lanikai Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 My view of this hobby has evolved with time.. and watches . I read a lot of post saying.. "I'd like to get it but it's too big for my wrist".. my opinion is mixed as I don't have large wrist per-say .. my wrist is between 7 and 7.5" at the moment.. And for me some watches are "era" watches.. since long ago wrist watches were made from pocket watch movements, (as is known) .. ergo the bigger size's.. for me I like to wear the style's of a certain era.. I never thought I would wear the smaller 36mm sizes but they were the thing back in the day and I feel like I'm wearing "History". I've seen some brilliant watches here with antique pocket watch movements in them.. gotta start a project here is a nice write up : IWC had models that were quite large.. and the smaller ones were from Ladies pocket watch movements..... IWC Pocket W. Movements For me the Pam 127 is a good example of an era style watch.. at 47mm some would think it too big.. but for me .. it's all about the era.. yes, it does look big on the wrist but it's what they wore back in the day. and then I have the 1016 36mm bigger is not always better.. to me another "era" timepiece,.. this will be taking a trip shortly .. got a gilt 1016 dial and T22 to swap .. I love History... and the vintage brands and timepieces have a sweet history behind each one.. to each his or her own .. but for me variety is the spice of life.. hows this for tiny ?? 34mm to the crown.. but the size they wore waaaaayyyy back when AC Lani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demsey Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Oh man, I'm purdy buzzed right now. If this thread hangs for another half hour with no serious attention I'm going to bust a comment about watch size being directly proportional to penis size. See what I'm sayin'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justasgood Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I agree with your thoughts about "Era" timepieces. Keeping in mind what the piece represents, everything from 30mm Vintage Elgins and Hamiltons to 47mm Panerai have a place in my heart as well. If I have 'em, I wear 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Oh man, I'm purdy buzzed right now. If this thread hangs for another half hour with no serious attention I'm going to bust a comment about watch size being directly proportional to penis size. See what I'm sayin'? yeah ...yeah.. we know it's a Freudian thang .. or as we say her.. oops I mean "here".. a "dick" thang so you saying your breifs are too big Dems... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justasgood Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 your breifs are too big Dems... Ouch.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I have always said that (regardless of the wrist size) 40-42mm is pretty much the perfect watch size. However I can enjoy the bigger ones too... it's all about "balance". UPO 45mm was felt too big because it wasn't "visually balanced" to my eye. However 45mm Ebel BTR wears just perfect. The case shape makes it happen. But generally I love the 40-42mm size. That's why most sports Rolexes and Omegas are my favorites. Something like DateJust/Day-Date I simply couldn't wear. They look just silly on me. Lovely watches though. PS: The main reason I bought a gen Aquaracer chrono was that I prefer the 41mm over the new huge day-date (there is no rep of the 41mm version)... I love them both but the smaller one is even better looking watch (imho). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demsey Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 so you saying your breifs are too big Dems... Hey, wait a minute................... I'll have to visit this thread in the morning, but I have something floating around my head with regard; there are watch manufacturers that set trends, then there are watch trends that are set by us, through zeitgeist and may trigger a market. Ummmm, Rolex may hold a meeting of maketing heads of departments after reviewing fashion trends and set a guideline; "Right, spare is in; thin lapels, rail stripes, thin ties, 'Windsor' is out for 1952. The DateJust will be 34mm.........." And the public goes; "Ohhhhh, yeah, Rolex, I'm on that, I'm into 34mm, in yellow gold please". Then there are watches that are pushed into the trend beyond their design parameters; IWC, and Panerai, as 'lanikai' alluded. They are 'tool' watches, 'large' because it's not particularly easy to see a watch dial under 5 fathoms or in a cockpit at night. I have no love for Panerai as a daily watch. Especially as a fashion accessory. Sorry, I never bought into it. To my eye they look dumb. On the street. Like a guy walking through the mall with a welder's mask on because he saw the lead guitarist for Ramstein wear one onstage when he lit the flame thrower. That is not to say I have no love for a welder's mask, or a 187. I'd just reach for them in a dive bag or the welder's shop. ps I never wear the PO chrono around. It really does look dumb. In the mall. Cool replica tho'.............did I mention I was purdy buzzed? pss @ BT, I see you are sporting a wedding band. I merely thought you were 'engaged' ? Did I miss a thread? Congrats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 ps I never wear the PO chrono around. It really does look dumb. In the mall. Cool replica tho'.............did I mention I was purdy buzzed? pss @ BT, I see you are sporting a wedding band. I merely thought you were 'engaged' ? Did I miss a thread? Congrats! me thinks we're in for a major dissertation in the mornin... beer and tomato juice in the am for you Dems.. or sipping on champagne cures all mornin blues.. AC L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I'm with Dempsey. Marketing is all today, whether we're talking detergent, cat food, clothes or watches. 50mm watches are in because people on the front of magazines, whom the media has told us are cool, are pictured wearing them. And because they're different from what has gone before, which is now dusty and dead. Out with the old, in with the new, so that the people keep wanting, lusting and, most importantly, buying, buying, buying. Then, a few years down the line, 36mm will once again be the in thing to wear. Back in the day, which for Panerai was what - 1900 to mid 1970s perhaps? - I'd say almost no-one was wearing Panerai, except those for whom Panerai was made: naval officers, divers and the like. I'm pretty sure no-one was wearing big fliegers either, except for fliegers and then only while actually flying. Back on earth, they'd be all too happy to switch to a normal-size 36-38mm, since who the hell needs a 45+mm watch under normal circumstances? Quite frankly, in my opinion today's huge watches are nothing more than a passing fad, created by marketing people in order to combat waning sales. But then, that goes for so very, very much these days.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I think the point was missed.. for me it's not about the fad or bigger watches .. but watches of the era. and long ago big watches were worn, other than the Panerai's or Pilot watches .. it is not a new fad..if your talking about the bling watches of today.. that is a different story altogether... but history does tend to repeat itself after 20 years or more.. From IWC history The original large "Portugieser" wristwatch was initially produced in the 1940s, on commission from two Portuguese watch dealers named Rodriguez and Teixeira, one from Lisbon and the other from Porto. They requested a large watch be made by IWC, which ran counter to the taste of the times which tended toward smaller and smaller wristwatches. The intended watch would have a diameter of 43mm, unlike many wristwatches of the period which were 31mm in diameter. IWC chose to use their flattest and most reliable pocket watch movement, which at the time was their Cal. 98, evolved from their earlier caliber 74, which had ceased production in 1930 Aside from their size and distinctive, yet classic, styling, the raison de' etre for both these watches is their movements. The Cal. 9521 of the Portofino and the Cal. 9828 of the Portugieser reflect, in many ways, the best of IWC's watchmaking history. Both movements follow IWC's watchmaking tradition. They are both 17 ligne in size (many pocket watches used a larger 19 ligne movement) and are successors to a history of famous 17 ligne thin IWC movements I guess I didn't make clear my thought's or the post wasn't read.. I'm talking about origins more than Brand marketing now.. as the innovators of large watches manufactured them for their movement quality instead of their sheer size. AC Lani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaunit Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 There used to be a pursuit to make the thinnist mechanical watches around the 1960s. Comfortable, easy wearing. Not anymore. Now you have these super thick cases 1/2" to 5/8" thick! Diameter is not much of an issue for me, I prefer 40 to 42mm. I sold my Skyland because of the weight and thickness, it really used to bother my wrist. The Rolex DeepSea is another example of how ridiculous things have gotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 There used to be a pursuit to make the thinnist mechanical watches around the 1960s. Comfortable, easy wearing. Not anymore. Now you have these super thick cases 1/2" to 5/8" thick! Diameter is not much of an issue for me, I prefer 40 to 42mm. I sold my Skyland because of the weight and thickness, it really used to bother my wrist. The Rolex DeepSea is another example of how ridiculous things have gotten. I think the DSSD is also a working watch .. for depth.. perhaps Rolex had to at least have one since they are the brand that conquered the Ocean.. the statement has to be backed up .. me thinks the 1970's found the thinnest watches with the quartz movements ... the watch industry was all about the quartz movements in that era.."thinner than a dime"..I forget what brand boasted that one..but citizen went a little thinner around 1975-76 I think the thickness of some watches translates again the "movement" and to balance that with design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I guess I didn't make clear my thought's or the post wasn't read.. I'm talking about origins more than Brand marketing now.. as the innovators of large watches manufactured them for their movement quality instead of their sheer size. AC Lani I did read it, but my reply was still on the side of the topic, for which I apologise. It was Demsey who got me going to be honest.... You're quite right about large movements being used for their size of course, but those large watches were still just made for specific target audiences and for specific uses, until large watches became a fashion thing. Everyone still wore small watches, including those same professionals when they weren't working. A pilot, captain or diver of the 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s would likely not want to be caught dead wearing his big work watch outside work, since they would not have been considered particularly stylish, to put it politely. Hence I don't really see that there ever was an era of big watches; the era of big fliegers and Panerais was actually the era of small watches and those big pieces captures none of the zeitgeist of those times, except strictly in regards to the professional time pieces of the day. If anything, if the fashion for huge time pieces continues then this might be the era of big watches, far more than any other. Anyway, I should probably just shut up now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Point taken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt.watch.obsessive Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 The problem with the era argument is that the era started in 1997. On a serious note, the Porto was big to provide accuracy similar to a marine chronograph IIRC. I'm guessing the Pam was big to be more watertight and because the movement was cheaper (I'm basing this on the "submarine" that accompanied the watch ). Many modern day complicated wristwatches are necessarily quite large. The problem with most large watches is they are big for no reason other than fashion. Especially when watches like the SD suddenly "need" to be bigger. I'm feeling quite sharp wearing my small vintage pieces with suits these days. Disclosure: Wearing a gen 112 as I type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Disclosure: Wearing a gen 112 as I type. Yeah....I should possibly mention that I'm wearing the largest watch I own; a SuperOcean Heritage I just received. Utterly lovely, despite it's 46mm diameter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Yeah....I should possibly mention that I'm wearing the largest watch I own; a SuperOcean Heritage I just received. Utterly lovely, despite it's 46mm diameter. it was my articulation of the thread.. you are totally correct when saying that smaller was better .. I should of stated that I like wearing the "historic" watches or Homages to those watches of that "era" weather big or small.. again my articulation did not convey my thought's.. what year was the Heritage introduced ?? never looked that one up..1970's ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 A bit later, in 2007. The model it commemorates is the original 1957 SuperOcean though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upland Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 O! History.. 1016 : 1958. List price, $165.00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Oh to have a time machine and a bucket full of cash.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxman Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Thanks for the topic Lanikai,forgive me for going off a bit. I have looked back In watch history and there really wasn't that many big watches. I think Panerai(divers) and IWC(pilot's) being the exception, maybe a few others. It wasn't long ago that a 40mm timpiece was considerd big. The biggest watch that I had when I arrived here was a 40mm and I really did not think I would or could go any bigger. This was less then one year ago. My first rep was a 42mm omega Po. I thought It was to big and that I would never wear It for that reason. I rarely wear the watch now because I fine It to small. The sweet spot for me is 44mm-48mm. If you were to have told me this eleven months ago I would have thought that you might be seriously mistaken (crazy) I really cant explane It but I just enjoy wearing bigger watches. Some think of a slick watch as a status symbol, "If you,ve got one, flaunt It".(watchtime) I just happen to like the look and feel of a bigger timepiece. It seems that other brands that normally would Ignor fashion trends have taken notice.For example Movado has a 60mm, there famous museum piece. I could go on and on about all of the other big swiss brands that are going big. In 2006, ETA Introduced a new collection of big calibers called Valgrangs, which are 16.5 lignes or 37.2 mm. In diameter. The Valjoux 7750 for examole Is 13.5 lignes or 29.9 mm, In diameter. ETA observes. " We are undoubtedly witnessing the biginning of a major trend for the comming years. the demand for large, even very large, watches... To embrace this trend, a new caliber has emerged, the Valgranges" How big Is to big? We may not know for some time. (ref Watchtime) Go big or go home Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Personally, I just stick to what's comfortable If it wears nice on the wrist, isn't too top heavy and isn't so big that constant contact with door frames and table edges isn't a problem, and the lugs aren't overhanging my wrist, I'll likely be good to go. For what it's worth, I only have two 40mm pieces in the collection these days- One Rolex and one Tudor. The rest- A couple of Omega SM's and IWCs come in at 42mm each; my largest is my sole 44mm PAM. The smallest in my collection is my 36mm modded Royal Oak gents. To me, the profile of the case is really more of a driving factor. I loved my Breit Blacksteel, but proportionately, it was just way too tall/thick to really be comfortable for me. It's all about balance, but then again, I have slender wrists (6.8"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bike Mike Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Watches should fit on your wrist relative to proportion. My $0.02, if the lugs are hanging off or the bracelet is hanging 90 degrees to the case to where the clasp is just touching the underside of your wrist, the piece is too big for you. A watch bracelet/strap should wrap your wrist. it was my articulation of the thread.. you are totally correct when saying that smaller was better .. I should of stated that I like wearing the "historic" watches or Homages to those watches of that "era" weather big or small.. again my articulation did not convey my thought's.. what year was the Heritage introduced ?? never looked that one up..1970's ?? A bit later, in 2007. The model it commemorates is the original 1957 SuperOcean though. I love the SO Heritage for this reason. It was a excellently executed piece that was a throw back in styling to the late 1950's while incorporating the size of today's watches. Can't wait for mine to arrive tomorrow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 A bit later, in 2007. The model it commemorates is the original 1957 SuperOcean though. ok 1957 the original release date.. still a beauty after all this time !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankt Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I can recall not being able to find replacement straps for my 1016, back in the '60's, because 18mm was the widest commonly produced strap width... I have a drawer full of vintage Elgin's, Hamiltons, Bulovas, Walthams, etc., that I haven't worn in a few years, since I discovered 44-47Mm Pannys...They just look ridiculously puny...Even my (rep) no CG "Bond" sub feels tiny... Hopefully, some day, the style trends will shift back to smaller stuff, and I can feel comfortable with my ancient treasures again!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.