 2500 over the AT 8500, because I preferred its thinness, and I think the design will stand the test of time better than the AT 8500, but it all really just depends on one's taste. Just go with the one you like.


Spot on. Compared to the Rolex line where the bezels are more flat versus the steep ATs'. For me the 41mm AT's face was too large versus the actual watch size. The flip side of course is the 36mm face on the Rolex looks too small with that large flat bezel imo. Too much steel. So I went with the 38.5 AT as well for my solid 7.25-.40 wrist size. Of course my next watch is going to be a Rolex 40mm GMT-Master 2.

I own both the blue and teak versions and have to say I wear the teak on a black rubber strap most often. And the more I see it, the more I like the silver. Blue has become my least favorite. So I'll probably flip it.

I also agree that you can use slightly bigger bands on the 38.5 than the stated 19mm size.


----------



## perdu (Sep 3, 2007)

Wear them and look at yourself in a full length mirror - that will tell you which to buy. They'll both stand the test of time.


----------



## douglasf13 (Aug 17, 2013)

Sappie66 said:


> Just a minor point, but a couple of posters have pointed out that the 19mm lug-width of the smaller AT is restrictive. I suggest that it is not. I have a watch with a 21mm lug width, and I have used 22mm straps with no issue whatsoever. It does not look pinched or forced. I suggest that it is a non-issue. Cheers.


Agreed. I've used 20mm leather straps on my 19mm Seiko without issue. The only thing to consider is that, over time, squeezing my 20mm Hirsch strap into a 19mm slot squished the leather enough to where there is now a gap if I put the strap back on a 20mm watch, so make sure that you don't want to go back to 20mm with that strap.


----------



## RIVI1969 (Jul 31, 2012)

My wrist will be the same 7" size now and in 20 years, so no matter if Hublot and Invicta come with 60mm watches, I will always wear anything between 36mm (Rolex DJ) and 42mm tops. Except my G-Shock 9400 or my Citizen Ecozilla which are uber huge!!


----------

