freddy333 Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Check this out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mentalist Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I always thought GQ were full of sh*t, this just proves it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheaton26 Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 i'm 99% sure that i'll never wear anything smaller than a 44mm again, but hey ... you never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankt Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I've got that covered well with my collection of vintage classic Hamiltons, Elgins, Gruens, and Omegas...But...I don't put a suit on anymore except for weddings and funerals!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyd3 Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I am sure Rolex really gives a [censored] about what GQ thinks ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgegrasser Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I agree. They got too big. I bought a Renato T-Rex that I never wore. This is the one I have. (Not my wrist). http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb132/edfru2/watch068.jpg Updated: 07/29/2007 16:03:24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris5264 Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I started out 38-41,,then for years was 44 or larger,,,it got all the way up to 60mm and then it all started to seem silly (maybe I'm just getting old ). In the last few months I've sold all my giant watches and have been more around 42,,,,,and it's funny,,,now my 42mm watches seem large...reminds you how much of the mind is in perception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noslen Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 GQ, Esquire and all those magazines are trying to turn men into women. They might as well come with a free vagina. Seriously, did our fathers even know what moisturiser was? Edit to add: If you have to learn how to dress for business from a magazine, you aren't important or successful enough for it to matter anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Seriously, did our fathers even know what moisturiser was? Some of our mothers didn't know what moisturiser was either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadan Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Well , I got over the bigger the better mental model about a year ago, And honestly I never thought I would wear anything smaller than a 44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I always thought GQ were full of sh*t, this just proves it. I'm not exactly sure they got it wrong. If you're in a conservative business environment, a chunky Chronograph, which they specifically point out, doesn't look right. They counsel guys to keep that for the weekends. I agree. There's nothing more chintzy on a banker-type than a huge ole Tag SLR or similar, under their sleeve. It screams "reckless" which is the last thing I want a banker to be with my money. BTW, the magazine doesn't mention the demise of big watches. But we all know it's inevitable, right? Still, there are big-ass watches, and then there are Panerai. It's called pedigree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt.watch.obsessive Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Thin ties, small watches, they just try to get you to keep updating. On the other hand, if you've ever been in a serious meeting where someone is flashing a power watch about, it is somewhat annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazarini Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Well i have checked the link that freddy posted and here is my 2 cents ... i have heard allot about smaller timepieces coming back into fashion and that may be true ... all do i completely agree with the gentleman that replied in that thread saying to just go buy and wear what u think is best for you ... At the end of the day, trends will change juts look at the clothes ... stuff that my dad has in closet and wore 30 years back are now the latest thing again Stick to what makes u feel best ... Regards Laz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 At the end of the day, trends will change juts look at the clothes ... stuff that my dad has in closet and wore 30 years back are now the latest thing again Since you lived in Slovenia, and Austria is close by, maybe you can comment Laz. I noticed that Central European men are not into big watches at all. The biggest watch I saw there and in Hungary was a regular Rolex. Yes, I did see a Panerai, but that was on an American tourist's wrist. One waiter at a Salzburg restaurant complimented me on my "Luminox" (it was actually not a Panerai!) so I'm not suggesting they are totally unaware of the marque. It's not that. But there are some trends that may seem like they're disappearing, but I rather think they never actually hit the big time in certain places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrgod Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 At the end of the day, it is down to whatever you like.. But I do agree to the GQ article. I have an average 7.3" wrist and feel comfortable wearing a vintage 35mm Seamaster or a 38mm Breitling Colt.. In fact I even wear a 30mm Rolex Speedking once in a while.. Sometimes it is nice to have a break from all the big stuff, and I feel more "dressed" when I am wearing a regular sized watch. Some of the smaller watches like the vintage Seamasters are timeless, and seems to be very good buys at the moment! The Speedking cost me 700 USD, and the Seamaster 275. With the replica prices of today, genuine pieces are tempting! 30mm Rolex Speedking, 1961. (The angle of the pic makes it appear bigger.) 35mm Omega Seamaster, 1962 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 GQ, Esquire and all those magazines are trying to turn men into women. They might as well come with a free vagina. Yeah, it's called "metrosexual". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted April 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 To be honest, I bought my first 2 Pan reps based on an article I read in GQ that was promoting the new big watch trend 5 or 6 years ago. But I ended up selling both a few months after receiving them (I always thought it looked like I had some type of techno-droid medical device or tool for the sight-impaired strapped to my wrist every time I saw myself in a mirror -- regardless of whether I was wearing a tie or a t). But, recently, I had begun to think of myself as an oddball since even traditionally conservative Rolex finally hitched their watch wagon to the big bang club. But now it looks like sanity is returning along with more sane & classic sized watches. A good thing in my book. But, then, that is 1 of the reasons I prefer vintage watches anyway, so I am already at the cutting edge of the next big fashion thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadan Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Some of the smaller watches like the vintage Seamasters are timeless, .............................................. Totally agree , right on Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mentalist Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I'm not exactly sure they got it wrong. If you're in a conservative business environment, a chunky Chronograph, which they specifically point out, doesn't look right. They counsel guys to keep that for the weekends. I agree. There's nothing more chintzy on a banker-type than a huge ole Tag SLR or similar, under their sleeve. It screams "reckless" which is the last thing I want a banker to be with my money. BTW, the magazine doesn't mention the demise of big watches. But we all know it's inevitable, right? Still, there are big-ass watches, and then there are Panerai. It's called pedigree. It's all a matter of opinion. Why should I take their word as gospel? Next season they'll say that big watches are ok. You wear whatever you want to wear. It's down to personal style and judgement. It wasn't so long ago they were expounding the virtues of the Heuer Monaco and Panerai's. I don't think something like a PO or a PAM would be out of place with a good suit but a Graham Chronofighter or HBB would look a bit overegged. That's my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree. In the same article they are now talking about losing the cufflinks. Great. No doubt a dozen pages down they are doing a pictorial showcase of the latest designer cufflinks. GQ has always been full of it. They haven't a clue and the magazine appeals to the sheeplike fashionistas who lap up the writers' every word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I never liked the XXL watches. 40mm is just about perfect watch size. That's probably why I've been wearing Rolex a lot lately. 42mm can still look good and balanced, but anything beyond that... no thanks. I wanted to get one TT watch into my collection, and I was thinking the TT Chronomat Evolution. But when I heard it's 44mm I changed my mind. That's a "dressy model" and it's way oversized with that kind of diameter (imho). Looks like I'm keeping the TT Sub instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted April 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Some of the smaller watches like the vintage Seamasters are timeless, and seems to be very good buys at the moment! 30mm Rolex Speedking, 1961. (The angle of the pic makes it appear bigger.) That is a real beauty, chrgod. And I think you hit on something there -- I have a feeling that in 5 years time, we will be referring to the mid 2000s as the 'era of the big watch" just as the mid 80s are often referred to as the era of the 'big shouldered power suit'. It is also worth noting that the styles & wardrobe advice offered in that GQ article have been around since the 1930s & never really go out of style. This is what is called 'classic style' & it is often identified with people like Cary Grant or Sean Connery. If you look at either of the films these guys made in their heydays, they would still look as stylish & smart today as they did when those films were made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b16a2 Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 It's all cyclical. It won't be long before big watches are back in. However, I would pay no attention to it, wear what you feel suits you best. I went through a phase of wearing a Fiddy, and a SOSF. However, since wearing smaller watches in the 40-42mm range I have found they suit MY wrist much better, so I now opt for slightly smaller watches - nothing to do with fashion, it's just what suits my wrist size best. With a suit, I have always felt that a smaller watch is best in MY opinion, but in the casual context I would wear whatever I want - still longing for the Super Avenger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4GTR Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 There are big-ass watches, and then there are Panerai. It's called pedigree. I'd have to agree. There's always an exception to the rule and Panerai certainly is just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkerouac Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Last year I worked with a big, hulking bear of a man who wore the dinkiest little watches (35mm or so??), and not even watches that were remotely interesting -- just ugly crap. Part of me felt like cluing him in, but it probably wouldn't have mattered, since he isn't into aesthetics, just function. As for me, I started wearing bifocals a few years ago, and I'll be damned if I can see with the naked eye a lot of the details many of you capture with zoom and macro functions. So a watch between 40-44 mm with good legibility and contrast that isn't too heavy, even with a metal bracelet, is a really good thing. I like Pams, though I never got enthused about the Arktos-style bezels, which I think are overkill -- the same for Big Bangs, Offshores, Grahams or Bentleys. But a man with really, really big arms can probably wear any of these perfectly well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweattdogg Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I love the big ones for work, play, casual, but I agree with the article strictly on dresswatches.. My dresswatch was a navitimer, but I found it too big for formal events. I picked up a mint 1970 Rolex Air King with a classic stick dial. It's only 34mm, but I think it is perfect for a wedding or formal event. Classic dial and size. Also not bad to have a real Rolex on when your talking to the ladies. Just my 2-cents. 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.