horolophile

Just as a quick example: I've got big wrists, and (roughly) have a = 19.5, and b = 7, so my j = 2.79. Meanwhile, my daughter has a = 17.25, and b = 5.75, so her j = 3.00. Now, to compare to one of the watches above (the 45.5mm Planet Ocean, since I have one to test with) which ends up having k = 24.38 once you crunch the numbers. For me, 2.86/24.38 = .11, so this watch is too big for me (according to the formula) For my daughter, 3.00/24.38 = .12, so the same watch fits her significantly smaller wrists (again, according to the formula). Having just tried the watch on, and then having her try it on, I assure you, it looks just about perfectly sized on me and laughably large on her.

Alas there's a problem with the math here: Imagine for a moment your wrist was perfectly round. Now, for the formula as stated: a = circumference ( c ) b= diameter ( d ) j = circumference/diameter Now, we know the classic 'c = 2πr', or alternately 'c = πd', which can be rearranged to 'c/d = π'. So, were your wrist a perfect circle, j would *always* = π, no matter how big or small your wrist actually *is*. Now, true, nobody's wrist is perfectly circular, but in measuring the equivalent of 'c/d' (in our case 'a/b') we are only measuring how 'out of true', or how 'flat' someones wrist is, and the resultant 'j' tells us nothing about the actual size of the wrist, which is kinda' important when determining watch size. Just my 2¢ Pax -Aaron