# Is 32mm too small to be a men's watch?



## BetaMark (Nov 2, 2009)

I realize this could at least partly depend on the wrist size, which in my case is 7". 

I ask this because after wearing my Ananta SD chrono steadily for about the last 4 months, I'm finding it difficult to go back to a Croton skeleton watch with a 32mm case.

This is also slightly heartbreaking, because the Croton was a wedding gift from my wife of 20 years. o|


----------



## HR F1 (Dec 14, 2006)

Once upon a time, probably not, but presently, I think 32mm is really small for a men's watch.


----------



## thetokyokid (Jan 18, 2009)

I think it depends on what you are wearing and how thin your wrists are. If I am in a t-shirt and jeans only, I wear 36-47mm. The 36 is a Rolex Datejust that looks bigger on the wrist.

If I wear a dress shirt with cuffs, I think the 32mm is not noticeably small. 
I wore the watch below for YEARS as my daily beater when I lived in the US. It is 32mm. This is coming from a guy who usually wears 42-44mm. 
As long as you like the watch, wear it.










I never feel funny about wearing my 36mm Rollie, even in short sleeves. I think if I had a 34mm Patek, I wouldn't worry either. If it is obviously a gentleman's watch. No worries.

Here is the Rollie:


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

BetaMark said:


> I realize this could at least partly depend on the wrist size, which in my case is 7".
> 
> I ask this because after wearing my Ananta SD chrono steadily for about the last 4 months, I'm finding it difficult to go back to a Croton skeleton watch with a 32mm case.
> 
> This is also slightly heartbreaking, because the Croton was a wedding gift from my wife of 20 years. o|


It's certainly not too small!! Who ever said there was a minimum (or maximum) size rule for all to follow??
If you enjoyed the watch before, just strap it on and it will be like meeting an old friend. Really...!!:-!


----------



## OnTimeGabe (Aug 6, 2006)

There are no rules other than those you impose on yourself. I'd say if it seems to small for you now, just wear it on special occasions with your wife. Many of us have watches that no longer daily wearers as our tastes have changed, but they still have special meaning.

Asking about watch size on the DWF is going to give you a very skewed viewpoint anyway, since we all routinely wear watches that the average person would say are ridiculously huge. It's not uncommon to see men wearing watches well under 40mm, and only watch nuts like us would even notice or care.


----------



## TickTalk (Aug 24, 2009)

It's all about proportion!

If you have big wrists, a big cased watch would look fine but not on a wrist that is too small.

If you have small wrist, a small cased watch would look fine, but a big case would look 'out of proportion'. :think:


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

I have small wrists...............36mm is as small as I'll wear.


----------



## jets (Jun 30, 2009)

Hell yes.


----------



## RGNY (Aug 22, 2008)

depends. i've seen some nice small watches on vintage expandable bracelets. if you like it, wear it. there are plenty of nice vintage small watches that are attractive/interesting.

you could also put one on a Bund strap/pad, to get a larger overall "presence".


----------



## 3sails (Feb 17, 2010)

I have several 32mm cases I wear regularly and they are just shy of the Bulova wrist alarm shown with them here. The Bulova dial (audience right) is just as wide a dial as my Seiko Sports 50 cases(at close to 40mm minus crowns).

They are light, retro, truly near indestructible and thrifty on the pocket. Although I have some other more battered expansion bands, the old simple GI straps are handy for quick wear. I also have a range of Don Juan cuff bands for swapping around different sizes. The Sellita (audience left) is on a new old Bellavance band from one of the barter (best offer) for play Ebay sellers. These are all full stainless cases. I also have a '60s Benrus tonneau case dress watch quite a bit smaller than these.

I am a large guy and have had nothing but adoring looks and curiousity from the fairer sex and even some guys but that may be just interest in wanting one as opposed to how they appear on me.










Cheers

GC


----------



## MikeAB (Jan 17, 2010)

For me, with a 7.75" wrist, it is too small. The smallest watches I have in my collection are some of my vintage watches that are 36mm. that being said, I max out at 48mm. Tried to wear larger one, but not very comfortable on my wrist, and very heavy if they have a bracelet.


----------



## RGNY (Aug 22, 2008)

my acceptance is probably due to my grandfather. my interest in watches started when i was allowed to wind his Bulova before bed. he left it on the kitchen table which was already set for breakfast. he has two approx. 32mm watches, both on expandables, that he's worn since WWII. for a long time, that's what a "real watch" was to me. his wrist is easily approaching 8" and it makes the watch look like jewelry.

but, the smallest i wear is a Vostok Amphibia "Zissou" on an expandable. the thickness makes it look bigger though.

a close second is my Seiko SNKE6, currently on a Bund, but may make it's way onto an expandable now.....

neither is as small as 32mm, but if either were that small it wouldn't put me off.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

TickTalk said:


> It's all about proportion!
> 
> If you have big wrists, a big cased watch would look fine but not on a wrist that is too small.
> 
> If you have small wrist, a small cased watch would look fine, but a big case would look 'out of proportion'. :think:


Haha, that message is clear. :-!


----------



## Ananda (Feb 28, 2008)

i'd say it depends on your wrist and your tastes. i love my 34mm rolex air-king. 

fyi my wrist is 6.3 inches.


----------



## willdarosa (Jan 26, 2009)

.....it is your preference.


----------



## G.A.R.Y (Mar 25, 2010)

I am 6'7" and I have a watch the same size. 

20 years and. You question the gift now??

Progressive INS comercial with the e. Shoulder bag. Great fun.


----------



## BetaMark (Nov 2, 2009)

G.A.R.Y said:


> 20 years and. You question the gift now??


Yes, because my wrist is larger now. Age and great cooking by a great wife have filled me out quite nicely. But I guess the silver lining is that the Spring Drive looks and feels better on my padded wrist than it otherwise might have if I were still scrawny. ;-)


----------



## G.A.R.Y (Mar 25, 2010)

I have put on about a ton myself! 27 years.



BetaMark said:


> Yes, because my wrist is larger now. Age and great cooking by a great wife have filled me out quite nicely. But I guess the silver lining is that the Spring Drive looks and feels better on my padded wrist than it otherwise might have if I were still scrawny. ;-)


----------



## AndrewSo (Mar 1, 2010)

If you're comfortable, wear 32mm. To me, anything below 38mm becomes questionable due to visibility issues. I want to glance at my watch and know the time, not glance, double-take, squint, then move my wrist closer to my face.


----------



## tempus edax rerum (Feb 16, 2009)

TickTalk said:


> It's all about proportion!
> 
> If you have big wrists, a big cased watch would look fine but not on a wrist that is too small.
> 
> If you have small wrist, a small cased watch would look fine, but a big case would look 'out of proportion'. :think:


fixed it for ya! :-!

I'll tell ya, with bigger case widths getting in vogue, it's pretty easy these days for people to unintentionally get into the mentality of "bigger is better" without taking things into context.

Bigger might be better, but it's all _*relative to your own wrist size*_. I see folks treating it like a dick swingin' contest, which usually has the _opposite _effect they were hoping for...a really rugged looking mannish watch that wears HUGE on you makes your wrist even LESS mannish...like "awwe...isn't that cute...you're wearing daddy's watch."


----------



## RNHC (Feb 13, 2010)

tempus edax rerum said:


> Bigger might be better, but it's all _*relative to your own wrist size*_. I see folks treating it like a dick swingin' contest, which usually has the _opposite _effect they were hoping for...a really rugged looking mannish watch that wears HUGE on you makes your wrist even LESS mannish...like "awwe...isn't that cute...you're wearing daddy's watch."


:-! Second that motion.

It's all about proportions. If I wore anything bigger than 40-42mm, I do look like a kid wearing dad's watch.


----------



## Sodiac (Dec 6, 2008)

Yes.


----------



## stvn66 (Jan 13, 2011)

I have 6.5 inch wrists and this is an image of a 32mm World War II Timor ATP watch.
These watches were worn by brave soldiers many of whom died for their country....is 32mm too small for a real man?
Question is answered.


----------



## One_watch (Sep 10, 2012)

Old thread, but always a relevant subject. I'm quite pleased with my new 42mm Monster on my 7.25" wrist. If anything, it's the THICKNESS not the diameter that stands out.


----------



## baserock love (Feb 1, 2011)

I have skinny wrists and my grandpa's ariston which is probably 34mm and i can't stand how small it is personally.


----------



## jopex (Jul 27, 2012)

It really depends on the few things... Personal preference, wrist size and shape of the case. My wrist is around 7" and I once impulse purchased Vostok Cadet. It looked ridiculously small on my wrist since it has relatively big bezel and thus a small dial making the watch wear a lot smaller than it is.







On the other hand recently I got vintage Doxa (35mm) which wears a lot bigger because of the slim case design and a big dial.








In the end it all comes down on how you feel. If you feel comfortable to wear the smaller watch - go for it. If not, it's time to renew the vows and get your wife to buy you a bigger one instead. :-d


----------



## Dorean (Sep 16, 2012)

32 mm is a kids or womens watch imo.

Watches <42 mm? i'm not interested


----------



## Kurt Behm (Mar 19, 2006)

For me it is .......... others mileage may vary !


----------



## pz93c (Sep 29, 2007)

AndrewSo said:


> If you're comfortable, wear 32mm. To me, anything below 38mm becomes questionable due to visibility issues. I want to glance at my watch and know the time, not glance, double-take, squint, then move my wrist closer to my face.


It's a men's watch, but I agree with the above. Visibility is an issue.


----------



## dosu (Jan 21, 2014)

hey guys 
(fyi my 1st post here, very excited to be part of the community)
I am bringing this thread back up again because of the "to each his own" sense I was getting from the OP's question.
I particularly agree with one of the responder's statement on the fact that the look depends on the shape/design of the case, in addition to the size of one's wrist. as for my wrist, it is approx 6.75 in.

that said, I would be curious to see what you guys think of my recent impulse purchase ("1 left in stock" got me) of a 32mm Skagen mesh quartz watch model no. 0355LSSCA; as I have yet to receive the watch, I have posted a stock photo of it to emphasize the mesh wristband-like design of the overall watch, which was the very justifying (and minimally appealing) characteristic of the watch that inspired myself to give the 32mm a chance. Skagen is known for very thin, small watches (and their simple, sophisticated, yet affordable design is what draws me to their brand)









it makes more sense for me to show you guys a picture with the watch actually on my wrist, which I will try to remember to do once I receive it. at the worst, I can always return it and bump up the diameter a few mm, with an average adjusted number I hope to receive from one of the members here.

Thanks in advance


----------



## jcoffin1981 (Aug 16, 2009)

BetaMark said:


> I realize this could at least partly depend on the wrist size, which in my case is 7".
> 
> I ask this because after wearing my Ananta SD chrono steadily for about the last 4 months, I'm finding it difficult to go back to a Croton skeleton watch with a 32mm case.
> 
> This is also slightly heartbreaking, because the Croton was a wedding gift from my wife of 20 years. o|


I like the smaller 32-35mm mens watches. It's possible that on some wrists however, they will look, well, small. If you are buying a watch of this size, it's important that the dial takes up most of the diameter of the case. If it has a wide bezel and a small dial this will be accentuated. Here is a pic of my watch just over 32mm. My wrist too is 7".


----------



## dosu (Jan 21, 2014)

dosu said:


> hey guys
> (fyi my 1st post here, very excited to be part of the community)
> I am bringing this thread back up again because of the "to each his own" sense I was getting from the OP's question.
> I particularly agree with one of the responder's statement on the fact that the look depends on the shape/design of the case, in addition to the size of one's wrist. as for my wrist, it is approx 6.75 in.
> ...


Okay, so as promised, the watch arrived today and below are pics of the 32mm watch on my wrist...aand I'm actually very pleased with how it fits and looks on my wrist, especially the width; i know this is my 1st true entry level watch but I find the thing to be extremely thin, in a great way. but that said, 32mm seems to be the smallest I could go without entering into the territory of a female watch- at least for the size of my wrist and general fashion sense. 
side note: as much as I like Skagen's clean minimal design (not withstanding their affordable price), their strap and band adjustment system was/is annoying to open and close.


----------



## E8ArmyDiver (Aug 7, 2009)

Hi everyone.The first thing I think of when I ponder this question is how often I see 40mm Rolex watches on HUGE wrists(8"+),I don't think a small(32-35mm)watch on a 6"-7.5" wrist looks any different.This watch is 32mm(although it wears slightly larger due to the canteen cover)on my 7.5" wrist,an homage watch I dearly love wearing:


----------



## stefpix (Aug 15, 2013)

First vintage Omega, I just received. Works great, price seemed lower than average. I like it, but I know I'd be happier if it would be 35mm instead of about 32mm.

here are some photos. I wonder if I should keep it or not. Wait and see

.


----------



## Johnny Wishbone (Jun 30, 2011)

So obviously the answer is Yes. 32mm is way too small, for any guy's wrist.
That's pretty clear by now.


----------



## Quotron (Dec 6, 2013)

Johnny Wishbone said:


> So obviously the answer is Yes. 32mm is way too small, for any guy's wrist.
> That's pretty clear by now.


Is it really?

Here is Ryan Gosling wearing a 32mm Rolex "Bubbleback"


























It really depends on the wearer, their wrist, and their personal preference. It's wrong to say 32mm is too small for any man's wrist, just like it would be wrong to say a watch of xxmm is too large for any man's wrist. It's all relative...


----------



## stefpix (Aug 15, 2013)

I have to say that the 32mm Omega has grown on me. I got some compliments. I ordered a "flatter" dark brown alligator print matter leather strap. I think a flat strap may be better than the one it came with. 
These days a huge watch on a small wrist seems more of a women's style.


----------



## bombora (Apr 1, 2012)

Wear any size you feel like. It's your wrist.


----------



## thebuzz (Jan 11, 2014)

I have found that shape and color play a big roll for me. I have a 34mm square watch that wears as big as if not bigger than my some of my 40+mm watches due to the shape and wide bracelet. On the color side, black and metal bands always seem to wear smaller, whereas than brighter bands can add some presence. The same seems to apply to face color.


----------



## hantms (May 28, 2014)

While it's too small to wear casually, it's a pretty perfect size for women these days. (32-35mm or so)

So for men, just buy them for your wife/girlfriend/significant other. That goes some way to resolving the 'not enough wrists' issue, too.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

hantms said:


> While it's too small to wear casually, it's a pretty perfect size for women these days. (32-35mm or so)


Why is it too small to wear casually?

The watch I bought 20-odd years ago, that's 32mm, that I was perfectly happy to wear, then, because of the whims in fashion in the intervening time, means I should no longer be happy to wear the same watch now?

We're not all sheep.


----------



## mcnabbanov (Feb 21, 2014)

agreed, but be prepared for people to snicker or criticize. personally on my 6.75 a snk809 at 37mm is about as small as I'd go.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

mcnabbanov said:


> agreed, but be prepared for people to snicker or criticize. personally on my 6.75 a snk809 at 37mm is about as small as I'd go.


I care about as little about people snickering or criticising, than the whimsical nature that some exhibit in this faulty proposition that fashion is some sort of absolutism.

Fair enough, I suppose, if you're entire ethos for what your prepared to own / wear, is entirely dictated to by the ethereal power of contemporary fashion or trends, but there's nothing absolute about these matters at all.

Some of the watches I own that I bought in previous times are around the 32mm mark. I haven't changed my opinion or appreciation of them just because of current fashion - that'd just be revisionist.


----------



## hantms (May 28, 2014)

Good points;

Fashion or trends are not only about 'following' like a herd of sheep though; it's often an evolving general sensibility in the way you dress or present yourself.

For example, I genuinely think that larger watches look better. Will I continue to think that forever: of course not; these things always move so it's quite likely that there will be an opposite trend emerging for smaller sizes again. (And we'll all be very well prepared for that.  )

Compare: Choosing NOT to wear the below is not because you follow a fashion fad, is it? 









So why assume that watches of that era are any more suited to todays tastes? (Again: being different is good, but watches are subject to evolving trends.)

And consider that the smaller watches of 30+ years ago were ALSO a fashion fad at the time, likely in response to a move away from exceptionally large pocket watches, and because it just takes more skill to make technology small. But it was fashion/trend-based at the time, too.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

hantms said:


> Good points;
> 
> Fashion or trends are not only about 'following' like a herd of sheep though; it's often an evolving general sensibility in the way you dress or present yourself.
> 
> ...


The pictures, whilst pithy, are pointless. There would once be a time where people did choose to look and dress like that.

As is the point about smaller watches being a fashion choice - that wasn't really the case, because there was precious little alternative.

Getting back to the thread, there is a point - revisionism. The watches I bought, a couple of decades back, that were smaller, have not just become untenable to wear, unless I was to think like sheep.

Fashion and trends have varying importance to us, as we evolve psychologically. For a period of maturing to young adult life they can be important factors, but in early years, plus advancing adult years, tend to be of decreasing influence.

Consider why that is.


----------



## zaxsingh (Jan 18, 2014)

Skagens are beauties ... Only wish they would make them with a larger diameter for today's world. I missed getting one (at source) wen I was in Denmark in 2004.


----------



## adi4 (Dec 20, 2011)

A lot of it comes down to wrist size I think. 34mm looks great on me I think, and I have 6.5 inch wrists. It's also incredibly comfortable, and I wouldn't mind picking up a sportier Credor at some point for more water resistance










-adi4


----------



## Eielson (Apr 25, 2013)

If you can no longer read the time it might be too small. Isn't that what watches are for?


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

Imo 32mm is to small to be a womans watch let alone a mans watch, why stop at 32mm how about 22mm lol, but what ever makes people happy, thats what its all about.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

I can't help but notice some parallels in things like size of watches, size of cars, size of engines - especially in men.

Kinda like that old trope of the Porsche key-ring.

You could be forgiven for thinking it's some sort of compensation mechanism.

Well that, and that line from Fight Club: "We buy things we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't like..."


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

Wongsky said:


> I can't help but notice some parallels in things like size of watches, size of cars, size of engines - especially in men.
> 
> Kinda like that old trope of the Porsche key-ring.
> 
> ...


Understand your point mate and that might be correct for some, but the only person i'm trying to impress is myself, i'd hardly be impressed looking down at a dainty 32mm watch on my wrist.
If i was trying to impress others i certainly wouldnt have a collection of citizen and casio's like i do, but i love em, and thats all that counts.
cheers


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Cobia said:


> Understand your point mate and that might be correct for some, but the only person i'm trying to impress is myself, i'd hardly be impressed looking down at a dainty 32mm watch on my wrist.
> If i was trying to impress others i certainly wouldnt have a collection of citizen and casio's like i do, but i love em, and thats all that counts.
> cheers


Thing is, were you living 30 years ago, or perhaps were a few decades older, you likely would have a different aesthetic or simply not care as much.

When I bought a watch that's around 32mm, in the early 90s (when I'd be in my early 20s) I didn't look down at it and think it was undersized, or not sufficiently manly. It's only (relatively) contemporary fashions, trends and imprinted predispositions that have mostly fed the perspective of many.

In just the same way as making women's watches unfeasibly small at times.

It plays to each gender's insecurities.


----------



## Sgt_Bilko (Oct 29, 2013)

First of all I think we need to dispel the myth that a smaller watch size makes it automatically harder to tell the time since a 32mm watch with a clear uncluttered face should provide no difficulty at all in telling the time and may well be considerably more practical than a larger watch with a fussy design.

I have tiny 6 inch wrists and though shape plays a part in wrist wearing comfort I tend to find any watch bigger than 36mm a bit clumsy. Among my collection I have few smaller 32mm watches and I personally find these to be the most comfortable of all. My father has much bigger wrists but when he wears these watches the impression is understated and refined in a manner that a 45mm watch could never manage.

I have attached an image of a 32mm 1954 9k gold Omega from my collection that I particularly like. Is anybody seriously arguing that men from that era were somehow less manly than today?


----------



## cuchulain (Jun 5, 2014)

Wongsky said:


> It plays to each gender's insecurities.


I don't think it has anything to do with gender insecurities, I just like to buy appropriately sized watches for my wrist and overall size, not to big, not to small. I would find a 32mm watch too small for me personally, but that isn't because I have gender insecurities or that I'm compensating, it's that 32mm is small on a 7 1/4 inch wrist and 200 lb frame IMO.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

cuchulain said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with gender insecurities, I just like to buy appropriately sized watches for my wrist and overall size, not to big, not to small. I would find a 32mm watch too small for me personally, but that isn't because I have gender insecurities or that I'm compensating, it's that 32mm is small on a 7 1/4 inch wrist and 200 lb frame IMO.


As other have said, going back in past times, neither I - nor anybody I can remember said: "Well I'm not buying THAT damned watch. At 32mm it's just too damned small, regardless of whether that's the normal size for mens watches. I'll just wait another 20 years or so, until fashions have made us all believe there's a different norm..."

Mens watches tend towards being bigger these days - conveniently ignoring the obesity epidemic - is that a) because people are just simply bigger than they were 20-ish years ago; or b) savvy marketing people understand the male psyche.

It's no different to womens watches being small, impractical and dainty at times, so don't beat yourself up about it.


----------



## Sgt_Bilko (Oct 29, 2013)

I think the Watch Snob said it rather well here in reply to a question about large watches Large Watches - AskMen

"Wear a 45mm watch, baggy tracksuit bottoms and an oversized T-shirt and hey, maybe you don't look so fat after all."


----------



## geoloop (Dec 12, 2012)

stvn66 said:


> I have 6.5 inch wrists and this is an image of a 32mm World War II Timor ATP watch.
> These watches were worn by brave soldiers many of whom died for their country....*is 32mm too small* for a real man?
> Question is answered.


Yes, looks like a boy's toy.


----------



## Sgt_Bilko (Oct 29, 2013)

geoloop said:


> Yes, looks like a boy's toy.


Wow, do you think those soldiers with the small watches were also worried about the brand of moisturiser they were using?


----------



## geoloop (Dec 12, 2012)

Sgt_Bilko said:


> Wow, do you think those soldiers with the small watches were also worried about the brand of moisturiser they were using?


So just because some soldiers used that ugly and small watch, it now deserves respect and to be worn?

Please go...


----------



## Sgt_Bilko (Oct 29, 2013)

geoloop said:


> So just because some soldiers used that ugly and small watch, it now deserves respect and to be worn?
> 
> Please go...


From your comments it suggests you think these watches and those who wear them are only worthy of ridicule.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

geoloop said:


> So just because some soldiers used that ugly and small watch, it now deserves respect and to be worn?
> 
> Please go...


This is just so revisionist and misses the point, completely.

Bigger watches are prevalent, now, not because of need, nor objectivity - simply whims of fashion. That and pandering to the male psyche (and in the case of small and dainty watches in times gone by - women - albeit some of that has now been changes, ALSO because of the whims of fashion).

I don't recall myself, or others making a big deal about watches being smaller in, say, the 90s. I didn't think they were too small, or not sufficiently macho to make me feel like a man's man. Nor do I now - because if I did, that would be purely revisionist.

If people are bigger, now, than they were in past times, they're only fatter - that's not such a convincing argument that there's some objective requirement for men's watches to be bigger.

Or maybe it's an eyesight issue? Maybe men in today's world are too vain to get their eyesight corrected? How else could men in previous times have managed with smaller watches?

In reality, I feel a little sorry for those that feel that they NEED a larger watch - because one way, or another (whether in denial, or otherwise) they're compensating for something - be it physical, emotional or psychological.

Those that simply prefer larger watches - well fair's fair - most preferences are largely conditioned and influenced by the environment. Those that feel they NEED a large watch, or that it's of objective value (purely for accessory purposes) well, like it, or not, that's a reaction.


----------



## geoloop (Dec 12, 2012)

Sgt_Bilko said:


> From your comments it suggests you think these watches and those who wear them are only worthy of ridicule.


So if someone goes to one extreme and calls himself a "real man" for owning and wearing a "soldier's watch" is ok, but if i go to the other extreme i get condescending replies?

lol

strong everything


----------



## cuchulain (Jun 5, 2014)

Sgt_Bilko said:


> From your comments it suggests you think these watches and those who wear them are only worthy of ridicule.


As opposed to you calling those who politely find 32mm too small essentially either obese slobs, or that they have a tiny package? Seems to me you are wrestling with pigs and complaining about the stink.

It's 2014 not 1934, we don't wear fedoras or bowler hats either. Nowadays (as in the time I currently live in) a 32mm watch would be considered small by just about everyone using modern fashion standards, and not just guys who like 48mm+ watches. My watches range from ~38-42mm with my MM300 being the largest watch I own, and 32mm would just be too small for me. A 32mm watch would've been considered very small for a mans watch at any point in mine or probably even my fathers lifetime. If you like it who cares what anyone else thinks?


----------



## Sgt_Bilko (Oct 29, 2013)

Did I say I own or wear a "soldier's watch"? It was merely pointed out by somebody else actually that men from a different generation during war time managed quite happily wearing smaller watches without worrying about their masculinity or having somebody pour scorn on them.


----------



## geoloop (Dec 12, 2012)

Wongsky said:


> This is just so revisionist and misses the point, completely.
> 
> *If people are bigger, now, than they were in past times, they're only fatter - that's not such a convincing argument that there's some objective requirement for men's watches to be bigger.*
> 
> ...


People are taller than before now... it has been documented and is easy to tell just by revising the avg size of certain countries over the past decades.

Lmao at your compensating argument, really?! that is all you can think of?

That's new, never heard of such argument...

If you like small watches on your wrist, go for it, but for today's standards it looks small and out of place.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

geoloop said:


> People are taller than before now... it has been documented and is easy to tell just by revising the avg size of certain countries over the past decades.
> 
> Lmao at your compensating argument, really?! that is all you can think of?
> 
> ...


It's not so much that I prefer small watches. I suspect out of most I own, my favourites would be about 37mm. The point I'm making, though, is that the watch I bought in 1993 (as a new, mens, dress watch) that's 32mm hasn't suddenly become ridiculous, and out of place, simply because some people can't or don't want to accept how much of their preferences are dictated to them by the winds of fashion.

For all of those - like yourself - making this fatuous argument about it being modern times... and there somehow being some objectivity behind the need for bigger watches, consider this...

Influence of things like fashion, only really matter to most in society, at certain age ranges. Most kids that are about 5 years old, don't give a stuff about fashion, and most people once they get to middle age and beyond, rather lose there taste for it (of course, there are always exceptions, but I'm talking about the norm).

So what does that tell us about our psychological make-up, and when things are important to us, and when not?

I've nothing, whatsoever, against people who prefer big watches.

Personally, I think many look daft - but I respect peoples choices and freedom to look daft.

What I do find silly, though, is this argument that there's some objective basis to it - and that it's more than just a whim, which may well just bend with the wind in another timeframe.


----------



## cuchulain (Jun 5, 2014)

Maybe we like larger watches (38-42mm) because they fit to a proportion we enjoy better? It covers the real estate without overhanging the wrist, or they can get more complications and intricacies into the dial on larger watches and readability is easier at a glance. 

I find it ironic that guys with solid gold 10K+ dress watches talk about others "compensating" with their 300 buck Seiko divers.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

cuchulain said:


> Maybe we like larger watches (38-42mm) because they fit to a proportion we enjoy better? It covers the real estate without overhanging the wrist, or they can get more complications and intricacies into the dial on larger watches and readability is easier at a glance.


I've no issue with why people like larger watches - whatever the reason may be.

But let's not misrepresent things - it's not objectivity, nor is it pure need.

When people wore smaller watches - and the military watch is a good example - there's still plenty of military watches that aren't large - I very much suspect they didn't feel like they were too small, or that their size meant they were harder to read.

There has been a similar phenomenon to the male-large-watch-syndrome - the female-tiny-impractical-watch-syndrome - sure, it's nothing like as prevalent today, but there's plenty of examples of women's watches that are far too small for objective reasons - and are that way, too - because savvy people understood the female mindset and what would appeal.



cuchulain said:


> I find it ironic that guys with solid gold 10K+ dress watches talk about others "compensating" with their 300 buck Seiko divers.


Is that real irony, or in the style of Alanis?

Either way, divers watches tend to be larger because of need - because it makes sense for several reasons. Doesn't mean that all those that chose to wear them, dive, or choose them for those reasons, though.

I have a divers watch. Have I ever dived? Nope - not a once.


----------



## cuchulain (Jun 5, 2014)

Wongsky said:


> But let's not misrepresent things - it's not objectivity, nor is it pure need.


Wearing a watch at all isn't a pure need, wearing one worth thousands sure isn't either. So when you strap that fancy watch to your wrist what is the psychological need for you? To me the guy smugly admiring his $15,000 gold 32mm dress watch has no business lambasting anyone for "compensating".


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

cuchulain said:


> Wearing a watch at all isn't a pure need, wearing one worth thousands sure isn't either. So when you strap that fancy watch to your wrist what is the psychological need for you? To me the guy smugly admiring his $15,000 gold 32mm dress watch has no business lambasting anyone for "compensating".


I don't own a watch worth thousands.

Kinda takes the wind outta them thar sails.

Unless it was more of Alanis-esque irony?

edit: and just to address the "need" comment - as I've said before, I've no issue with some that prefer big watches - it's when they talk about NEEDING to wear a large watch, and as a consequence, go on to be revisionist and claim mens watches of, say, 32mm are clearly too small in modern times, that I'm refuting that use of "need".


----------



## peacemaker885 (Dec 25, 2009)

Truth is nobody really notices (or cares) but you (the wearer). Wear what you like.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

It always seems to me that the proponents of smaller watches are always the ones that get the most bent out of shape. I assume it comes from either the frustration of the dwindling numbers of 36mm and under watches (even the most conservative old guard houses are building larger watches) or frustration stemming from wrist size that can not comfortably wear larger watches, or both. 

I personally think the size debate is somewhat silly, wear what fits and what you like. While in general I think it is innocuous I do at times get the impression that the small watch disciples get a little holier than thou, while pressing the we know better agenda. 

Just for reference my watches range from 37 to 47mm, my sweet spot is 39-44mm (all but 3 watches fall here) and the one 47mm I own is a result of loving a design so much I push my own sensibilities. It is sort of a shame all watches aren't sold like the Cartier Ballon Bleu which is available IIRC 28, 33, 36, 42 and 44mm.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

ilitig8 said:


> It always seems to me that the proponents of smaller watches are always the ones that get the most bent out of shape. I assume it comes from either the frustration of the dwindling numbers of 36mm and under watches (even the most conservative old guard houses are building larger watches) or frustration stemming from wrist size that can not comfortably wear larger watches, or both.
> 
> I personally think the size debate is somewhat silly, wear what fits and what you like. While in general I think it is innocuous I do at times get the impression that the small watch disciples get a little holier than thou, while pressing the we know better agenda.
> 
> Just for reference my watches range from 37 to 47mm, my sweet spot is 39-44mm (all but 3 watches fall here) and the one 47mm I own is a result of loving a design so much I push my own sensibilities. It is sort of a shame all watches aren't sold like the Cartier Ballon Bleu which is available IIRC 28, 33, 36, 42 and 44mm.


Well personally, I don't get bent out of shape on the matter.

Nor am I a particular proponent of small watches.

I just reject the contemporary "group think" that watches under a certain size - that people were quite happy to wear in previous times - are now, too small.

It's simply either revisionist, or the rhetoric of those that neither know, nor care, or both, about anything other than contemporary fashion.

As I've said before, as we go through various age ranges, we move from oblivious and uncaring, to inordinantly focused, moving towards uncaring, and usually ending up with oblivious. There's periods of normal peoples' lives, where they tend towards being largely disinterested in fashion. We only care about such things, when - largely - it's predictable for us to care about such things.


----------



## Kev0417 (May 22, 2011)

It really comes down to what works best for you and what you are happy with. I inherited my dad's 35mm Constellation and love wearing it with a tux or formal event as it is understated and wears well. But have two divers, Omega SMP and Orange Monster, 41.5 and 42 mm respectively, but for a diver I wanted them a little bigger and works great with my wrist size. Have about a 6 1/2 to 6 3/4 wrist but flat. Here are some pics to see how each works. I am comfortable wearing any of these and like the different options. And if you think a 36mm is to small for someone, just ask Prince William.





































Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

"Revionist", "group think" and "sheep"? 

There was a time and place when and where men used to wear powdered wigs and didn't shower. Just sayin'. 

I've traveled to locales where sense of taste differ drastically, in the same era. 

Why would one defend taste or fashion? De gustibus non est disputandum. Forgive the Latin, please. 

Wear what one likes, but be mindful of the social repercussions. If you're too old or otherwise unwilling to care about such repercussions, more power to you.


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

Ugly Dude said:


> "Revionist", "group think" and "sheep"?
> 
> There was a time and place when and where men used to wear powdered wigs and didn't shower. Just sayin'.
> 
> ...


Okay, that could be viewed as a straw man argument, I admit.

Point remains, times change and if you don't mind being looked at a certain way, that's okay. But do realize that it would happen. If you're not willing to accept said social repercussions, as said, power to you.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Ugly Dude said:


> Okay, that could be viewed as a straw man argument, I admit.
> 
> Point remains, times change and if you don't mind being looked at a certain way, that's okay. But do realize that it would happen. If you're not willing to accept said social repercussions, as said, power to you.


It's not social repercussions.

It's selective, meta-social repercussions.

The views of watch enthusiasts aren't necessarily representative as a commentary of society as a whole. They are often simply taking inferences from popularity and extrapolating that as a means to try and assert some kind of objectivity or absolutism to it.

But there is none.

In 1993, I bought a mens dress watch that was 32mm. The intervening 20 years haven't changed the validity of that - unless, people are so shapen by their perception of societal norms as to have their lives run by them. Which is all well and good, and expected for people within certain age ranges.

It's not simply that when people get to a magical age of "old" they suddenly don't care about society's views or fashions any more. And as I've not quite got to mid 40s, yet, I prefer to consider myself middle age.

My point was that the influence that society wields on people changes during their lives - that should be telling people who are buying into how comfortable they feel about something because of how "normal" society perceives it, something - well you'd hope at least.

At some point, trends may change - different factors influencing watch styles and sizes may come to bear. Just as I'm not about to simply throw away the dress watch I bought in 1993, I doubt I'll be willing to just abandon what I have now, in favour of what the madding crowd prefers.

I've never posted to this thread, specifically to advocate small or smaller watches. I've merely spent time refuting the bobbins that some say that certain watches under a certain size aren't appropriate for men, in modern times.


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

Deleted. Double post.


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

Wongsky said:


> It's not social repercussions.
> 
> It's selective, meta-social repercussions.
> 
> ...


Forgive the ad hom, but isn't this precisely what you are doing, Sir?


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Ugly Dude said:


> Forgive the ad hom, but isn't this precisely what you are doing, Sir?


No - completely the reverse.

I'm not taking any inferences derived from fashion or trends, in order to assert some objectivity or absolutism regarding watch sizes.

What I am saying is that that's all a passing thing - flux. Dust. IT WILL CHANGE.

So people can spend their time aligning to it, and being defined, largely, by it - or simply make your own choices, and when it suits, it's a happy coincidence, and when it doesn't, your own take of more value.

And I will forgive you, just this once - but best it doesn't form habit, eh?


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

Wongsky said:


> No - completely the reverse.
> 
> I'm not taking any inferences derived from fashion or trends, in order to assert some objectivity or absolutism regarding watch sizes.
> 
> ...


The fashion from where you've derived your inference is the notion that the watch you bought in 1993 was socially acceptable then, and in some way is or should be now. This is the absolutism to which you've ascribed.

Your reluctance to accept social norms is your assertion of objectivity in an inherently subjective matter. This is the absolutism (and elitism) to which you've ascribed.

For you to now say that it is simply something that is in flux seems to be backpedaling on your earlier statements. You are forgiven for the incongruities.

For you to align yourself with what is arguably a foregone era, is in itself, revisionist. An example of counter-culture, anti-establishment "sheepery".

Be happy "othering" yourself with your powdered wigs, my friend. May it be a happy coincidence when those wigs once again suit (not that you care about social fashion norms, of course).


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

Ugly Dude said:


> The fashion from where you've derived your inference is the notion that the watch you bought in 1993 was socially acceptable then, and in some way is or should be now. This is the absolutism to which you've ascribed.
> 
> Your reluctance to accept social norms is your assertion of objectivity in an inherently subjective matter. This is the absolutism (and elitism) to which you've ascribed.
> 
> ...


I should mention that, as a man, I'm perfectly fine with wearing a 32 mm watch.

It's the flawed, logically inconsistent manner of argumentation, and the holier-than-thou attitude without recognition of hypocrisy, with which I take issue.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Ugly Dude said:


> The fashion from where you've derived your inference is the notion that the watch you bought in 1993 was socially acceptable then, and in some way is or should be now. This is the absolutism to which you've ascribed.


These aren't the droids you're looking for...

The watch I bought in 1993 - at the age of 23 - I didn't buy as a fashion item. I bought it because I considered it timeless (trying not to see any irony in that choice of words) - not of it's time or trendy - but not representing fashion, actually the opposite.

This kinda neuters your argument, but I'll play along for completeness.



Ugly Dude said:


> Your reluctance to accept social norms


First mistake... I can't help but think this is going to be a long list - anybody still reading, hunker down with the popcorn...

I don't have reluctance to accept social norms - I see them for what they are, and accept they are there. I merely put them in their box, and don't live my life in adherence. Doesn't mean I don't recognise and accept them - just don't let them hold much sway with me, unless it just happens to align with my sensibilities.



Ugly Dude said:


> is your assertion of objectivity in an inherently subjective matter. This is the absolutism (and elitism) to which you've ascribed.


Your hypothesis was all broken before you got to the conclusion.

Not that I don't appreciate the effort mind...

Well, if I'm honest, I don't appreciated it, or not appreciate it, truth be told. I'm rather ambivalent - but it did seem to flow and seem a bit of a platitude - see, that's me accepting and slightly conforming to societal norms.



Ugly Dude said:


> For you to now say that it is simply something that is in flux seems to be backpedaling on your earlier statements. You are forgiven for the incongruities.


And you are forgiven for the awful flaw that spawned this line of ill-conceived logic.

I'm just that magnanimous.



Ugly Dude said:


> For you to align yourself with what is arguably a foregone era, is in itself, revisionist. An example of counter-culture, anti-establishment "sheepery".


Second major mistake.

I haven't aligned myself, nor my preferences with that time.

On the contrary. I've merely rejected the contemporary "group think" that now, in a revisionist manner, tries to suggest that the choices made in previous times are no longer valid - at least where the extremes are something rather less of a statement than plaid flares, but simply a mens watch that's 32mm.

There's a difference. I'm not advocating small / smaller watches - I'm just rejecting the notion that they're no longer suitable.



Ugly Dude said:


> Be happy "othering" yourself with your powdered wigs, my friend. May it be a happy coincidence when those wigs once again suit (not that you care about social fashion norms, of course).


Indeed.

And you're three for three in mistakes - I'm not making choices based on preferences derived from a previous time. I'm simply rejecting the revisionist stance that such previously made choices - which are nothing like as blatant as the previous posted fashion excesses of previous times - are somehow, now, no longer tenable.

It's my elitism and detachment that allows me to accept people making such mistakes and strawmen arguments, and allows me to deal with people like yourself, with the grace in which I do - and yes, you did rather ask for that.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Ugly Dude said:


> I should mention that, as a man, I'm perfectly fine with wearing a 32 mm watch.
> 
> It's the flawed, logically inconsistent manner of argumentation, and the holier-than-thou attitude without recognition of hypocrisy, with which I take issue.


By all means.

It's the mistakes, then implemented as strawmen that I find a tad irritating - but fortunately, I have the wisdom and grace to be able to deal with such ad hominems in the manner I do, recognising the misguided way in which they're made.

You are free, still, to think I'm a complete jerk - that is your choice - but if so, you're wrong to do so for the reasons you've given.


----------



## cuchulain (Jun 5, 2014)

> The watch I bought in 1993 - at the age of 23 - I didn't buy as a fashion item. I bought it because I considered it timeless (trying not to see any irony in that choice of words) - not of it's time or trendy - but not representing fashion, actually the opposite.


Whether you bought it as a fashion item is irrelevant, you bought a fashion item that by your own admission fit the standards of the day, so you didn't do anything in the opposite of fashion norms of the day, if you did you would have purchased a huge watch back then.

Your assertion that just because at one time you bought an unnecessary fashion accessory, and at the time it was deemed a fine size (although in the 1990's I believe a 32mm was still quite small) that it means it is forever to be deemed a fine size fashion accessory is of course ridiculous.

Would this suit be fine or would you look like a retro idiot wearing it? In the 1970's this was a perfectly fine suit to wear, but today of course it would look ridiculous. Now you can wear it and wag your fist at the establishment, sure, but that doesn't mean people who see this oddball look as nothing more than someone desperate for attention are sheeple. It's merely pointing out the fact that 30-40 years ago something was high fashion and conforming to the days fashion trends, it can still look absolutely bizarre at another point in time. or we would still be wearing togas, powdered wigs, and prairie dresses.

I tend to agree your entire argument seems to be anti for the sake of being anti, and in essence looking to fit in with the "anti" crowd by ridiculing anyone who tends to see a 32mm watch as being too small for a mans watch and that it doesn't look proportional (unless the guy is quite small, which you may be I don't know, it may look fine on your wrist).


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

cuchulain said:


> Whether you bought it as a fashion item is irrelevant, you bought a fashion item that by your own admission fit the standards of the day, so you didn't do anything in the opposite of fashion norms of the day, if you did you would have purchased a huge watch back then.



You make the same fundamental flaw as the previous respondent, who also failed miserably.

What I bought, was specifically not for fashion purposes, either to fit in with what was then contemporary, or any other era.

I specifically bought it at the time to be agnostic of the then fashion, or any other - IN ORDER for it to be somewhat timeless. I wasn't trying to fit in with contemporary fashion, nor rail against it and deliberately try and buy something contrary to fashion - I bought something agnostic to fashion - there is a difference, even if it's highly inconvenient for the argument you're trying to foist.

Just because items _can_ be bought for fashion reasons, does not mean they are _always_ bought for fashion reasons. After all, as I pointed out, previously - being concerned about fashion and fitting in, can be very much dependent on the age / mental maturity of the individual, anyways.

Which renders the remains of your reply, and the tedious and fatuous use of hyperbole in imagery, quite redundant.

By all means, do try again, but perhaps with some actual competency


----------



## cuchulain (Jun 5, 2014)

Wongsky said:


> You make the same fundamental flaw as the previous respondent, who also failed miserably.
> 
> What I bought, was specifically not for fashion purposes, either to fit in with what was then contemporary, or any other era.
> 
> ...


Sorry buddy, you bought a fashion accessory that fully conformed to fashion standards of the day, whether you now say that wasn't a motivation is irrelevant.

And either way your contention that just because a fashion accessory fit the norms of the day generations ago then it means it should forever be deemed as acceptable is too silly to bother to debate any longer, your central argument is completely flawed and you know it at this point. My initial paragraph had nothing to do with the remainder of the post so your assertion that because you disagree with my initial statement it renders the rest of my post redundant makes absolutely no sense at all. Hyperbole for effect is perfectly fine to highlight a point someone seems either incapable of grasping or unwilling.

Ugly_Dude actually ate your lunch, just because you declare yourself the victor and incorrectly assign logical fallacy arguments to his statements doesn't make it so, he pointed out every false premise you based your argument on very effectively.

You've now resorted to stating "I refuse to play" therefore I'll just say you failed and move on, it's really transparent at this point.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

cuchulain said:


> Sorry buddy, you bought a fashion accessory that fully conformed to fashion standards of the day, whether you now say that wasn't a motivation is irrelevant.
> 
> And either way your contention that just because a fashion accessory fit the norms of the day generations ago then it means it should forever be deemed as acceptable is too silly to bother to debate any longer, your central argument is completely flawed and you know it at this point. My initial paragraph had nothing to do with the remainder of the post so your assertion that because you disagree with my initial statement it renders the rest of my post redundant makes absolutely no sense at all. Hyperbole for effect is perfectly fine to highlight a point someone seems either incapable of grasping or unwilling.
> 
> ...


You can try and claim whatever you like about either me, or my argument, but you're still wrong.

People buy various items, all the time, for various reasons. Trying to claim that buying an article you claim is a fashion item, was fashionable of it's time, automatically means it was bought with that intention is simply idiotic.

Furthermore, the retarded straw man you've tried to foist, because of that stupid conclusion, is even more ridiculous (the bit you've underlined...)

Some people purchase various things, be they jewellery, art, furniture, musical instruments - all kinds of things, sometimes explicitly agnostic to, and avoiding fashion - for partly that very reason - because due to the whims of fickleness, some things can be acceptable in one era, and look stark and ridiculous in another time.

So when I say I bought a watch specifically to be agnostic of fashion, that's what I really mean. If you do not, or cannot comprehend that, then it's purely your shortcoming.


----------



## cuchulain (Jun 5, 2014)

Calling it retarded? A new low for you. You're coming unraveled just like your notion that an accessory bought en vogue 30 years ago necessitates that it will always remain in fashion has been sufficiently obliterated. It doesn't matter where anyone stands on the 32 mm watch argument, the logic you used to get to your main premise is hopelessly flawed and you are well aware of that at this point.

Paraphrasing a point you've made over and over in this thread and arguing against it is NOT a strawman, am I guilty of hyperbole? Yup, but hyperbole to make a point isn't egregious IMO, but I'm not guilty of a strawman at all.



> I just reject the contemporary "group think" that watches under a certain size - that people were quite happy to wear in previous times - are now, too small.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

cuchulain said:


> Calling it retarded? A new low for you. You're coming unraveled just like your notion that an accessory bought en vogue 30 years ago


That's because it's a broken assertion, that you keep foisting, then trying to argue against.

What I bought in the early 90s, was not particularly en-vogue at the time at all.

Consider this - somebody may choose a watch, that's visual design and styling have largely remained consistent over several decades - eg Omega DeVille. When they purchase such an item, we don't, foolishly, trying and foist this stupid, stupid, stupid assertion that they are doing so purely because of the fashion of that particular time.

Then going to foolishly argue that contention, then extrapolate it to modern times, then try and argue against it - that's _why_ it's a strawman.



cuchulain said:


> necessitates that it will always remain in fashion has been sufficiently obliterated.


Regardless, it's an idiotic assertion.

I've not tried to argue that the watch I bought was "in fashion" in the early 90s, nor "in fashion" in current times.



cuchulain said:


> It doesn't matter where anyone stands on the 32 mm watch argument, the logic you used to get to your main premise is hopelessly flawed and you are well aware of that at this point.


You're simply wrong about this. Firstly you repeatedly, and mistakenly assert your perception of my argument, then proceed to argue against it.

That you don't understand that in the first place, makes your counter argument rather iditotic. But then, you're free to express idiotic inferences and counter arguments against them - it's the internet after all...



cuchulain said:


> Paraphrasing a point you've made over and over in this thread and arguing against it is NOT a strawman,


It is.

And the reason is because you infer it incorrectly, and then argue against it.

That is EXACTLY why it's a strawman.

And that normally occurs, because people aren't comfortable about arguing against the actual words somebody else has used, but rather would prefer to paraphrase them - often incorrectly. Were they to simply argue against the words used verbatim, it would be rather different.



cuchulain said:


> am I guilty of hyperbole? Yup, but hyperbole to make a point isn't egregious IMO, but I'm not guilty of a strawman at all.


You simply don't understand, then continue to not understand (either deliberately, or accidentally - after all, why ascribe to malice what could be sufficiently explained as incompetence), then argue against it.

Kudos - at least you're consistent with it.


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

Man a 32mm watch is to small for a one year old kid let alone a grown man.........


----------



## cfw (Jun 20, 2012)

Heres my 30mm Rolex, I have a 7,5 inch wrist, u will get used to the size and wearing it will keep ur wife happy and a happy wife = a happy life

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jukeboxhero (Oct 5, 2014)

it is too small for anyone, imho


----------



## Sgt_Bilko (Oct 29, 2013)

Curiously there was a balanced article in the Telegraph recently discussing this very subject and it's worth reading.

Watches: make mine a small one - Telegraph

I actually have a similar looking Rolex from 1959 but it's 34.5mm.


----------



## Ajax_Drakos (Aug 20, 2014)

No.

For decades since the invention of wristwatches, men's watches were smaller, and there certainly was nothing unusual about a 32mm men's watch. Many of these men drank hard, fought hard, smoked hard, worked hard and lived hard. In other words, most of them could probably kick our a%* today. If 32mm was not too small for them, it's not too small for us. 

I think such a watch may look awkward with a short-sleeve shirt, but I think it's fine under a cuff.


----------



## ShaggyDog (Feb 13, 2012)

Personally for me 32mm is way too small to wear. I like my watches in the 40-42mm range so a 32mm would just feel tiny like a dainty woman's watch. The fact that that OP is asking if 32mm is too small suggests that it probably is for him if it's already a concern.


----------



## Sgt_Bilko (Oct 29, 2013)

Perhaps asking the question indicates the OP was more concerned about what others think. If you are self-assured and like a 32mm watch you won't worry about what others think.


----------



## jbg7474 (Sep 6, 2012)

I think a lot depends on wrist size. On my wrist (perhaps a little bigger and flatter than average at 7.5"), I would look at a 32mm watch and see a girl's watch. I also don't think we should ignore fashion. There was a time when it was pretty cool to wear enormous bell-bottom pants. There was a time when "watch" meant pocket watch. And there was a time when people wanted watches to be as small and thin as possible. The current huge watch fashion may be a bit of a fad, but I think a 40mm watch is going to look good on almost any man's wrist from now until the end of time. I don't think I would say that about either 32mm or 45mm.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

jbg7474 said:


> I think a lot depends on wrist size. On my wrist (perhaps a little bigger and flatter than average at 7.5"), I would look at a 32mm watch and see a girl's watch. I also don't think we should ignore fashion. There was a time when it was pretty cool to wear enormous bell-bottom pants. There was a time when "watch" meant pocket watch. And there was a time when people wanted watches to be as small and thin as possible. The current huge watch fashion may be a bit of a fad, but I think a 40mm watch is going to look good on almost any man's wrist from now until the end of time. I don't think I would say that about either 32mm or 45mm.


I'm not feeling this.

I don't remember my older male relatives from decades back, lamenting to me "Son, you know what's wrong? This watch is just too damn small for my manly wrists"

The thing about the fashion argument is it's revisionist, and simply subscribes to the here and now. When watches were smaller than the current obsession with huge, compensating watches that have really been a blip on the history of wristwatches, it wasn't for simply a brief period, like flares, or denim jackets - precisely why that analogy is so facile.

Nobody looks back at times when watches were smaller, and says "We were wrong, then..." because it wasn't merely a whim of fashion - it endured considerably longer than that, through decades when other, more prominent fashions came and went. Because for the longest period, beyond some clear differences between the size of watch favoured by men and women, the size of the watch was not a fashion issue. Styling may well have been, but it's only in fairly recent times, when the actual size of a watch has become this gimmicky artifact.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

I think 38mm is a good dress watch size for most men, 32 mm seems a bit small.


----------



## chillwill120 (Apr 18, 2014)

My wrist is about 7 inches and I personally wouldn't go below 38mm for a dress watch. I think the ideal size is 40 to 42mm. Of course people should wear whatever they like and feel comfortable with. That being said, you small watch fans need to face the fact that, right or wrong, 36mm and smaller is now considered a woman's watch size. Small watch sizes for men are simply out of style and I don't think they're coming back; watch sizes have been consistently getting bigger for almost a century. I think we reached a plateau a few years ago with ridiculous 44mm+ watches. I think we're going back to most watches being between 36mm and 42mm which makes sense as these sizes will nicely accommodate most wrists. The days of 32mm and 34mm men's watches are over though. If you choose to wear a small watch, more power to you. Most people won't notice or care, and those who do notice will just think you're a bit old school.


----------



## jukeboxhero (Oct 5, 2014)

subjective taste is the important factor to me
fashion, on the other hand, means following what someone else will dictate at a point in time
i don't care about fashion at all
if i did, i would buy bad quality fashion watches
but when it comes to the size of a watch, it has to appeal to my subjective taste and fit my wrist size/structure
people always said to me 40-42 mm is the right size for a man
my first watch was a 40mm one and is small for my taste
with a wrist size of 19cm i prefer watches between 41 and 45 mm
i ve tried beautiful 36mm watches on my wrist, and they look ridiculous 
in the end, it is about what makes each person happy
if 32mm works for someone, it is ok
if 52mm works for another person, it is ok as well


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Just like your shirt, shoes, pants, and belt, a watch should be relatively proportional to your body type. For most guys this is between 38mm and 40mm. However a 40 mm dress watch and 42mm diver will be plenty big for guys with even massive wrists. This idea that one needs a 45mm watch because they have an 7.5 inch wrist is all in their heads. A 40mm dress watch doesn't look small on anyone imo.

I think anything over 42 mm looks huge, anything over 44mm begins to look cartoonish.


----------



## robfurrow (Mar 20, 2010)

Talk to any old watch maker or someone in the business over 30yrs and they will tell you, watch sizes are just trend that swings back and forth.

For me, what made me think that larger watches are maybe here to stay, is when slow to change, Rolex started increasing most of its case sizes too. 

My belief is the trend will swing back toward more reasonably sized watches, that don't weigh lbs. and look like a trash can on your wrist, but I don't think we will see 32mm anymore. Having said that, this is a great time to collect smaller sized watches, since the demand is little and wait for the style to trend back.


----------



## Gibsons (Aug 3, 2014)

chillwill120 said:


> My wrist is about 7 inches and I personally wouldn't go below 38mm for a dress watch. I think the ideal size is 40 to 42mm. Of course people should wear whatever they like and feel comfortable with. That being said, you small watch fans need to face the fact that, right or wrong, 36mm and smaller is now considered a woman's watch size. Small watch sizes for men are simply out of style and I don't think they're coming back; watch sizes have been consistently getting bigger for almost a century. I think we reached a plateau a few years ago with ridiculous 44mm+ watches. I think we're going back to most watches being between 36mm and 42mm which makes sense as these sizes will nicely accommodate most wrists. The days of 32mm and 34mm men's watches are over though. If you choose to wear a small watch, more power to you. Most people won't notice or care, and those who do notice will just think you're a bit old school.


I agree. For me, it's functional too. Tiny watches have tiny hands that I have a harder time reading as I get into 'reading glasses' stage. I have a huge 8" wrist and passed on buying a 34mm Air King about 15yrs ago. Bought the 36mm Datejust at that time, but to tell you the truth - I don't think I'd buy a watch smaller than 40mm anymore once I'm used to larger watches. My sweet spot is 42mm but people must realize that there are 3 measurements for comfort (case _diameter, length & thickness_) and they are not all uniform with the diameter. For instance, my 42mm Hammy has a longer case than my 44mm Breitling and is slightly thicker.

Wear what is comfortable for you and what fits. I could care less what people say is 'fashionable' as I've been wearing large watches for years.


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

Wongsky said:


> I'm not feeling this.
> 
> I don't remember my older male relatives from decades back, lamenting to me "Son, you know what's wrong? This watch is just too damn small for my manly wrists"
> 
> ...


Sigh, are you still around posting these "revisionist" and "absolutist" attacks after I mopped up a few months back?

One person's fashion from decades back is your absolute?

There's just no talking reason with some people, I suppose.

Let me guess, you're going to respond with something you came across in some English lit/ deconstructinist class instead of acknowledging your incongruent positions throughout your posts in this thread (in addition to just within a single post). Sprinkle in a bit of flawed logic while you're at it, thanks.


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

Sgt_Bilko said:


> Curiously there was a balanced article in the Telegraph recently discussing this very subject and it's worth reading.
> 
> Watches: make mine a small one - Telegraph
> 
> ...


It takes out a bit of the fun and thought process when you refer to an article as "balanced" and "worth reading".


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Ugly Dude said:


> Sigh, are you still around posting these "revisionist" and "absolutist" attacks after I mopped up a few months back?


"mopped up"?

Delusions of competence, there. You struck out then, just like now. At least you have consistency.

When failing in debating the subject, both then, and now, you go after the person, rather than the words they wrote.

And logic? The moment anybody with the revisionist stance actually displays any, I'll tell you.

Because that's all it is, this notion that watches under a certain size are no longer tenable.

It transcended fashion, since for DECADES it wasn't a factor. Not a couple of years, when flares, or velour were de rigeur, but decades when men didn't feel any sort of need to compensate.

There's no absolutism or empiricism, here, just revisionism from those only considering the here and now, that recent trends have redifined watch sizes as an absolute. And in five years time, the sheep may well be defined by another change in fashion, that they'll likely claim sweeps all asunder.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Ugly Dude said:


> It takes out a bit of the fun and thought process when you refer to an article as "balanced" and "worth reading".


Have you read the article and in what way was it not balanced?

Is it not worth reading because it makes some reasonable points, that you completely disagree with?

Where's the antidote to this? You can only be a real man, and in touch with current fashion if you wear a large watch. Curiously I've not seen as many interesting articles making the case for men wearing BIG watches.


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

Wongsky said:


> "mopped up"?
> 
> Delusions of competence, there. You struck out then, just like now. At least you have consistency.
> 
> When failing in debating the subject, both then, and now, you go after the person, rather than the words they wrote.


Yes, completely mopped up. In a crystal clear manner.

It's not that I supposedly lost a debate as to why I'm making fun of you, I am doing so solely because you're funny (and not in a good way).

And before you go on saying that's an ad hom, remember, it's making fun of you and for only that purpose.

Systematically attacking and undermining your arguments (and the term is used loosely), I've done elsewhere further up and comprehensively, piece by piece. Talk about delusions of competence!

This will be my last post trying to enlighten you. Please go talk to your "male relatives" and leave the grown-ups to discuss civilly.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Ugly Dude said:


> Yes, completely mopped up. In a crystal clear manner.
> 
> It's not that I supposedly lost a debate as to why I'm making fun of you, I am doing so solely because you're funny (and not in a good way).
> 
> ...


I'm glad you have such delusions over how you feel you've performed in this thread, it must help bolster your self-esteem, along with the big watches.


----------



## Gibsons (Aug 3, 2014)

People fighting on the size of watches... buy what you want and that's it. I buy and wear what *I* like, don't care what anyone thinks about them as it's to *my* liking, fit and comfort. It's a personal thing and if 25mm watches suddenly become the "in thing" and Brad Pitt is wearing it - I'll keep my 36 to 44mm rotation going. You gents do whatever you like.


----------



## Ugly Dude (Jul 7, 2013)

Ugly Dude said:


> I should mention that, as a man, I'm perfectly fine with wearing a 32 mm watch.
> 
> It's the flawed, logically inconsistent manner of argumentation, and the holier-than-thou attitude without recognition of hypocrisy, with which I take issue.


Here you go, Gibson. Isn't about the size of the watch for me. It's about what I had set out in my own quote.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Gibsons said:


> People fighting on the size of watches... buy what you want and that's it. I buy and wear what *I* like, don't care what anyone thinks about them as it's to *my* liking, fit and comfort. It's a personal thing and if 25mm watches suddenly become the "in thing" and Brad Pitt is wearing it - I'll keep my 36 to 44mm rotation going. You gents do whatever you like.


Indeed - and that's largely why I entered this thread.

The notion that some of the watches I bought decades ago, should no longer be considered tenable, because they're now under some revisionist, minimum dimension that's merely a fickle whim of fashion, is completely fatuous.

And that's the other thing, too. Fast forward a few years, and the fickle wind of fashion may well change again. But merely play to the beat of that drum, and everything that went before is suddenly passe.

The real change - and it most certainly is a real, recent change, is that in recent times, the increasing _size_ of a watch _has become fashion_ - whereas previously, for the longest time, there was a fair degree of stability in that, and all that really altered was styling or design, rather than absolute dimensions.


----------



## jbg7474 (Sep 6, 2012)

This discussion kinda reminds me of Sayre's law, which says, "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

Ugly Dude said:


> Here you go, Gibson. Isn't about the size of the watch for me. It's about what I had set out in my own quote.


Which is a flawed as anything else you've written on the subject.

Where's the hypocrisy? Who's been holier-than-thou?

That's just the slurs, that get thrown about, when the substantive words people have used in debating this, have to get ducked or snipped by some because they can't actually deal with them.

In much the same way as there's nothing quite like the news article that was posted about the choices of some businessmen, making the same case for large watches.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

jbg7474 said:


> This discussion kinda reminds me of Sayre's law, which says, "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."


Surely at some point, with all these desperate claims of hypocrisy and self-righteousness, surely at some point it's going to take a turn for Godwin's.

I'm quite suprised that the feverish, rabid, "I'll attack you because I don't like what you've written" crowd, haven't already gone for the open goal of accusations of fascism.


----------



## jbg7474 (Sep 6, 2012)

Wongsky said:


> Surely at some point, with all these desperate claims of hypocrisy and self-righteousness, surely at some point it's going to take a turn for Godwin's.
> 
> I'm quite suprised that the feverish, rabid, "I'll attack you because I don't like what you've written" crowd, haven't already gone for the open goal of accusations of fascism.


Just to be clear, you seem to be implying that you're not part of the "I'll attack you because I don't like what you've written" crowd, yes?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Wongsky said:


> surely at some point it's going to take a turn for Godwin's.


I hear ...... wore a 32mm watch... could not resist.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

jbg7474 said:


> Just to be clear, you seem to be implying that you're not part of the "I'll attack you because I don't like what you've written" crowd, yes?


Quite.

And to be clear and absolute, just to clear up any innuendo, there, I haven't attacked anybody because of what they've written on the subject. If I have made any comments that have been more combatative, that's merely been in response to others, who've decided to ignore what's been written on the matter, in favour of ad hominem. And where I'm sat, that's fair play - try and lob a grenade over, then be a man and expect the same back.

I've never ONCE in this thread instigated ignoring the topic, and simply attacking the person. Not once have I taken it there first.

Now that's not a "well X started it...", I'm just pointing out, I stick to the words posted. If others won't doesn't mean I'll let them misrepresent what I've written, or that I shouldn't have right of reply to any shonky ad hominem.


----------



## JR1 (Nov 23, 2012)

if you have to ask, it means you have doubt. there's your answer. 

disclaimer: i love 40mm and up watches. love my 40mm, 42, 44, 47 and up watches. 

but the past three years i fell in love with small dress watches. i regularly use a 38mm watch and i think it is perfect. i have a 34mm dress watch too but i think that's the smallest i can be comfortable wearing on my 6.5" wrist.

i can barely wear the 34mm anyway as my wife has practically sequestered it.


----------



## jbg7474 (Sep 6, 2012)

Wongsky said:


> Quite.
> 
> And to be clear and absolute, just to clear up any innuendo, there, I haven't attacked anybody because of what they've written on the subject. If I have made any comments that have been more combatative, that's merely been in response to others, who've decided to ignore what's been written on the matter, in favour of ad hominem. And where I'm sat, that's fair play - try and lob a grenade over, then be a man and expect the same back.
> 
> ...


Look, I don't care because this is the Internet, but just to let you know, your first reply to me in this thread felt a little like an attack. While you were addressing my statement and not me specifically, you said that my statement was both facile and revisionist, which strongly implies that the speaker is dumb and uninterested in the truth. Probably it came out a little more harsh than you intended, so I didn't respond in kind. But it is possible that you are stepping on a lot of toes without realizing it.

Not that I am completely innocent in this either. I waded into a discussion that was probably a little more sensitive than I realized.

Anyway, water under the bridge. Watches are cool and we're all cool for liking them.


----------



## Wongsky (Jan 19, 2012)

jbg7474 said:


> Look, I don't care because this is the Internet, but just to let you know, your first reply to me in this thread felt a little like an attack. While you were addressing my statement and not me specifically, you said that my statement was both facile and revisionist,


My first reply to you, I said the fashion argument (in general) was revisionist - it is, almost by definition. I also said - in general terms, the use of fashion extremes is facile - it is, because it's overly glib and misrepresents the situation. Watches weren't in smaller than contemporary sizes for anything like a brief, flicker of fashion or trend, that the examples given, were - but people using such extremes are using hyperbole as a means of making their point.



jbg7474 said:


> which strongly implies that the speaker is dumb and uninterested in the truth.


And this is also what happens - people misrepresent what you posted, based on their own inferences, then go on to argue against that position - missing the point, that what they were claiming in the first place is merely their own inference.

Don't argue against what you contend my argument "implies" argue against what I actually wrote - you know - the words themselves. Quote them if you like, then there's no scope for wiggle, or foisting interpretations.



jbg7474 said:


> Probably it came out a little more harsh than you intended, so I didn't respond in kind. But it is possible that you are stepping on a lot of toes without realizing it.


And perhaps you should maybe re-read my first reply to you, and perhaps consider that reacting to what you think, is implied, may purely be your personal interpretation and inference of what I actually wrote, that you've subsequently argued against.

I didn't argue against you in the manner you've claimed, it wasn't an attack on people, it was an attack on the arguments used - some people have problems distinguishing the difference, perhaps that's why some people progress to stepping out of the topic itself, and then going on to merely pursue ad hominem. I expressed my opinion about the general use of the "fashion" argument, and I also commented about the fatuous use of pictures of various fashion statements as hyperbole.

The suggestion of implication is oft abused, as a means of people foisting their inferences as more than that, rather than simply consider the actual words used. Which is why such representation of previous posts, doesn't tend to be done by quoting them, but instead, summation, and talk of what it apparently implies.



jbg7474 said:


> Not that I am completely innocent in this either. I waded into a discussion that was probably a little more sensitive than I realized.


I don't think you did anything wrong in what you first wrote, and first expressed your opinion. I didn't reply to try trash you, I just responded to say I didn't feel it, that I didn't buy the rationale given, and explained why.



jbg7474 said:


> Anyway, water under the bridge. Watches are cool and we're all cool for liking them.


Indeed - and I have no real argument over what people prefer - for whatever reason they do. It's just the revisionist takes, then foisted as some sort of absolutism or empiricism, that grate.

Faced with the concept - and I know I'm not alone in this, here, having personally bought watches in past times, that were, say, 32mm or of similar small-ish sizes - the notion that nowadays they're simply untenable, IS revisionist. I didn't think it looked "girly" back then, nor do I now - why should I?

Truth be told, for me, personally, size isn't much of a factor when buying a watch - well I say that, but it's one of the reasons why I'm not drawn to big watches - when they become unwieldly, or interfere with clothes I'm wearing, or become something of a "statement" that people are almost clubbed over the head to notice, for me, at least, it's not doing it's job. Otherwise, I'm rather unconcerned, if it doesn't get in the way of a shirt cuff, or jacket cuff, and if it isn't particularly that attention seeking, I'm rather flexible on watch sizes.


----------



## Nero727 (Aug 26, 2013)

It all depends on your wrist size and preferences, as it has been said several times here. My Seiko Spirits are 38mm and that's the perfect size for me.

The lowest I can go before it looks weird on me is 35mm, but it depends. I had a Movado at that size but with regular lugs, and it just looked lost on my wrist and would not stay in place. I have an Antea KS that's 35.5mm but fits just as well as my Seiko Spirits because it has pretty long lugs.


----------



## cfw (Jun 20, 2012)

Couldn't resist haha

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gibsons (Aug 3, 2014)

Nero727 said:


> I had a Movado at that size but with regular lugs, and it just looked lost on my wrist and would not stay in place. I have an Antea KS that's 35.5mm but fits just as well as my Seiko Spirits because it has pretty long lugs.


Indeed you are right. There is also length and thickness of the case, not just the diameter. I tried on a 45mm Hammy the other day and it wears 'smaller' than the 42mm chrono I have. Thickness and length of the case also come into play.


----------



## jmnelson75 (Nov 9, 2014)

Best answer ever on this topic...Case closed.


----------



## LBisevac (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike_Dowling said:


> Just like your shirt, shoes, pants, and belt, a watch should be relatively proportional to your body type. For most guys this is between 38mm and 40mm. However a 40 mm dress watch and 42mm diver will be plenty big for guys with even massive wrists. This idea that one needs a 45mm watch because they have an 7.5 inch wrist is all in their heads. A 40mm dress watch doesn't look small on anyone imo.
> 
> I think anything over 42 mm looks huge, anything over 44mm begins to look cartoonish.


This is so funny. For me anything smaller that 42 mm is too small and I wouldn't even consider it. Anything smaller than 40 mm is in ladies' watches category.
The best thing is I have an average size wrist and my everyday watch is SBBN007 tuna.


----------



## WestleyMark (Jan 27, 2018)

So, I am posting this seemingly five years after the last comment. But, it appears that that was posted four years after the thread was started. 

Personally, I like smaller watches. I think it generally looks better when a watch sits on the wrist instead of over it. 

However, with regard to larger watches, the movements inside them are often the same as when watches were smaller. Take a Patek 3919 versus today's 5119 - same movement. Or, take JLC's Master Control, you will find basically the same movement in all models from 34mm to 40mm. A large 40mm VC Patrimony manual wind has a 20mm movement. See some of these AP ROOs and the movements are lost in the vast case interiors. Even Nomos, who makes rather small watches, the Alpha looks too small for the 35mm cases and perfect in the 33s. 

Sure, there are some wonderful watches with movements that fill the case, but they tend to be on the more expensive side, 6498-based pieces aside. 

Aesthetically, I find it ugly to see a case expanded without also making a movement that fits the case. It somehow feels a little cheap and unpleasant.


----------



## FreddyNorton (Aug 18, 2016)

I have 8 inch wrist and I wear men watches from the 1930s which are sometimes 22-25mm wide and like 39-42mm tall. Generally though I think 32mm is fine on me. My rotation right now has range from a 22mm Bulova mens watch dated 1938 to a modern 45mm Bulova moon watch and lots in between. Never let size bother me or turn me away from a watch I like.


----------



## Unsolved_Mistry (Mar 15, 2016)

Depends on your wrist size, I dunno who necro'd the thread but my seiko 6300-6000 is 30mm and its perfect


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

Yes, its almost too small to be a womans watch..


----------



## ThomasH (May 18, 2007)

.



FreddyNorton said:


> Never let size bother me or turn me away from a watch I like.


I am with you. :-! There were times when the "cool" was how small you can make a watch, other times it was how thin you can make a watch. :roll:

I have a couple old Seiko hand-wind from the 50's that are 32mm and a 28mm Octo that I think is very handsome, in a 1955 style! 









Click for *Big Image*​
If anyone is bothered, I explain/claim that this is just how watches were worn back then. b-) When you wear watches that old, they may be smaller, but they can still be cool! ;-)

- Thomas

.


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox (Mar 8, 2014)

Yes definitely.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 10, 2018)

I think it's pretty cool that this thread is still going strong nearly ten years later.

For the record, I think the whole large size thing is getting a little out of hand. I saw a picture of a celebrity the other day whose watch was so big it looked like he had a wall clock strapped to his wrist. If he bent his wrist even slightly back, the crown would dig into the back of his hand.

I'm 6'2", 210lbs, but cursed with the wrists of a ten-year-old girl. (which is probably why I've broken them a combined six times) so a 33-36mm watch looks perfectly proportioned on me, especially my Patek, which is 34mm, but all dial, very little case.

In fact the smallest watch I own is the Holy Grail of my collection, a 1931 (first year of manufacture) iconic, Jaeger LeCoultre Reverso. It took me close to two decades to find just the right one. And if someone wearing a seventy-five dollar quartz monstrosity on their wrist makes fun of my small Reverso, do you think I really care? One of the things that makes this hobby great is the diversity of our opinions and respect for fellow watch collectors. Personally, I think the Audemars Piguet, Royal Oak is one of the ugliest watches around, but if I saw someone wearing one I would compliment them because I know my opinion is in the minority. 

Personally, I think watch collectors are among the coolest people around. Plus, what other hobby is there where you can actually make money now and then. And when someone comments on one of my watches and I ask them what they're wearing, it frequently turns into a half-hour discussion about watches, regardless of our income level, profession, or age.


----------



## clyde_frog (Feb 6, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> I think it's pretty cool that this thread is still going strong nearly ten years later.


It's not going strong, it keeps getting necro'd.



> For the record, I think the whole large size thing is getting a little out of hand.


Nobody's ever had this opinion before.



> I'm 6'2", 210lbs, but cursed with the wrists of a ten-year-old girl. (which is probably why I've broken them a combined six times) so a 33-36mm watch looks perfectly proportioned on me, especially my Patek, which is 34mm, but all dial, very little case.


You're female, correct (your username/email address has a woman's name)? So no matter how big you are a smaller watch would look normal.



> And if someone wearing a seventy-five dollar quartz monstrosity on their wrist makes fun of my small Reverso, do you think I really care? One of the things that makes this hobby great is the diversity of our opinions and respect for fellow watch collectors. Personally, I think the Audemars Piguet, Royal Oak is one of the ugliest watches around, but if I saw someone wearing one I would compliment them because I know my opinion is in the minority.


Somebody wearing a "seventy-five dollar quartz monstrosity" is more likely to laugh at your watch for how much you spent on it rather than the size of it, and wouldn't care what you thought of their watch either. Also you're not showing much respect for your fellow watch collectors with this seventy-five dollar quartz monstrosity jibe.



> Personally, I think watch collectors are among the coolest people around. Plus, what other hobby is there where you can actually make money now and then.


Err, a lot. And you can make a lot more money than you can buying and selling watches.


----------



## cktyu (Jan 17, 2019)

For my wrists, yes. I would only buy a 40mm + mm watch it it were for myself


----------



## Rosarito (Apr 22, 2019)

Yes. All men are exactly the same size. Therefore, all watches should be exactly the same size... man size.

Of course, if the watch is for a lady, then it should be “ladies” size which should be way smaller than man size because all ladies are much smaller than all men.


----------



## JAA (Dec 10, 2011)

Bulova 10AK. Standard U.S. Army issue A-11 wrist watch. There's zero doubt it's a "man's watch." 32mm.


----------



## clyde_frog (Feb 6, 2017)

JAA said:


> Bulova 10AK. Standard U.S. Army issue A-11 wrist watch. There's zero doubt it's a "man's watch." 32mm.


In the first half of the 20th century.


----------



## spieec (Oct 7, 2017)

By modern standards yes it's definitely small but all that doesn't matter if you like it.


----------



## roseskunk (Jul 20, 2008)

Hah! wow, nearly ten years! Happy 30th anniversary! Wear what you like!


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

The Bulova Commander looks good in the 1965 ad. I enjoy a nos Commander with 10COAC movement in 14k case. Just like in the ad.


----------



## roseskunk (Jul 20, 2008)

Great Bulova!!


----------



## Stan Papusa (Aug 5, 2020)

I also have this dilemma, I found a really nice Mondaine 33mm watch, and I'm not sure if I can wear it, my wrist is 6'3 inch. What do you think?


----------



## BerutoSenpai (Sep 7, 2016)

Everything is wearable imo. As long as you're happy with it then by all means wear it. Vintage and antique watches are very small but were worn by men of their time, so it's perfectly fine 50 years ago, to 10 years ago which was when this thread was posted _cough_, up to now.


----------



## lehippi (Feb 27, 2019)

Back when my wrists were 6.5in I wore a must de Cartier tank which was like 23x30mm. It looked kind of funky then, and now with my 7in wrists it would look more out of place in my opinion. But if you like the watch it shouldn't matter to you.


----------



## watchutalkinbout?! (Aug 3, 2020)

I don't really buy the argument that just because small watches were in fashion in the 1950's or whenever, that they should be in fashion indefinitely. Huge, baggy suits, fedoras, and oversized clothes were also the in style at some point, but that doesn't mean you'd want to wear them today. If everyone thinks that you're wearing a woman's watch then it's probably too small. On the opposite end, even if big watches are still sort of the trend, if it's so big that it looks out of place, goofy, or it appears like you are compensating for something then it's probably not a good look for you. It should look "right" and proportional to you; it should add something to your appearance and style, not take away from it


----------



## schumacher62 (May 23, 2019)

why are some men perpetually
hung-up on the sizes of most things?


----------



## Stan Papusa (Aug 5, 2020)

Because I don't want my hand to look like this. lol


----------



## Stan Papusa (Aug 5, 2020)

Actually, it will look like this, this one is 33mm


----------



## John MS (Mar 17, 2006)

Stan Papusa said:


> I also have this dilemma, I found a really nice Mondaine 33mm watch, and I'm not sure if I can wear it, my wrist is 6'3 inch. What do you think?


Sure you can wear and enjoy it. Understand that you are the only person that will notice the watch on your wrist. A 33mm watch will feel comfortable because the strap can be worn slightly loose. A 43mm watch will cover your wrist and will not feel as comfortable.


----------



## Mickey® (Feb 26, 2012)

It wasn't in the past..but now depending on your wrist size, according to your taste and/or current society's standards...who knows.

I bet it would be very comfortable!


----------



## sprezzatura (Mar 31, 2012)

I just acquired a vintage Omega 111.046 31,4mm (32mm incl. crown). It's minimalistic. I'm really looking forward to get it and start using it. It's all about proportions and perception. If proportions (wrist width, cuffs, suit/sc sleeve) are well balanced and you have an otherwise minimalistic appearance, a 32mm watch will look just fine.

With that being said, this will be the smallest Watch I've acquired thus far, so we'll see how it looks. The smallest I've had before is 33,5-34mm. But this one was just too Beautiful to pass up on. Simplistic and minimalistic, right up my alley.


----------



## epi.is (Jul 28, 2019)

if your concerned you can stack it with some bracelets if that your style. either way, wear what you want with confidence, that is what makes something 'work'


----------



## Mr. James Duffy (Feb 2, 2016)

In addition to wrist size, width, and flatness; the thickness of the watch case and the ratio between the dial and case will often affect how large or small a watch wears on the wrist. I have a dress watch (left) and a "boys' size" watch (right) that are both 33mm wide but the lug-to-lug measurement and case to dial ratios are quite different and greatly affect how big or small they wear.









Of course, case and dial shape matters a whole lot, too. I might have already posted this earlier in the thread but I am too lazy to check now that I already attached it.


----------



## grenert (Dec 9, 2016)

Wow, I just looked up the Seiko 6810 movement in the dress watch. I actually assumed it was a quartz because the watch is so thin and resembles some of Seiko's HAQ models. That movement is something else! Less than 2mm thick:





Seiko 6810







reference.grail-watch.com




Seiko even added some nice decoration to it. I wonder if it was adjusted for positional accuracy 😜


----------



## bigshoe83 (Aug 21, 2018)

I would say it depends on the wrist size but also the lug to lug distance. A watch like a Turtle is big at like 44mm but the way the lugs are made it wears smaller. I am more of a big watch guy with my height and proportions a small watch looks funny but some men could pull it off.


----------



## Mr. James Duffy (Feb 2, 2016)

grenert said:


> Wow, I just looked up the Seiko 6810 movement in the dress watch. I actually assumed it was a quartz because the watch is so thin and resembles some of Seiko's HAQ models. That movement is something else! Less than 2mm thick:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is what I love about the Seiko 6810-8000 (SCVL001), it is simple and refined. And without a seconds hand, I never have to worry about its variable positional accuracy as long as it does not lose more than a minute per week!


----------



## Jeffrey Lim (Nov 30, 2015)

If you like it then wear it! 99.999% of people will not notice your watch anyway so who cares what other people think about it. But personally when I see a dude wearing a small watch, I immediately assume they are watch enthusiasts or that the watch has some deep sentimental meaning, which makes me even more interested in it. A guy in today's world will never accidentally wear a small watch.


----------



## Mr. James Duffy (Feb 2, 2016)

Jeffrey Lim said:


> If you like it then wear it! 99.999% of people will not notice your watch anyway so who cares what other people think about it. But personally when I see a dude wearing a small watch, I immediately assume they are watch enthusiasts or that the watch has some deep sentimental meaning, which makes me even more interested in it. A guy in today's world will never accidentally wear a small watch.


Agreed! A barista at my (former) regular coffee shop wore a vintage Omega Geneve among a staff full of Apple watches and I knew he was cool. The guy was big-at least six feet four inches tall and two hundred pounds-and he wore the 35mm watch well on his big ham of a wrist.


----------



## studawg (Jul 7, 2014)

depends on your wrist size but for those with larger wrists a 32mm might be hard to pull off in some styles


----------



## Mr. James Duffy (Feb 2, 2016)

studawg said:


> depends on your wrist size but for those with larger wrists a 32mm might be hard to pull off in some styles


Yeah, I think it would be difficult for anyone with a wrist that is greater than 6.75 inches or 17 centimeters in circumference to pull off a 32mm watch with any kind of bezel or with more than two lines of text (including the brand logo) on the dial. Still, I have seen some pretty big wrists wear very small vintage watches and it looks fine when worn with confidence.


----------



## jmnav (May 18, 2019)

BetaMark said:


> I realize this could at least partly depend on the wrist size, which in my case is 7".
> 
> I ask this because after wearing my Ananta SD chrono steadily for about the last 4 months, I'm finding it difficult to go back to a Croton skeleton watch with a 32mm case.
> 
> This is also slightly heartbreaking, because the Croton was a wedding gift from my wife of 20 years. o|


Do your wife consider you a man?
Since she bought it for you...


----------



## schumacher62 (May 23, 2019)

this was sold through Target stores only in the early 2000's. it's a 32 and i adore it.

otherwise the very format of your question is annoying and ignorant. your watch isn't the signifier of your gender or your femininity or sexuality, you are (if you choose to be even that.)


----------



## laplumej01 (Apr 8, 2020)

Yes!!  But you should do you and not care what others think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## carbon_dragon (Jul 28, 2019)

From a practical consideration, if so big it's awkward (in YOUR opinion) or so small you can't read the time (I'm 64 and that's an issue with me) then it's all up to your preferences. The smallest watch I still wear (6.6" or so wrists) is about 33.5" (my dad's old Accutron) but that is really up to sentimental value. I've stopped buying anything smaller than 42mm but that is solely my personal preferences, not any objective measure of what is too big or too small. If you're USED to wearing bigger watches, it will certainly seem small to you for what that is worth (my Dad's watch seems tiny these days when I wear it).


----------



## schumacher62 (May 23, 2019)

not at all. here's my 32mm from 2001, sold through Target stores in the states. i adore everything about it.


----------



## JohnM67 (Jun 16, 2014)

Here's a 32mm on what was a 7.5in wrist at the time (I lost weight and a quarter inch off my wrists, had to remove a link from all my watch bracelets. But that's another story):


----------



## noraaeel (Oct 12, 2021)

This is a picture of my 32mm Oris Big Crown Date Pointer alongside my fitness band. I think wearing smaller watches is fine and all that really matters is whether u like the watch or not. I think it also depends on what the watch is for. If it's a tool watch, I prefer larger sizes (I have a Seiko 'Arnie' and Citizen Promaster Tsuno) as u tend to use the functionality of it. If it's a dress/field watch, I think smaller sizes are fine. But it's up to everyone's individual preferences.

If u feel it, u feel it. If u don't, u don't. I might be bias since I have slender wrists haha.









Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk


----------



## lanjim (Nov 23, 2015)

Definitely yes... Too small imho

Sent from my SM-F711U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TravisMorgan (Oct 14, 2021)

If its a vintage man's watch from 1920s to 70s, then the answer is no, its not too small....my father's restored Hamilton Dewitt Salmon dial watch from 1950..much smaller than 32mm...no one ever told him and his 8 inch wrists it was too small...that photo is my 7 1/2 inch wrist...and no one ever to my face ever told me it was too small. I proudly wear it about maybe every two weeks...it has garnered some attention and some questions


----------



## schumacher62 (May 23, 2019)

32mm is quite perfect for a “man.”


----------



## noraaeel (Oct 12, 2021)

Smallest watches I have:

Oris BC Date Pointer 32mm, Seiko Lordmatic Special 34mm, Glycine Airman 36mm, Junghans Max Bill 38mm









Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk


----------



## bpmkv (11 mo ago)

I run into this issue a lot. My favorite watches are vintage timex, and vintage bulova, especially the 30s watches. All of the vintage timex stuff was around 32-34mm in mens. The vintage bulova watches from the 30s are even smaller. I say wear what makes you happy. I also think a lot of the new super flashy 42mm mens watches look silly. Some that size are done well and tastefully, but some look like wearing a bling-ed out pocket watch. 

If it makes you feel any better, the re-released mens timex marlin that keeps selling out like crazy is 33mm. A lot of reviews compliment the size and the minimalistic design. "from a simpler time" etc I think to some degree even people not super familiar with watches are starting to realize that mens watches used to be a lot smaller. It seems like a lot of sites i visit that sell watches seem to be sold out of the models in smaller sizes a lot more.


----------



## DPflaumer (May 12, 2010)

I'll bump this again and say that 32mm feels just right to me.


----------



## Christopher.NYC (Aug 13, 2021)

DPflaumer said:


> I'll bump this again and say that 32mm feels just right to me.
> 
> View attachment 16449997


what size is your wrist? This looks great on you!! im considering buying myself the Tissot *T035.207.11.031.00 *and I have a 6.9" wrist. The 39mm version of this watch is super unappealing to me. I wish they made this in a 34-36mm but im only stuck with the 32mm option so I'm considering it. Thanks!


----------



## DPflaumer (May 12, 2010)

Christopher.NYC said:


> what size is your wrist? This looks great on you!! im considering buying myself the Tissot *T035.207.11.031.00 *and I have a 6.9" wrist. The 39mm version of this watch is super unappealing to me. I wish they made this in a 34-36mm but im only stuck with the 32mm option so I'm considering it. Thanks!


It's a touch over 6" and honestly couldn't be happier with the 32mm! I've actually been wearing it for the last few weeks straight as I was moving and packed everything else away. Just today switched over to this 38mm Mido for reference.


----------



## DPflaumer (May 12, 2010)

Christopher.NYC said:


> what size is your wrist? This looks great on you!! im considering buying myself the Tissot *T035.207.11.031.00 *and I have a 6.9" wrist. The 39mm version of this watch is super unappealing to me. I wish they made this in a 34-36mm but im only stuck with the 32mm option so I'm considering it. Thanks!


Apologies for the double reply but I just googled that Tissot and I actually got the 32mm version for my girlfriend last month (she expressed a lot of interest in my weird watch hobby so it was absolutely a welcome gift). It's honestly VERY cool in person and I would wear it in a heartbeat. I actually debated picking up one of my own after seeing it but figured that might be a step too far 😂


----------



## Ron521 (Feb 20, 2014)

I gave up wearing my classic Swatches, purchased in the 80's because I came to feel that 34mm was too small for my 7 inch wrists. I prefer a watch 38mm or larger.


----------



## CCHereticA7X (3 mo ago)

I have a 7 1/2 inch wrist and the lowest I’ll go is 40mm but that’s my preference. iIt’s your wrist. Wear what you want and be happy.


----------



## Mr. James Duffy (Feb 2, 2016)

Living in a such a patriarchal society, it took me a few years to discover how smaller watches that are 32-36mm are look and feel best on my wrist. Like many, the gendered watch market and community influenced what I was buying and wearing. (It didn't help that I started in the hyper-masculine giant clown watch days of the early-2010s.) Because I have always favored dress watches, the 42mm time-only watches looked ridiculous on my 6.5-inch (16.75 cm) circumference wrist but I avoided sub-40mm watches because of the "That's a woman's watch" crowd.

It was not until I took a chance on a Hamilton Intra-matic 38mm dress watch when it finally clicked. I noticed its two-hand spartan dial made it wear much larger and I found myself wanting a proper vintage watch with a smaller case and dial diameter. Suffice it to say, I now wear a lot of sub-40mm watches—including divers—along with larger chronographs and Seiko divers. I would have arrived at this place in my watch collecting earlier had I not bought into the gendered dogma of the watch industry.

Now, I look for unisex watches and "larger" models marketed to women as long as there are no stones on the dial or case. I have even softened on color and I love dial and strap colors that were traditionally seen as feminine.


----------

