# Aqua Terra 38.5 or 41.5???



## Ccubed9187 (May 30, 2013)

Its been asked before but as I am on the verge of purchasing, had to pose my own question...
I have a 7in wrist and am debating between the 38.5 and the 41.5. I do want something that can be worn on any occasion. The 38.5 throws me off because the smallest watch I wear is a 42 (the largest being a 44), but hear that the AT generally wears very large. Has anyone with similar size wrist made this decision???

Open to to all opinions!! 
Thanks


----------



## impreziv (Apr 16, 2013)

Only u can help yourself make that decision. Try both on and see which suits u best.


----------



## GTTIME (Jun 28, 2009)

41.5


----------



## Psi (Jun 11, 2013)

impreziv said:


> Only u can help yourself make that decision. Try both on and see which suits u best.


Agree with above.

I am in the 38.5 camp, although it all depends on what makes up your wrist measurement of 7inches - is it width or depth, or a bit of both? If you have a really wide wrist then the 41.5 won't look too big on formal occasions.

Due to the semi sporty roots of the AT, where there is a bit of thickness/chunkiness to move it away from a pure dress watch, even the 38.5 isn't the most formal watch, and almost anyone can pull it off (which can't be said for the 41.5), remember the small bezel/large dial makes them wear larger, and the thickness makes them sportier - the measurement sounds smaller, but the numbers don't matter, it is what you feel most comfortable with.


----------



## darrenf (Aug 15, 2012)

Try thinking of it this way:

38.5 = sporty dress watch
41.5 = dressy sports watch

(I say this half tongue in cheek, but I actually think it works quite well in setting the two watches apart)

I wear mine mainly with suits so consider mine more of a dress watch. I have the 38.5mm. I also have a 42mm PO which I generally wear more casual. They do get swapped around from time to time as they are both very versatile.

If I was getting an AT as a "one watch", I think I would go for the 41.5 though as I think it really covers all bases: beach to boardroom is the appropriate phrase I think.

The face does appear larger to the wearer than an equivalent size dive watch due to the narrower, less prominent bezel and larger diameter crystal. The crystal in my AT is very slightly larger than in my PO although obviously the overall dimensions of the watch (which is what everyone else sees, but 99% of people don't care anyway) are smaller.

My wrist is about 7 inches and I think you will have no problem wearing either size at all.


----------



## Jonpod (Jan 9, 2008)

I have a 7.25" wrist and really like the 38mm sized AT.i wear it often and is favorite. To me it is a perfectly sized watch.

This one was a tenth wedding anniversary gift from my wife almost 10 years ago. I also wear a Panerai 176 so you know I like larger watches also.


----------



## iainwith2is (Jun 19, 2012)

I think the larger style watche attraction will fade soon and the 40mm's will be back in force. Don't be put off my three 38 but try then on and see how you feel.

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk now Free


----------



## Jack T (Dec 24, 2012)

I set my limit at 40mm for any watch, whether sporty, dress or casual. I have 7.25 inch wrists, have a 42mm Planet Ocean that I love, but for versatility, I'd go with the 38.5mm AT. Such a nice watch!


----------



## hchj (Jul 9, 2011)

My friend has a sub 7 inch wrist, the 41 mm AT appears big on it. I think it is partly due to the white dial. the same sized black dial will appear smaller.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Raymond9010 (Aug 12, 2013)

I have 6.45" wrist and I had the 38.5mm version, looked perfect, AquaTerra is a dressy watch so I prefer it to be a conservative size. If your wrist is 7", then I think the 38.5 will be perfect also.


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

41.5


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

As already observed, no one here can tell you what to do, so our recommendations are worthless. All we reasonably can do is tell you what we bought, and why.

I have a 7.75" wrist and bought the 41.5mm AT. It wasn't long before I realized it looked too big. I took a loss swapping it for another's 38.5mm model. I recently bought a Skyfall AT and think it is the perfect watch, both in size (38.5) and color.

Try both on and buy the one you like best. If you choose wrong, sell it and buy the one you should have bought in the first place. But no one can tell you which is which. ;-)

P.S. - Here is my 38.5mm AT:









P.P.S. - WARNING: Watches always appear smaller in a jewelry store than in the wild. Don't ask me why.


----------



## carlhaluss (Oct 27, 2007)

iinsic said:


> As already observed, no one here can tell you what to do, so our recommendations are worthless. All we reasonably can do is tell you what we bought, and why.
> 
> I have a 7.75" wrist and bought the 41.5mm AT. It wasn't long before I realized it looked too big. I took a loss swapping it for another's 38.5mm model. I recently bought a Skyfall AT and think it is the perfect watch, both in size (38.5) and color.
> 
> ...


I agree on everything you say! My wrist is slightly smaller, at 7.5in. I, too, had a 45.1mm large size and sold it. I couldn't be happier with the 38.5mm. It still has enough bulk so that it does not appear at all like a small watch, yet it retains a bit of a classic look by not following the trend of being big.

And you already have a bigger watch, so getting one a bit smaller will make a nice change for you. Here are some pics I took just yesterday. They are pretty close up, but gives an idea of the bulk of the watch, and how it is not in any way small:









Cheers,
Carl


----------



## refugio (Jul 1, 2011)

Jack T said:


> I set my limit at 40mm for any watch, whether sporty, dress or casual. I have 7.25 inch wrists, have a 42mm Planet Ocean that I love, but for versatility, I'd go with the 38.5mm AT. Such a nice watch!


I'm not following your "limit" - I think you're saying it's your *lower *limit but then you'd "go with" the 38.5?


----------



## Horoticus (Jul 23, 2011)

You simply must try them both on. Otherwise, you'll just be guessing (and second guessing).

Best of luck!


----------



## bigbadbob (Feb 1, 2012)

I like to think that 42mm is just about the perfect size for a watch, plus or minus. Slightly bigger, slightly smaller, doesn't matter. 38.5 is way too small IMO -- I'd have the 41.5.

Enjoy either one you get!


----------



## khoalety (Feb 2, 2013)

With 7" wrist, you have both options.  They will both be great on you. Good luck!


----------



## Fi33pop (Aug 5, 2013)

I was considering tha AT as my next purchase and thought I would go for the 38.5 as I generally like smaller watches. But when I tried it on, it looked too small on my 7.5" wrist. The 41.5 looked much better. If you want an answer you have to go and try on both. See how it looks on your wrist and in a mirror. In the end I decided on the De Ville Orbis - it blows the AT away, IMHO.


----------



## mjrchabot (Apr 5, 2011)

I opted for the 38.5 blue AT8500...I do have smaller wrist at about 6.25". However, this watch tends to wear larger due to a thin bezel. As others have said, I think the midsize version will hold to the test of time when larger watches start to fade away. I would never have considered a diver at the midsize, however it works really well for the AT.


----------



## CDNWatchNut (Nov 18, 2006)

7.5" wrist and I chose the 38.5. I tried on the 41.5, but it felt just too large to me, for the type of watch. Caveat though, I've had my large watches in the 45.5 PO twice, and several others, and I finally figured out that I dislike big watches regardless of the current fad. So I'm biased towards smaller. The 38.5 to me feels larger than it sounds on paper, obviously due to the thinner bezel and correspondingly larger proportionate size of the dial.
no right or wrong answers here, just personal preference.


----------



## hlbrem (Jan 11, 2012)

even a 38,5 still too big for me...aber i have very small wrist...if i were you, i will go for 38,5


----------



## Jack T (Dec 24, 2012)

Redo


----------



## Jack T (Dec 24, 2012)

mjrchabot said:


> I opted for the 38.5 blue AT8500...I do have smaller wrist at about 6.25". However, this watch tends to wear larger due to a thin bezel. As others have said, I think the midsize version will hold to the test of time when larger watches start to fade away. I would never have considered a diver at the midsize, however it works really well for the AT.
> View attachment 1248980


beautiful watch


----------



## Jack T (Dec 24, 2012)

refugio said:


> I'm not following your "limit" - I think you're saying it's your *lower *limit but then you'd "go with" the 38.5?


Sorry I was not clear, 40mm is my upper limit. My Planet Ocean was grandfathered in. As others have said here, watches can wear larger than their measurements, with bezel design playing a big part. Someone also said watches appear smaller in the store than in the wild. Interesting point as well.


----------



## snakeinthegear (Jul 24, 2009)

Should larger watches fade out of fashion I honestly don't think the 41.5mm AT will suffer much if at all. The 41.5 is still a decent enough and general sized looking watch imo and what really helps us the AT's overall aesthetic design. It's significant in its simplicity and thus has a classic look to it. However, for me personally, I'd always go for the 38.5mm when it comes to the AT because the 38.5 is a classic size to compliment a classic aesthetic. That being said, I think all of this is also dependent on the size of one's wrist and of course the size if the person wearing the watch which us why it's always advisable to try on a watch in front of a full length mirror, so you can see how the watch looks overall on your person.


----------



## scamp007 (Sep 10, 2006)

38.5, end of. Why? That's the size James Bond wears, any other choice is therefore invalid. ;-)


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Muddy250 (Jul 20, 2011)

scamp007 said:


> 38.5, end of. Why? That's the size James Bond wears, any other choice is therefore invalid. ;-)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone


Ah, but would he have worn a 41.5 if it had been available at the time?


----------



## GTTIME (Jun 28, 2009)

darrenf said:


> Try thinking of it this way:
> 
> 38.5 = sporty dress watch
> 41.5 = dressy sports watch
> ...


I completely agree with this.

I would like to point out that 41.5 is not a huge watch by any stretch of imagination.


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

Neither were available at the time.


Muddy250 said:


> Ah, but would he have worn a 41.5 if it had been available at the time?


----------



## Iliyan (May 30, 2010)

I think the AT is really versatile in both sizes. Neither is the 38.5mm too small nor is the 41.5mm too big. I think it's more of a choice of what function you want it to perform and how it will fit in your collection - as was pointed out already the size can help make it more dressy or more sporty. One other thing to consider is that leather straps also help with that - the 41.5 can become more dressy in an instant. 

There's no magic formula - buy what looks good to you.


----------



## Muddy250 (Jul 20, 2011)

Iliyan said:


> I think the AT is really versatile in both sizes. Neither is the 38.5mm too small nor is the 41.5mm too big. I think it's more of a choice of what function you want it to perform and how it will fit in your collection - as was pointed out already the size can help make it more dressy or more sporty. One other thing to consider is that leather straps also help with that - the 41.5 can become more dressy in an instant.
> 
> There's no magic formula - buy what looks good to you.


Dressy


----------



## snakeinthegear (Jul 24, 2009)

Muddy250 said:


> Ah, but would he have worn a 41.5 if it had been available at the time?


As I understand it, the 38.5mm blue AT was designed based in the request and requirements of Daniel Craig himself.


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

snakeinthegear said:


> As I understand it, the 38.5mm blue AT was designed based in the request and requirements of Daniel Craig himself.


Certainly when one watches _Skyfall_ (and I just watched it again a few days ago), there is no arguing how perfect the watch looks on DC's wrist, both in size and aesthetics. And I feel the same way when I look at mine. A true nonpareil!


----------



## Muddy250 (Jul 20, 2011)

I still think the AT is a lousy choice for an agent. No way he could tell the time in the dark of that Shanghai office block with this lume!


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

Muddy250 said:


> I still think the AT is a lousy choice for an agent. No way he could tell the time in the dark of that Shanghai office block with this lume!


Perhaps his eyes are as good as mine. ;-)


----------



## Muddy250 (Jul 20, 2011)

iinsic said:


> Perhaps his eyes are as good as mine. ;-)


Mine are shot but I can read my PO without my specs.


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

Muddy250 said:


> Mine are shot but I can read my PO without my specs.


That's a thought: I don't recall ever seeing Bond wearing specs ... even in NSNA. :think:

Chris, you need to eat more carrots! :-!


----------



## scamp007 (Sep 10, 2006)

snakeinthegear said:


> As I understand it, the 38.5mm blue AT was designed based in the request and requirements of Daniel Craig himself.


And we all know what the inspiration for that was....










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## forty-six&2 (Oct 16, 2012)

i have a 7.5 inch wrist, have tried on both and think the 38.5 was a much better fit.


----------



## ichaice (Sep 5, 2013)

I've been after a blue dial AT for some time now and tried on both sizes a few times and was still unsure. In the end I went for a 38.5 and picked it up yesterday. I'm happy I've got the right one.


----------



## spyderco10 (Mar 21, 2011)

darrenf said:


> Try thinking of it this way:
> 
> 38.5 = sporty dress watch
> 41.5 = dressy sports watch


+1 wrist size notwithstanding, it depends on what look you're going for. That's why you got some guys with > 7" wrists opting for the 38.5 and some guys with < 7" wrists going for the 41.5


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

No help here, even with a side-by-side shot.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

spyderco10 said:


> That's why you got some guys with > 7" wrists opting for the 38.5 and some guys with < 7" wrists going for the 41.5


I thought it was to compensate for other shortcomings.


----------



## nick_sixx (Apr 15, 2012)

I have 7.25" wrists and find my Speedy Pro to be the perfect size for a sports watch on my wrist, and my Explorer 1 to be the perfect 'dress casual' size at 39mm.

Due to the obvious similarities between the AT and the Explorer, I would go for the 38.5mm version. I feel that it definitely wears more like a 40mm size due to it being all dial, while the 41mm wears more like a 43mm, which seems a little too big for a dressier watch.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk now Free


----------



## Muddy250 (Jul 20, 2011)

nick_sixx said:


> I have 7.25" wrists and find my Speedy Pro to be the perfect size for a sports watch on my wrist, and my Explorer 1 to be the perfect 'dress casual' size at 39mm.
> 
> Due to the obvious similarities between the AT and the Explorer, I would go for the 38.5mm version. I feel that it definitely wears more like a 40mm size due to it being all dial, while the 41mm wears more like a 43mm, which seems a little too big for a dressier watch.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk now Free


But the bezel diameter of the Exp1 and the 41.5 AT are identical at 39mm and I find them to wear very comparably.
Omega watch sizing on pieces with assymetrical crown guard cases can be rather misleading. The diameter of the watch bezel is a couple of mm smaller than the official stated watch size which includes the crown guard and which is not a diameter at all, simply being the greatest distance across the case from 2-8. This makes the fit and feel difficult to compare size for size to a model with a circular, symmetrical case like the Explorer and is the main reason I went 42.8mm PO over the 39.8mm PO. It felt too small in comparison with my 40.8mm SMP ;-)
Just my morning ramblings, I'll get my coat...


----------



## Ccubed9187 (May 30, 2013)

Decided on the 38.5 -will post pics when it comes in. Thanks everyone for the input!


----------



## hendra324 (Dec 16, 2011)

I am prefer 38,5 mm


----------



## Hijak (Mar 15, 2013)

I have been interested in this watch myself. And the only advice you need is go down try both for yourself and don't listen to anyone else. Everyone has a different feel for whats right, I personally wear a lot of vintage watches between 35mm and 38mm, so I prefer the 38.5mm but that's just my opinion. How many times have people here thought one way about a watch but when they put it on their wrist felt completely different! Good luck with your search and one thing everyone here can agree on is that you will enjoy the AT!


----------



## THS (Oct 5, 2013)

38.5, no contest.


----------



## Hoppyjr (Aug 11, 2006)

Ccubed9187 said:


> Its been asked before but as I am on the verge of purchasing, had to pose my own question...
> I have a 7in wrist and am debating between the 38.5 and the 41.5. I do want something that can be worn on any occasion. The 38.5 throws me off because the smallest watch I wear is a 42 (the largest being a 44), but hear that the AT generally wears very large. Has anyone with similar size wrist made this decision???
> 
> Open to to all opinions!!
> Thanks


Either will work on your wrist, it is simply a matter of which _you_ prefer. Go try them on so you can make the decision. Asking others on the internet to tell you how to spend your money is silly.....


----------



## John Krista (Oct 26, 2013)

i have the 38.5.. dropped it twice already, on a concrete floor.. still doing good.. a true james bond watch..


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

Many appropriate comments have already been made. I went 41.5 and I don't consider this a true dress watch. I like the comment, it's a dressy sports watch, maybe a bit more in the larger version. The 38.5 is also beautiful but falls short of a dress watch. That said, it's very versatile and can been worn in many situations. It's a nice one watch solution although i view the blue as more of a specialty color so it works well In a small rotation for me. Also, I've got a small wrist







and feel the 41.5 isn't too large for my 6.5er


----------



## darby11 (Mar 29, 2012)

Muddy250 said:


> Ah, but would he have worn a 41.5 if it had been available at the time?


Bonds local ad, had a 3 month wait list for the 41.5


----------



## Hoppyjr (Aug 11, 2006)

Can't take mine off...


----------



## seekingalpha (Jun 16, 2013)

John Krista said:


> i have the 38.5.. dropped it twice already, on a concrete floor.. still doing good.. a true james bond watch..


Damn, that's crazy. What was the damage like on that? I've dropped mine once on carpet, and it landed on the crystal. Not a single scratch!


----------



## John Krista (Oct 26, 2013)

seekingalpha said:


> Damn, that's crazy. What was the damage like on that? I've dropped mine once on carpet, and it landed on the crystal. Not a single scratch!


this aquaterra really deserves to be the watch for james bond since there is no damage taken from the 2 falls whatsoever.. the accuracy is the same..


----------



## baytwenty3 (Jun 16, 2013)

Jonpod said:


> I have a 7.25" wrist and really like the 38mm sized AT.i wear it often and is favorite. To me it is a perfectly sized watch.
> 
> This one was a tenth wedding anniversary gift from my wife almost 10 years ago. I also wear a Panerai 176 so you know I like larger watches also.


That's strange.. I tried both sizes on, but the 38.5mm looks smaller on my 6 1/2 inch wrist than it does on your 7 inch wrist.









38.5mm - looks a bit small









41.5mm

Reading this thread I was almost certain 38.5mm was the right size for my small wrist, but trying it on, I couldn't help thinking 41.5mm fitted me better.


----------



## Hoppyjr (Aug 11, 2006)

Some folks have a flat wrist, some rounded. You'll only know what works if you try it on.....


----------



## emlu (Jan 1, 2009)

Hoppyjr is right about wrist shape. In my humble, factual opinion...there is no right or wrong size as far as anyone else is concerned. It's your watch on your wrist and your decision. That said, and I have said this before...pictures, especially the ones taken of one's own wrist always make the watch look bigger or "too big" as many here say. It's all about the angle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yessir69 (Oct 22, 2008)

38.5 on my 7 inch wrist:


----------



## yessir69 (Oct 22, 2008)

And here is the 41.5:


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

I had a hard enough time deciding between the teak grey and silver and which size. Then the blue comes out and really scrambled my brain now I'm just lost.


----------



## Hoppyjr (Aug 11, 2006)

JPfeuffer said:


> I had a hard enough time deciding between the teak grey and silver and which size. Then the blue comes out and really scrambled my brain now I'm just lost.


Blue. Allow me to help you decide 

Low light evening shots from iPhone.


----------



## John Krista (Oct 26, 2013)

JPfeuffer said:


> I had a hard enough time deciding between the teak grey and silver and which size. Then the blue comes out and really scrambled my brain now I'm just lost.


if you really are after a classy look, get the white


----------



## tatt169 (May 21, 2012)

I find a light coloured dial to wear larger than a dark one, I like the opaline in 38.5 and the blue in 41.5mm

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Does the Aqua Terra day date comes in mid size (38.5mm)? I recently saw one in 41mm and loved its look (8602 caliber), but as a dress watch would pursue the 38.5mm size on my 7 1/8 inch wrist (wear 40mm Rolex Sub and various 40/41mm Speedmaster / Seamasters , but as a dress watch think 41mm is too big)


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

fskywalker said:


> Does the Aqua Terra day date comes in mid size (38.5mm)? I recently saw one in 41mm and loved its look (8602 caliber), but as a dress watch would pursue the 38.5mm size on my 7 1/8 inch wrist (wear 40mm Rolex Sub and various 40/41mm Speedmaster / Seamasters , but as a dress watch think 41mm is too big)


The AT day-date is available only in 41.5mm diameter. Perhaps at Baselworld 2015, or at least in 2016, Omega will introduce a 38.5mm version. Unfortunately, the day-date probably is too thick ... perhaps a mm or more thicker than the 12.95mm-thick AT 38.5mm. Certainly a formidable contender in stainless, but not for those considering gold. The much-more-svelte Rolex Day-Date remains the king in proportionality (even the Day-Date II is thinner than the AT day-date).


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Thanks for headsup. I guess will then probably look for a 39mm white face /blue marker 2503.33, which is very thin (about 11mm I think) and with the very nice seethrough caseback


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

fskywalker said:


> Thanks for headsup. I guess will then probably look for a 39mm white face /blue marker 2503.33, which is very thin (about 11mm I think) and with the very nice seethrough caseback


Good luck with your search. Those are rare as proverbial hen's teeth. :-d


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

WatchWerx said:


> Good luck with your search. Those are rare as proverbial hen's teeth. :-d


Well, there is actually one for sale right now at WUS for about $3k (located at UK), but will have to sell my Bond GMT before getting the AT.


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

38.5 Teak Grey

in more muted lighting:








The grey can pretty much cover the entire black to white spectrum. This is obviously the one to get!


----------



## OSUMBA2003 (Jan 1, 2012)

Kinda odd that this thread was resurrected after more than a year. I'm pretty sure the OP has made his decision by now.


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

OSUMBA2003 said:


> Kinda odd that this thread was resurrected after more than a year. I'm pretty sure the OP has made his decision by now.


If you look at post #66, it's pretty obvious why it was resurrected ... and unrelated to the OP's query.


----------



## highbob (Feb 27, 2014)

I realize that I'm very late to this particular party, but I found the discussion not only fun and informative, but also apt because I'm about to pull the trigger on my own AT. I'd been seriously considering a Rolex Datejust--and I'm sure that I'll end up with one on down the road--but ever since I got my Omega SMPc a couple months ago, I've grown fonder and fonder of that watch and the make in general. 

Wound up in my local AD a few weeks ago and tried on a silver/white/opaline 38.5, and I fell in love. I tend to go for smaller watches, hence the DJ love, and the case was no different with the AT. My SMPc is 41mm, so I am happy with that medium size of watches, and I feel that they fit just fine on my slightly-larger-than 7-inch wrist. But I really like the 36-38mm range. I have a couple of old dress watches that are 36-ish, and I also have a Sinn 556 that's 38, as well as a couple of Hamilton Thin-O-Matic retro models that seem perfect to me. And while I intend for this to be a GADA watch, I like the idea of a watch that's a little smaller for less casual occasions.

The white face wears large, in any case, and the narrow bezel also feeds the size perception here. In any case, that white/silver AT really fits my desire for a dressier-though-still-sporty watch, which I was looking for with the DJ. But I really want to go with the AT due to its looks, its size, and the really sterling quality of the Omega watches that I've had in hand over the past couple years. A couple months on the wrist, though, with the SMP have pushed me even further into my decision to get an AT.

So close. When/if I pull the trigger, I'll post pics here and elsewhere. It's what we do.


----------



## highbob (Feb 27, 2014)

As promised.





































Love this AT. I've worn it everyday since I received it on Friday. It's still not quite one second ahead of my time source. Amazing. Very happy with this get.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## knezz (May 26, 2015)

Fantastic looking watch ! Got one in blue few days ago as well, mine is full size but looks a lot like yours on your wrist. I have 8 inch wrist, thread resurrected....


----------



## richterto (Oct 3, 2014)

I sold my 41.5 blue Aqua Terra with date frame last month and will hopefully have a 38.5 (also blue with date frame) by the end of the week! While I wear 42mm watches (Speedy Pro and IWC Pilot Chrono), the 41.5 Aqua Terra wears large because of the relatively small bezel. There's just "too much" dial so it looks huge on my small wrist.


----------



## javadave61 (Mar 26, 2015)

richterto said:


> I sold my 41.5 blue Aqua Terra with date frame last month and will hopefully have a 38.5 (also blue with date frame) by the end of the week! While I wear 42mm watches (Speedy Pro and IWC Pilot Chrono), the 41.5 Aqua Terra wears large because of the relatively small bezel. There's just "too much" dial so it looks huge on my small wrist.


What is your wrist size? Just curious. I feel like the 38.5 vs 41.5 is a real debate for me in my near future. Really want that date frame though.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk


----------



## richterto (Oct 3, 2014)

javadave61 said:


> What is your wrist size? Just curious. I feel like the 38.5 vs 41.5 is a real debate for me in my near future. Really want that date frame though.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk


It was a big debate for me when I first bought the 41.5 a couple years back. At the time I did try to compare sizes of the two but I didn't have them both in blue side-by-side. At the time it seemed okay to me especially since I was used to wearing 42mm chronographs. I think it was the large dial that ended up making me regret my choice. Also over the last couple of years I've come to better appreciate the look of a smaller, more elegant dressy watch. As an example, I just picked up my first "proper" gold dress watch and that's only 36mm and very thin. So changing personal taste definitely had an impact on my change of heart. I still like sports watches like the Submariner, GMT Master II, my pilot chronograph, and Speedy Pro, but I now also like smaller dressier pieces as well.

My wrist is relatively flat 6 1/2". Plus I also have proportionally wider forearms so it's not that I can't pull it off. It's just a change in preference for what I want. For me, the 41.5 would be a dressy sports watch while the 38.5 is more like a sporty dress watch. My sports watch bases are well-covered so now I'm wanting my Aqua Terra to fill more of a dressier role in my collection.

That Skyfall model (date frame non Master Co-Axial version) was a b*tch to track down. It's harder to find than the newer no date frame Master Co-axial version and is more expensive to boot. People aren't selling.


----------



## javadave61 (Mar 26, 2015)

richterto said:


> It was a big debate for me when I first bought the 41.5 a couple years back....


As it stands now, I'm leaning towards the 41.5 for my 7.25" wrist. But I'm also on that trajectory of appreciating smaller watches. My sport watches are looking larger and larger every day. I'll be near a boutique in a few weeks and will try them on.

And once I saw the lack of date frame on the master coaxial, I couldn't stop unseeing it. I'm hoping I'll get over that.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk


----------



## richterto (Oct 3, 2014)

javadave61 said:


> And once I saw the lack of date frame on the master coaxial, I couldn't stop unseeing it. I'm hoping I'll get over that.


The Skyfall (38.5 with date frame) is getting really hard to find it for sale used - no one is selling so the prices are going up. I'm seeing it go for more money than the newer, and technologically better (magnetic resistance) Master Co-Axial model.


----------



## Radharc (Nov 23, 2010)

javadave61 said:


> I feel like the 38.5 vs 41.5 is a real debate for me in my near future.


Here's a pic of the two side-by-side if it helps (41.5 gray vs 38.5 white).


----------



## scheissestadt (Nov 21, 2016)

Something unique to the 38.5 (non-master) is the fact that the date frame is aligned with the other indices, such that it's basically another index but with the legs of the V spread apart into a trapezoid.

Not a HUGE deal to me as I feel people tend to overthink things like dial symmetry and balance, but something to consider.


----------



## yessir69 (Oct 22, 2008)

Comparison if a 38.5 to a 36 DJ if anyone is interested.


----------



## yessir69 (Oct 22, 2008)

*of


----------



## highbob (Feb 27, 2014)

Great minds. Comparing my 38.5 AT to my 38mm Sinn 556.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## imranbecks (Oct 3, 2008)

With my 7" wrist, loving my 41.5mm AT!


----------



## Triggers Broom (Jul 24, 2016)

Both sizes are good but this 38.5mm in titanium is without doubt the most comfortable.


----------



## tbensous (Jan 14, 2009)

mjrchabot said:


> I opted for the 38.5 blue AT8500...I do have smaller wrist at about 6.25". However, this watch tends to wear larger due to a thin bezel. As others have said, I think the midsize version will hold to the test of time when larger watches start to fade away. I would never have considered a diver at the midsize, however it works really well for the AT.
> View attachment 1248980


hi ! what's this strap? would you have more photos and a link where to get it from? very nice!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## r00kis (Dec 7, 2010)

I had the same dilemma before. Started with 38.5 then flipped it for 41.5, but eventually returned it to 38.5. Here are both next to each other:


----------



## scheissestadt (Nov 21, 2016)

r00kis said:


> I had the same dilemma before. Started with 38.5 then flipped it for 41.5, but eventually returned it to 38.5. Here are both next to each other:
> View attachment 12146514
> View attachment 12146522


What made you switch to 41.5 at first? Not questioning your journey, just curious about what goes into watch sizing in general, since it's definitely not a science.

When it came to the AT I settled on 38.5 fairly easily (my wrist is not large at 7") but I sometimes wrestle with the question on whether larger sport watches are too big. I often find myself underestimating the "big dish" factor by only comparing the 2D straight-on view against the top and bottom of the wrist, or even worse, against the back of my hand where there's a broader expanse of skin that makes the dial look smaller than it really is. These tests make it easy to err too far on the large side, since you assume the face should dominate the region. Furthermore, while most watches seem convex due to a domed crystal, the face itself is usually concave, and this is what ultimately comes across when being worn. The concavity enhances the "dish"-iness and makes most watches wear larger than they seem.

The real test is a more zoomed-out view, ideally the whole body, or at least the full forearm and hand looking at you instead of from your first-person perspective. From there you can see that a sensible dial size range is actually significantly smaller than the "flesh" context of your wrist + hand, a proportion that seems dainty from the dysmorphia of a first-person perspective. It's kind of like (but in the opposite direction) how a basketball is actually half the width of the hoop even though it feels more like 3/4.


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox (Mar 8, 2014)

I prefer the 41.5.


----------



## r00kis (Dec 7, 2010)

scheissestadt said:


> What made you switch to 41.5 at first? Not questioning your journey, just curious about what goes into watch sizing in general, since it's definitely not a science.


It was due to the evolution of my collection as well as changing preference. When I had 38.5, my only other watch was vintage seamaster 34mm, and I wanted to get something substantially bigger for casual wear (my wrist is 7.25). Hence, the 41.5 seemed to be a better fit. 
Since then I acquired Speedy Pro, which became my go-to casual watch, while AT moved to the dressy side. At the same time, I've also started to gravitate towards smaller watches in general and even for casual look 41.5 started to appear a bit too big:


----------



## Triggers Broom (Jul 24, 2016)

I've now owned a 41.5mm AT, a 38.5mm AT and a 39mm Railmaster and for me the smaller sizes work best.

Here's the 38.50 AT Good Planet.


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

38,5 - i nearly wrote "of course" afterwards, but i understand if overweight people gravitate towards larger wristwatches as it will probably fit them better.


----------



## munichblue (Feb 20, 2008)

Although I have a 8" wrist I'm really tempted to flip my 41.5 for a smaller AT.


----------



## Sloopjohnb (Sep 8, 2014)

It has been a dilemma of sorts for me for three years now. I tried the small one nimerous times but found it somewhat not properly balanced, mainly too high for its small size. I eventually bought the 41.5 although I have a small wrist of just around 6.3". The dial is pretty big but I have no lug overhang, and I wanted a sporty rather than a dressy look. Still I consider the 38.5 every now and then. But I fear that I would find it too dressy for my liking.

Maybe I should stop thinking about it and just enjoy the one I have....here is an older pic and comments are welcome


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

Can you post a picture further away? Vry difficult to judge from that distance,


----------



## tbensous (Jan 14, 2009)

Sloopjohnb said:


> It has been a dilemma of sorts for me for three years now. I tried the small one nimerous times but found it somewhat not properly balanced, mainly too high for its small size. I eventually bought the 41.5 although I have a small wrist of just around 6.3". The dial is pretty big but I have no lug overhang, and I wanted a sporty rather than a dressy look. Still I consider the 38.5 every now and then. But I fear that I would find it too dressy for my liking.
> 
> Maybe I should stop thinking about it and just enjoy the one I have....here is an older pic and comments are welcome


looks like a perfect fit on this photo especially if you like a more sporty look.
doesn't look oversized at all still fits on your wrist very well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Radharc (Nov 23, 2010)

Sloopjohnb said:


> Maybe I should stop thinking about it and just enjoy the one I have....here is an older pic and comments are welcome


Honestly, that looks fantastic to me.


----------



## DaveMac66 (Feb 19, 2014)

It's such a classy watch with a style and design that will always win the test of time. A all time favorite. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MikeCfromLI (Jan 6, 2012)

javadave61 said:


> As it stands now, I'm leaning towards the 41.5 for my 7.25" wrist. But I'm also on that trajectory of appreciating smaller watches. My sport watches are looking larger and larger every day. I'll be near a boutique in a few weeks and will try them on.
> 
> And once I saw the lack of date frame on the master coaxial, I couldn't stop unseeing it. I'm hoping I'll get over that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk


Mine is a 41 and I have a 7.25


----------



## Sloopjohnb (Sep 8, 2014)

Thanks guys for the feedback. Yes I am probably overthinking this. I guess it works because I have a very flat wrist, from the top it looks more or less like Mike's despite the big difference in wrist size. And I have also added the requested pic from a distance where it looks ok to me.


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

You seem quite tall, that in combination with the distance picture i would say that the watch appear to fits fine. This is not accounting for the bulky and intrusive size and thickness of the abhorred design, but apart from that it fits fine.


----------



## Sloopjohnb (Sep 8, 2014)

Knisse said:


> You seem quite tall, that in combination with the distance picture i would say that the watch appear to fits fine. This is not accounting for the bulky and intrusive size and thickness of the abhorred design, but apart from that it fits fine.


Thanks. I am actually not tall at 1.80m. But the bulkiness works better in my opinion with the 41.5mm. The smaller one just seems off balance, given how chunky the AT is.


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

Sloopjohnb said:


> Thanks. I am actually not tall at 1.80m. But the bulkiness works better in my opinion with the 41.5mm. The smaller one just seems off balance, given how chunky the AT is.


Sorry about the last part in my comment. I have been an Omega fan for many years now and i am just bitter that Omega is going with larger and larger watches these days and sometimes i cannot hide my dissapointment. I have not tried the 41mm, only the 38,5 which was good diameter size but too thick for my taste - i have not seen if the 41 is more balanced, but i easily see that you are perfectly correct.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

I love my 38.5 AT. I've never thought of it as thick. I don't think it would be the same watch if they went for a thinner look.


----------



## mak1277 (Aug 9, 2016)

I tried on both. My wrist is right around 7", but fairly thin/flat. I thought the 38.5mm version looked better on the bracelet, but I was planning all along to buy it on leather. When I tried it on the OEM leather, the 38.5mm just didn't fit/feel right...It seemed to be too thick for its diameter and didn't sit well on my wrist. I ended up buying the 41.5mm and have no issues or complaints with it. I've had it almost a year and find it to be super comfortable. The thickness has never bothered me at all, and it slides under my shirt cuffs just fine.


----------



## highbob (Feb 27, 2014)

I think the size one chooses is very much a matter of individual taste. My wrist is just over 7 inches, and I went with the 38.5. I like the more traditional size, and it makes me happy. I did have some concern with the thickness, but it really hasn't been an issue for me, cuff-wise. Here's the proof.










I love how the 38.5 works on my wrist.










Contrast that with my SMP at 41.









I enjoy the diver being a bit larger. I enjoy the sport watch being a bit smaller and more suited-for me-for more all-around wear at 38.5. My two cents on this particular point of not-quite-contention. Taste, preference, peccadillo.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## imranbecks (Oct 3, 2008)

My only gripe with the AT is the bracelet which lacks a micro adjust for that perfect fit. Its either snug or too loose. I can't get that sweet spot. Removed two full links on mine, wore it for a month, felt it was too loose and moving around too much, so I recently removed a half link. It still didn't feel quite right as it moved around. Put back the half link and removed a full link instead, now it sits snugly on my wrist. Better though. But a micro adjust with the half link instead of another full link removed would've given it a perfect fit imo.


----------



## hchj (Jul 9, 2011)

I owned both sizes... 38.5 fits my wrist better and looks nicer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## imranbecks (Oct 3, 2008)

Here's a better shot of my 41.5mm AT around my 7" wrist.


----------



## highbob (Feb 27, 2014)

imranbecks said:


> My only gripe with the AT is the bracelet which lacks a micro adjust for that perfect fit. Its either snug or too loose. I can't get that sweet spot. Removed two full links on mine, wore it for a month, felt it was too loose and moving around too much, so I recently removed a half link. It still didn't feel quite right as it moved around. Put back the half link and removed a full link instead, now it sits snugly on my wrist. Better though. But a micro adjust with the half link instead of another full link removed would've given it a perfect fit imo.


I understand your issue, and it's not unreasonable to wish for the perfect fit from a watch in this price range. I enjoy a just-loose fit that allows for a little bit of my own expansion on hot days or from eating a hot dog or just activity. Plus, I tend to reposition my watch by shaking my wrist. The looser fit allows that particular practice. Curiously, I also removed a link and a half from my AT bracelet, and I've had no problems, but it's not as easy a fix as the micro adjustable clasp that I recently installed on my SMP.

I would like an option for the AT that allowed for easier adjustment, but the thing I do like about the butterfly deployant is its light weight and low bulk. The Omega micro adjustable clasp is great, but it it not small. Same for the Glidelock clasp from Rolex. Those things take up space and add weight. I like the less is more effect of the Omega butterfly on the AT, and I've come to like it more and more as I've worn it. That's probably a result of familiarity breeding respect, and I have other watches with butterfly clasps, but they are dress watches, and I don't wear them very often. So to experience the AT and its butterfly through daily wear has caused me to appreciate how well the clasp works for me. My experience-your mileage, yada, yada. I'd be very open to another solution, but only if it were as ... unobtrusive as the butterfly.


----------



## munichblue (Feb 20, 2008)

highbob said:


> I understand your issue, and it's not unreasonable to wish for the perfect fit from a watch in this price range. I enjoy a just-loose fit that allows for a little bit of my own expansion on hot days or from eating a hot dog or just activity. Plus, I tend to reposition my watch by shaking my wrist. The looser fit allows that particular practice. Curiously, I also removed a link and a half from my AT bracelet, and I've had no problems, but it's not as easy a fix as the micro adjustable clasp that I recently installed on my SMP.
> 
> I would like an option for the AT that allowed for easier adjustment, but the thing I do like about the butterfly deployant is its light weight and low bulk. The Omega micro adjustable clasp is great, but it it not small. Same for the Glidelock clasp from Rolex. Those things take up space and add weight. I like the less is more effect of the Omega butterfly on the AT, and I've come to like it more and more as I've worn it. That's probably a result of familiarity breeding respect, and I have other watches with butterfly clasps, but they are dress watches, and I don't wear them very often. So to experience the AT and its butterfly through daily wear has caused me to appreciate how well the clasp works for me. My experience-your mileage, yada, yada. I'd be very open to another solution, but only if it were as ... unobtrusive as the butterfly.


I totally agree with what you said about the bracelet. I also do like a loose fit and although I've got a new PO with the adjustable clasp and some other Omegas with different bracelets there's no other watch which fits so perfect to my wrist like the AT. Obviously a question of a marriage made in heaven between my wrist and the AT bracelet.


----------



## highbob (Feb 27, 2014)

munichblue said:


> I totally agree with what you said about the bracelet. I also do like a loose fit and although I've got a new PO with the adjustable clasp and some other Omegas with different bracelets there's no other watch which fits so perfect to my wrist like the AT. Obviously a question of a marriage made in heaven between my wrist and the AT bracelet.


Right? For better or worse, there's an element of luck to how most bracelets fit their owners. That may not jibe well with some owners, especially considering how much they might've paid for the bracelet ... oh, and the watch, too. Understandable. I feel fortunate to have found a watch that is both incredibly accurate and suitably comfortable. I'm even thinking about getting rid of the Explorer to fund a blue AT. I miss the date.

And while I love the white/silver/opaline AT--really, really, really--I think that a blue model might be a bit more suitable for casual wear, with the white/silver/opaline better for dressier or business applications. Of course, both are sports watches, but the blue dial is--traditionally--the less formal color.

Because I have to have all the watches. Oy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## munichblue (Feb 20, 2008)

highbob said:


> Right? For better or worse, there's an element of luck to how most bracelets fit their owners. That may not jibe well with some owners, especially considering how much they might've paid for the bracelet ... oh, and the watch, too. Understandable. I feel fortunate to have found a watch that is both incredibly accurate and suitably comfortable. *I'm even thinking about getting rid of the Explorer to fund a blue AT. I miss the date. *
> 
> And while I love the white/silver/opaline AT--really, really, really--I think that a blue model might be a bit more suitable for casual wear, with the white/silver/opaline better for dressier or business applications. Of course, both are sports watches, but the blue dial is--traditionally--the less formal color.
> 
> ...


Just do it! The Explorer is a boring old ..... compared to the many lovely details of the AT (no offence to any Explorer owners meant - to each his own). Blue is the colour!


----------



## Iliyan (May 30, 2010)

I just got the 41.5 AT. I like the dressy sports watch vs sporty dress watch comparison. I find the 41.5 to be better proportioned and it wears smaller on a strap than on the bracelet. Here it is on my 6.75" wrist.


----------



## TellingTime (Aug 22, 2014)

I see a "has Omega clasps become too big" thread on the horizon.


----------



## soaking.fused (May 3, 2012)

Triggers Broom said:


>


Killer.


----------



## ryanzi (Mar 13, 2011)

With the same movement used for both sizes, the smaller size will almost always look better. 

Open date at 3 o'clock is aligned right to the case for 38.5, while 41.5 suffers a disproportioned gap.


----------



## MikeCfromLI (Jan 6, 2012)

ryanzi said:


> With the same movement used for both sizes, the smaller size will almost always look better.
> 
> Open date at 3 o'clock is aligned right to the case for 38.5, while 41.5 suffers a disproportioned gap.


Heck I felt the 41 looked better and less crowded pick which you like mate


----------



## Hardaway (Jun 21, 2017)

38.5 for me. Generally speaking, watches without complications that are larger than 40mm seem clunky to me.


----------



## imranbecks (Oct 3, 2008)

They both look good. Plus the wrist size matters too. Just gotta try them both to see if feels and looks good on the wrist...

My 7" wrist can pull off both sizes... Blue 41.5, grey quartz 38.5. And a 3mm size difference between the two isn't too jarring imo. But both sizes must be tried..










38.5mm









41.5mm


----------



## 600 (Jul 31, 2017)

Where are the measurement taken? 10 to 4 o clock or outter diameter of the bezel??


----------



## Colin G (Aug 3, 2017)

6.5" wrist here with a 39mm AT 8500.

It fits me perfectly, finicky bracelet and all.


----------

