# Mid size vs Full size



## Longjeans (Jun 2, 2009)

Hey guys, pretty new here. I dont know if this is a common debate but how do mid size vs full size compare?

I know its a pretty subjective subject but whats your opinions?

Does the mid size satisfy? Im currently looking for a seamaster and im finding some good deals on mid sized but im the type that always likes to go big on pretty much everything I do....but anyway.. what do you guys think.

Thanks.


----------



## Runitout (Aug 19, 2009)

I believe that it depends on the type of watch one is buying, and one's wrist size, and what purpose one is buying it for. 

I assume the Seamaster you are interested in the the Seamaster Professional diving watch. The fashion for sports and diving watches these days seems to be - the bigger the better, at least until the lugs overlap your wrist. So for fashion - go fullsize. For actual use, however, sometimes the smaller watch is a better buy. Particularly if you plan to wear the watch on a bracelet, a smaller watch can be a lot less cumbersome and annoying on the wrist. I wouldn't wear my PO on bracelet because that would make it too heavy for sports use. The midsize Railmaster is fine on a bracelet.

What are you using the watch for? Sports? Diving? Waving about in bars to attract the opposite gender? My advice would differ depending on the answer given.

And as for good deals everywhere, be careful of scammers...


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster (Sep 17, 2007)

I do actually prefer Mid-Size watches, however i always thought the Mid-Size Speedmaster would of been enough for me the 3510.50 









But after i got the full size Speedmaster i now know the full size pull it off for me just as well if not better. I tend the find the Smaller size watches more dressy


----------



## Broleo (May 24, 2010)

IMO, 2 considerations:

1) aesthetics - if you like mid size, by all mean go for it.
2) wrist size - if your wrist is skinny/ mid frame kind of guy, then the mid size should fit just fine.

For compariosn, I hv 8inch wrist and wore the 39.2mm AT nicely. Its not big, but more of a gentleman like.

cheers


----------



## peakay (Feb 5, 2011)

This is very much a personal taste question; I have a small wrist (6.6") and when I bought my SMP in 2000, I remember thinking the full-size 41mm looked huge, so I bought the mid-size 36mm. If I was buying the watch today, I would get the full-size.

You get used to the appearance of things, and now, owning several larger watches up to 42mm, when I put the SMP on again it looks small, but after wearing it for a few days I become accustomed to it again and it looks OK.

I would suggest you measure the width of your wrist and make sure any watch you are considering has a lug to lug measurement at least slightly less than your wrist width.


----------



## yande (Aug 4, 2010)

Yes, I too debated this for awhile.










Whilst my mid size watches pictured here (Speemaster 3510.50 and Seamaster Pro 2262.50) are both beautiful and individual, and I am having a hard time talking myself into selling either of them, I now pretty well only wear the full size versions. That is the Speedmaster Pro 3570.50 and Seamaster Pro 2254.50. The flightmaster is in a size catagory of its own. The 2262.50 is quartz and a quartz in a collection always has merit, and the Reduced (3510.50) well.. I still wear it on occasion, mostly on bracelet, as it is very comfortable and unique in the Speedmaster line, actually I love that watch a lot.


----------



## The Prodigy (Mar 24, 2011)

What would be really interesting is how many people have sized up or sized down within their time as a watch enthusiast. And the reasons for that move ...


----------



## Bidle (Aug 5, 2006)

The Prodigy said:


> What would be really interesting is how many people have sized up or sized down within their time as a watch enthusiast. And the reasons for that move ...


Well I just look at what fits my wrist. In the years I also bought some bigger watches, but this is just because before they weren't available. Still I prefer 40-44 for sport-watches and 34-40 for dress-watches.


----------



## 23fengshui (Aug 21, 2007)

I prefer midsize for dress, full size for sport. So full size in this case.


----------



## WIS_Chronomaster (Sep 17, 2007)

To be honest the Reduced and the Pro there isnt THAT much init, but you can tell its there, i know my dad mistaked the Reduced for a Full size once.


----------



## joeuk (Feb 16, 2010)

I have 7" wrist so for me as to be full size pro omega watches. I do own other watches that are smaller but always look at them and think they tiny


----------



## imranbecks (Oct 3, 2008)

The biggest Omega I have is the PO which is at 45.5mm.. I have a 7.25" wrist, so the size is not a problem for me. I can wear both a full or mid size for any occasions and it still looks ok..

Speaking of sizes, wanna share with you guys what happened recently.... Just the other day, I saw the 42mm PO (on bracelet) on display at the Omega boutique window, compared it with the PO XL with rubber I was wearing on my wrist, and damn, the one on my wrist looks like a giant compared to the 42mm PO at the shop window which looks really small!!!! I was really surprised at the small size.. I know its supposedly bigger than the SMP Bond by 1mm, but it looks really small...hahaha.. Was that really a 42mm PO that I saw??? And I have the SMP Bond..... Went home and looked at it, it doesn't look that small... Very strange.. I remember comparing my watch with it for a few minutes by the window and people were staring at me...hahaha..


----------



## peitron (Aug 23, 2010)

I have small wrists at 6.5mm. I personally like simple dress watches, specially if gold, in sizes below 36mm. Bigger than that it's just too blingy hip/hop tacky for my taste (unless you have a large build and wrists).

Sporty-Dress watches like the Aqua Terra could be bigger and Dressy-Sport watches (Speedy, SMP) should be bigger in my book. I can pull of my 41mm SMP 300 and my 40mm Speedy Date just fine (below a pic). The 42mm PO wears much like the SMP 300. I personally can't pull off anything larger than that. If you have larger wrists, larger sports watches should work fine.


----------



## Spit161 (Oct 9, 2009)

It's all about wrist size..
For me, I prefer full size, as I like my watches a little bigger..

cheers.


----------



## peitron (Aug 23, 2010)

imranbecks said:


> Just the other day, I saw the 42mm PO (on bracelet) on display at the Omega boutique window, compared it with the PO XL with rubber I was wearing on my wrist, and damn, the one on my wrist looks like a giant compared to the 42mm PO at the shop window which looks really small!!!! I was really surprised at the small size.. I know its supposedly bigger than the SMP Bond by 1mm, but it looks really small...hahaha.. Was that really a 42mm PO that I saw??? And I have the SMP Bond..... Went home and looked at it, it doesn't look that small... Very strange.. I remember comparing my watch with it for a few minutes by the window and people were staring at me...hahaha..


Yes, at 42mm, the PO wears much like the SMP300. The latter is flatter and with the scalloped bezel does indeed appear a bit larger. If you can pull of an SMP300 you should not worry about the PO 42, it'll look fine.


----------



## imranbecks (Oct 3, 2008)

peitron said:


> Yes, at 42mm, the PO wears much like the SMP300. The latter is flatter and with the scalloped bezel does indeed appear a bit larger. If you can pull of an SMP300 you should not worry about the PO 42, it'll look fine.


Thanks.. But I was really surprised at how big my 45.5mm PO is compared to the 42mm... I've not seen the 42mm PO in person all these while before this coz when I made my purchase for my XL PO in 2006, all they had at the time was the 45.5mm as they were promoting Casino Royale which as you may know featured the same watch... I am considering getting either the black or orange 42mm sometime in the future as I intend to keep my 45.5 on rubber for active wear and just have the bracelet on the 42mm for other occasions... Still considering...


----------



## ChronoScot (Oct 25, 2010)

For many years, before I became more enthusiastic about watches, I had convinced myself that ~36mm was the maximum watch diameter I could wear without it looking ridiculous. My daily wearer was a Heuer Carrera of exactly that diameter. My wrist size is around 6.5".

I lusted after an Omega and had my eye on the mid-size SMP 300 and the Speedmaster Reduced (which I thought might be borderline at 38-39mm). When I finally got to buying a new Omega though, I tried on the 40mm Speedmaster Date, looked at myself in a full length mirror in the AD (pretty important I would say) and realised that my long standing assumption was quite wrong.

In the meantime, I have become so accustomed to the larger size of the Speedmaster and (now) the 38.5mm AT that I have trouble even wearing the Carrera, as it seems tiny on my wrist. I am also on the look out for a diver and have realised that I can indeed pull-off the 42mm PO and that the mid-size SMP that I always thought I wanted just seems too small.

I would advise then to try on a range of watch sizes that you are interested in and not just assume, based on wrist diameter, that you can or cannot wear something. Try also to find an AD with a full length mirror or take someone along for a second opinion, have a walk around the shop and make sure _you_ are comfortable with it. As others have pointed out, watches can give varied impressions based on their dial and bezel proportions that belie their diameter.

Oh, and once you get used to a larger size, you may find it hard to wear anything smaller...

Hope that helps somewhat!


----------



## The Prodigy (Mar 24, 2011)

ChronoScot said:


> For many years, before I became more enthusiastic about watches, I had convinced myself that ~36mm was the maximum watch diameter I could wear without it looking ridiculous. My daily wearer was a Heuer Carrera of exactly that diameter. My wrist size is around 6.5".
> 
> I lusted after an Omega and had my eye on the mid-size SMP 300 and the Speedmaster Reduced (which I thought might be borderline at 38-39mm). When I finally got to buying a new Omega though, I tried on the 40mm Speedmaster Date, looked at myself in a full length mirror in the AD (pretty important I would say) and realised that my long standing assumption was quite wrong.
> 
> ...


Nicely said! |>


----------



## geeksquad527 (May 19, 2011)

My wife wears a mid size 2254.50 and looks good on her tiny wrist. A full size would be better in my opinion if your wrist is at least 6.5". I know few people who bought the mid then end up selling it to get the full size.


----------



## tonynich (Dec 27, 2007)

Mid size SMP 300m on my girly 6" (15cm) wrist. I don't think I'd want to go any bigger.


----------



## zaal (Feb 8, 2010)

I faced the same question before I settled on the larger Seamaster. The decider was a visit to an AD. Until I tried them both, the whole question was an abstraction. Once they were on my wrist, I knew right away. Then the issue became getting out of the store!

Also, I don't think it's a big vs. small question. It depends on the watch itself. My ELKA automatic is only 32 mm, but it works for me, even though I tend to go with the larger watches. The design of the watch can determine the appropriate size, subjective as that seems.


----------



## mpmc (Mar 16, 2011)

This is a really complex question that does not have a single answer. 

I have a 5.5 inch (14cm) wrist so I am probably one of the smaller guys on the forum. But, the circumference of the wrist is not the only factor. I went for the mid size SMP 300 and have regretted it ever since. The full size looked huge when looking directly at it, but it did not over lap the edge of the wrist (I have flat wrists). Someone earlier in the thread mentioned looking in a full length mirror and this is very important. I have tried on the full size version many times since I bought the mid size and although it does look big at close range, at a distance it looks in proportion the the size of my hands and the shape of the wrist. So try on and take someone else with you for another opinion.


----------



## Rambam (Dec 12, 2008)

I started out wearing full size watches, but as the years passed by I was more and more drawn towards mid size or 36mm and below. 
I guess it`s all down to personal preference and how you look at it. 
Take my latest acquisition, accuscition acccusitt....whatever, the smp 300 mid size. 
Looking at it straight on, it looks plenty big


Wristshot by Dime a dozen, on Flickr

But from a distance and without the distortian from the lens, it looks almost small. 
My wrist is about 6,5"


DSC_0020-8 by Dime a dozen, on Flickr

Wear whatever makes you feel comfortable.


----------



## TheJeanyus (May 31, 2009)

Get the one YOU like the best after you've tried on both. Also, do not buy a mid size based purely on price. If that's the size you want go for it, but if you really want the full size you will just end up flipping the mid size and buying the full size later, costing you more money in the long run.


----------



## Hammondo (Feb 8, 2010)

I go with the notion more watch for your money!
But hey if some of you want to wear girly sized watches, that's your prerogative :>)


----------



## martin998877 (May 5, 2011)

peitron said:


> I have small wrists at 6.5mm.


Man that's tiny!! Mine are 7.5 INCHES so your wrist is smaller than my little finger!

Lol, sorry I couldn't resist that.

I do think there is a fashion move to larger sized watches. looking at my collection of old watches, they are all significantly smaller than even the seamaster mid size now.

Mart

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner


----------



## kaina7 (Nov 15, 2010)

I bought my first SMP mid-size blue (James Bond) back in 1999. I wore that mid-size on my 7" wrist comfortably. I actually had this watch stolen in 2001 and because I had a personal articles floater (insurance policy) on the watch, the company offered me to get the full size for no extra charge (since they could get it replaced at a cost at the insured value). So in 2001 I got a full size SMP. It is a great fit for me! I finally sent the full size 2001 SMP for service last week for the first time. It needed a battery change and it could use a full service/cleaning/polishing, etc. The bezel has a huge scratch so I may have that replaced as well. It will feel like a brand new watch. At least I hope.

Patiently awaiting my PO.......


----------



## Jordrdean (Jun 22, 2011)

I was recently at an AD trying the AT8500 in full/midsize. The salesperson - (who was great to work with - Barmakian Jeweler in Framingham, MA) - stated that you should not really consider the wrist size as much as your height.
I consider my wrists small(6.5ish), but he said based on my height (6ft) that i should go with the 41.5 version.
I never really considered this as a way to look at it, but i agree with him - also goes along with what others said about looking in a full length mirror.


----------



## downs523 (Aug 18, 2011)

Hi, just joined, I have just also bought a full size 2009 blue seamaster pro, I have a 6"wrist and it looks good. I have had a mid sized one a few years ago and the reason I got it then was because I thought it would be the best choice without trying a big one on. Out of the two I prefer the big one, the lugs are just inside the edges of my wrist, bigger is better


----------



## SwissBlood (Sep 29, 2009)

*sport watch or dress watch?*

I have a GMTII (40mm), a '69 Speedy and 2254.50 (both 41.5mm) and like them on my 7.25" wrist.

However, I really miss my Explorer after gifting it to my daughter for her college graduation, so I bought a 1993 Datejust with machined turned bezel and slate tapestry dial.

Looks great on the wrist. So maybe for a sports watch go a little bigger, and dress watch "normal" size.

Mike


----------



## dotti (May 12, 2010)

*full size or mid size omega seamaster?*

Hi, can you tell me whether this is a 2264 omega seamaster (full size 41mm) or 2262 (mid size 36mm)?

the warranty card said it's a 2264, but from my past experience, the warranty card & the watch sometimes get mixed up. also the seller wrote in his description that the diameter is 36mm.

assuming that the omega warranty card size is similar to common credit card size, i tried to make a comparison with my 43mm tag heuer. based on that, it looks like a full size omega, but i'm not really sure, as i don't have a mid size watch to compare. so please post your opinions, i really appreciate it. thanks.


----------



## iam7head (Dec 16, 2010)

*Re: full size or mid size omega seamaster?*



dotti said:


> Hi, can you tell me whether this is a 2264 omega seamaster (full size 41mm) or 2262 (mid size 36mm)?
> 
> the warranty card said it's a 2264, but from my past experience, the warranty card & the watch sometimes get mixed up. also the seller wrote in his description that the diameter is 36mm.
> 
> assuming that the omega warranty card size is similar to common credit card size, i tried to make a comparison with my 43mm tag heuer. based on that, it looks like a full size omega, but i'm not really sure, as i don't have a mid size watch to compare. so please post your opinions, i really appreciate it. thanks.


-Check the serial number on the case, match it with the warranty card, if it matches then it's a matching warranty card. It can't be any more simple.

-or have the seller put a ruler on the watch..36mm vs 41mm the difference is quite easy to tell.

-If the seller can't even do that for you, you might as well not buy it from him/her.

Judging from the photo, the white leather holder is a trapezoid. It's a photo, there's perspective and distortion, better make be sure than sorry.


----------



## Boxed In (Jun 22, 2008)

Try them on as some larger or smaller watches may not suit to design style rather than the odd mm or 2.
I find some 41mm omega wear smaller than other brands due to lug or crown size etc.


----------

