Watch Size...

[Panoris]

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.

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!

I love the SO Heritage, but fear its just too large for my 6.7" wrists. If they only repped the 38 mm, i might grab it. For watches in general, I think sizing is a question of aesthetics, and aside from the actual case size and lug width, size of the wearer's hands and size and shape of the forearms can make all the difference. While I respect individual taste (or lack thereof), there are certainly a lot of guys out there (and on here)wearing too much watch (IMO), particularly with the younger guys.

Cheers,

-P-

Edited November 13, 2009 by Panoris

[Agrippa]

At 6.7" I think you may be right. My wrist is 7" and I feel the SOH is at the absolute limit of what I can wear without looking like a complete twit. Luckily it doesn't sport a chunky bezel, or it would have been a complete no-no.

[Nanuq]

Another thing to consider, many dive watches with deep ratings have thick cases so they don't deform under pressure. I read a test that took several deep divers to max pressure in a lab, and the casebacks on some deformed enough to stop the watch. So I consider a 1665 or early Doxa with their thick engraved backs as just part of what was needed in the era before dive computers... if it absolutely positively HAS to run to time your dive, then you gotta do what it takes to protect that little mechanical heart.

[Demsey]

Another thing to consider, many dive watches with deep ratings have thick cases so they don't deform under pressure. I read a test that took several deep divers to max pressure in a lab, and the casebacks on some deformed enough to stop the watch. So I consider a 1665 or early Doxa with their thick engraved backs as just part of what was needed in the era before dive computers... if it absolutely positively HAS to run to time your dive, then you gotta do what it takes to protect that little mechanical heart.

Yup. Also why the Sea Dweller has no cyclops; it would pop off due to the flex of the crystal............

Speaking of which, from another thread started by 'thogaa' that gets my "Post of the Day" award (the proceeds of which, along with $4.25 will get you a Frappuccino from Starbucks):

You couldn't bend it with a Land Rover

[thogaa]

I'd beam myself back to the sixties - I believe that was the coolest decade for WW lovers.

They came in all shapes and sizes and most of the timepieces we love and let us inspire by have their roots in that era (atleast so I believe)

The late 70s thin watches with quartz mov

Real men of all eras have never worn pieces less than 38 dia

[omegaunit]

Another thing to consider, many dive watches with deep ratings have thick cases so they don't deform under pressure. I read a test that took several deep divers to max pressure in a lab, and the casebacks on some deformed enough to stop the watch. So I consider a 1665 or early Doxa with their thick engraved backs as just part of what was needed in the era before dive computers... if it absolutely positively HAS to run to time your dive, then you gotta do what it takes to protect that little mechanical heart.

I agree it has to be robust but I think 12,000 feet for the Deepsea is overkill.

from WikiAnswers.

A Navy diver submerged 2,000 feet (609.6 m), setting a record using the new Atmospheric Diving System (ADS hardshell suit), off the coast of La Jolla, CA, on Aug. 1 2007.

The deepest open circuit scuba dive was accomplished by Pascal Bernab

[Demsey]

I agree it has to be robust but I think 12,000 feet for the Deepsea is overkill.

from WikiAnswers.

A Navy diver submerged 2,000 feet (609.6 m), setting a record using the new Atmospheric Diving System (ADS hardshell suit), off the coast of La Jolla, CA, on Aug. 1 2007.

The deepest open circuit scuba dive was accomplished by Pascal Bernabé (Ralf Tech/WR1 Team) who on July 5, 2005 descended to 1,083 feet (330 m). The dive took place near Propriano, Corsica.

Based on this info a Rolex Sea-dweller with its 4000 feet depth rating is more than good enough.

A good point(s) and has been the subject of many discussions here, and there.

The 'static' rating of depth resistance (what watch makers use as standard) is perhaps less an equation of 'marketing' than it is of practical engineering. Firstly, the mere act of 'swimming' will, for the milli-second a watch enters the water on a stroke, produce enough dynamic pressure on a watch case equal to three atmospheres of 'static' pressure. Considering that, what would you suppose the dynamic pressure of falling off water skis? Bailing off an inflatable? Helo? Oil rig?

Secondly, there is an overkill of design to address three major variable factors; temperature, repitition of pressure cycles, and time. All these variables will decay the ability of a watch to perform up to it's design potential. The design depth rating is an 'overkill' to ensure safety, in a watch marketed as a 'tool' watch for professionals.

The issue in and of itself has caused the term;'water proof' to have been since retired in lieu of 'water resistant'.

The term "waterproof" was discontinued starting in the late 1960's. This change was brought about from several government organizations, including the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, who were investigating truthfulness and accuracy of product labeling and advertising.

"Waterproof" was considered to have misrepresented the products as more capable of preventing the entry of water under normal use circumstances than they were actually capable of. Specifically, diving-type watches never have been completely 'proof' of water entry under normal use and within the stated depth ratings. The seals that keep water out are not completely impervious and their effectiveness can be reduced over time with age, deterioration, and exposure to chemicals.

The term "water resistant" is now used to describe such watches. There are no technical differences between a waterproof watch and a water resistant watch--they use the exact same methods and technologies to keep water out. The difference is only in what term was considered to appropriate to describe it at the time it was made.

If I were a commercial diving engineer doing repetitive nitrox dives to 300+ft, I would want a watch rated to at least 10X for the sake of my life on the side of gross safety. If I were a commercial diving engineer watch maker supplying and advertising a product to the general public for work to and below 300+ft I would engineer on the side of gross safey for the sake of my life (livelihood).

[thogaa]

Back to watch sizes. I can't think of a bigger wrist than the one of Richard Kiel (Jaws) - Here's an example of terrible (S)watch wearing

I wonder what he'd wear on a daily basis