freddy333 Posted April 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Over the years, I have accumulated a few books on the subject of style & dress from my father or as gifts. On the subject of watches, each says the same thing that GQ article said (small & understated is the proper way to go) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakemaster Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 God i hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Any moment now, someone is going to point out Freddy's huge vagina. P.S.: Every woman would give their eyeteeth for a straight guy like Freddy. I know I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perry563 Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Everything comes and goes. Today its a BIG watch and in a few years they will be out of style and the small more elegant watch will be in favor. Its like everything else in life....nothing remains the same for very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobs1971 Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 To me size depends on the ocassion and the size of my wrist, not what the current trend is. So I'll try to keep things simple: - formal ocassions wearing a tuxedo or the like = no watch at all; - business ocassions wearing a suite = watch not too big and dial not too busy. Absolutely no bracelet, but a strap matching shoes & belt; - casual smart / sporty = anything goes as long as it looks good on the wrist and match the style of cloathing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted April 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Any moment now, someone is going to point out Freddy's huge vagina. Well, I know 2 things -- 1. Never apologize for having knowledge, even if that knowledge is not popular 2. It takes a BIG man to handle a huge vagina P.S.: Every woman would give their eyeteeth for a straight guy like Freddy. I know I would. Perhaps, not every woman, but certainly all of the good 1s (A smart friend modeling my Daytona beater -- she is a Ph.D) p.s. Have not seen you around much lately, Vic. Been busy collecting watches (or heterosexual men)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 Well, I know 2 things -- 1. Never apologize for having knowledge, even if that knowledge is not popular I used to think criticising Metrosexuality was a class thing. You know, big burly blue-collar guys making fun of effeminate city-boys. In fact, Metrosexuality (one of those odious terms invented by the media) is enabling men who previously never considered good grooming a part of their lives, of all backgrounds. The more ridiculous manifestations, like Beckham's Sarongs, sometimes obscure the fact that careful grooming and wanting to look good also means guys will want nice watches. That's good for our hobby. 2. It takes a BIG man to handle a huge vagina (A smart friend modeling my Daytona beater -- she is a Ph.D) Lovely. One of my favourite of your pictured lady friends. p.s. Have not seen you around much lately, Vic. Been busy collecting watches (or heterosexual men)? I was being fabulous on the pistes of Austria. Alone. @Freddy below: Enjoying the snow in Canada. Ever tried to convince a guy from Canada to go on holiday in the snow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tracy Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 No matter the era, 40 to 42mm watches will always remain the classic size for men that transcends trend. They are the sizes that will never stamp you with a generation,... We all know however, that some people are not able to remove themselves from certain trends, no matter how time marches on. My son's are still wearing baggy pants, after 20 years of the fashion started, and my father's still into his hats, so I'm sure we will see in 50 years, old men wearing their 46mm watches on their bony wrists while holding their canes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted April 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 I was being fabulous on the pistes of Austria. Alone. Where was your boyfriend while you were fabbing the Austrian countryside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted April 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 My son's are still wearing baggy pants, after 20 years of the fashion started, and my father's still into his hats, so I'm sure we will see in 50 years, old men wearing their 46mm watches on their bony wrists while holding their canes. Hopefully, with their 'leisure suits' & 'disco flares'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratchpot Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 I always thought GQ were full of sh*t, this just proves it. 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. Pretty much exactly what I think about GQ. And nice book collection freddy. I have a few of those as well (Flusser and Roetzel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ximenes Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 "Just as Rolex is moving to Supersize their line to cash in on the recent trend towards big, boisterous watches, the trend may be coming to an end." The trend isn't going to end... anything Rolex makes will sell. X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 I love these articles. Why do styles change in style magazines? Because if they didn't there would be no magazines. As for what constitutes classic size anyone know what the size of the first elegant watches were - 47mm plus. They were called pocketwatches. And as for wearing big watches with suits on. Fine as long as you are successful enough to afford that shirt with the enlarged sleeve so that crown guard peeks gracefully out from under that wonderful french cuff avoiding forcefully shoving your large watch in the poor client's face. Now shouldn't I write for one of those magazines? And it is always nice to see the fashion magazines so far ahead of the curve. Perhaps they should explain to AP, Jaeger LeCoultre, Breguet and even Patek just as they are going bigger that it is a big mistake. And the moral of the story: wear what you enjoy wearing. And the best part of reps is that when you tire of the big ones (or small ones for that matter) you can change your whole collection up again. Long live reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pizzanooo Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 Ximenes, that`s a crazy looking Delaurian you have on that Enzo in your pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 Jeez, some of you guys are getting excited about a photo blurb--you'd think GQ said guys who like big watches had samll d icks or something. I'm not a fan of GQ but those two photo captions (heck they don't even comprise an article) merely point out the obvious: Big watches are great but wearing them w/ one of the newer slim cut suits isn't a good idea and, 2,that there is something to be said for understated, elegant watches. In the second blurb they don't even give an opinion about big watches--they report that they had meeings w/ 2 fashion pros and they were both wearing cartiers and wonder aloud if that means anything. Personally, I've always found the "43mm is wayyyy too small for me" comments a little closet-GQ-reader anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 Over the years, I have accumulated a few books on the subject of style & dress from my father or as gifts. On the subject of watches, each says the same thing that GQ article said (small & understated is the proper way to go) very cool! i also have all of alan flusser's books, bought back when i dressed for work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mentalist Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 Watches are an expression of personal style and an extension of your personality and what you wish to show to the world. It can be as personal or in-yer-face as you like. What I find profoundly irritating about the so-called style magazines is that they are essentially self-appointed arbiters of what is deemed to be cool and stylish and much of the rubbish they spout is incredibly contradictory. One issue they might state that big watches are 'in' and the next they might ridicule a purchaser of the previous month's 'must-have' big watch. This to me does not make a whole lot of sense. If you are going to blow several $$$$ on a featured watch (for the sake of argument, a Patek Nautilus Jumbo, reviewed recently by that ginger twit Nick Ffoulkes), are you really going to get rid of it and buy another watch after reading an article which pushes another watch? These watches aren't fashion items: they are long term purchases that one deliberates over in much the same way as a car or a house and you don't replace them on a whim (unless you are as rich as Croesus). One thing I find amusing is that whilst some people will agree with the GQ sentiments, they always happen to find an exception that fits their own personal preferences (such as Panerai). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted April 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 The trend isn't going to end... anything Rolex makes will sell. Unfortunately, history does not support your premise. It took 25 years for the Daytona to catch on. The Milgauss has never lived up to expectations. After the initial, pre-sales to collectors (mostly TZ members), the highly touted LV appears to be withering on the vine. And the Turn-o-graphs are not exactly flying off AD's shelves. As long as Rolex sticks to the traditional Rolex marketing plan, they sell just about anything they make. When they deviate from that plan, they end up producing limited runs of watches that inevitably make collectors very happy (30 years later), but their bankers very unhappy (now). I am sure that Rolex will survive no matter which way the trend winds blow, but it is never profitable to hoist your sails into a wind that is blowing the wrong away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted April 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 In the second blurb they don't even give an opinion about big watches--they report that they had meeings w/ 2 fashion pros and they were both wearing cartiers and wonder aloud if that means anything. Make of it what you will, but the heading of the 2nd page is 'Nothing's More Modern than a Classic Thin Watch', and it ends with 'a simple lesson: Don't be the guy with brand-new everything; you should always anchor your look with at least one piece that's timeless'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikellem Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 i'm 99% sure that i'll never wear anything smaller than a 44mm again, but hey ... you never know. I feel the same.. -MM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 the best size of a watch is depending on the different models and designs. a classic watch should be 40-42mm but 38mm is also ok. chrono should be 40-42mm a pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronology1066 Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 My thoughts are various on this subject. I love my big watches but I prefer something utilitarian with my jeans, but put on a suit and its will usually be the 2Tone Sub, Seamaster or a nice Patek. I think the fashion aspect is unimportant to myself, its more about what works with what, I always thing think idiot when I see a guy in a nice suit with cheap, dirty shoes, work the same with a watch, cheap Casio or big G-shock with a suit fails to make the outfit work. Equally, a 40+mm sports watch with a suit, with or without good shoes, looks flash, out of place or just plain stooped (P. Dippy). Besides, maybe I am a bit retentive but I love to match watch straps and Crockett and Jones or Barkers (Church are becoming victim of their own success) and belts...... taste people, its individual. Fashion is something that is sold to us by people who stick with classic styles, the fashionistas are the victims there, examples, Lagerfeld, Coco Chanel etc. A watch is an extension of the ensemble not its guiding light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnG Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 the best size of a watch is depending on the different models and designs. a classic watch should be 40-42mm but 38mm is also ok. chrono should be 40-42mm a pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingkaiser Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Dragging a post out from the dead, but looks like GQ got this one wrong. Big watches are here to stay for a while to come - 42/44mm is the new 38. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gran Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Size matters....but they can get too big (50mm and larger watches/Clocks are just way too large to be desireable in 99 out of 100 cases) same goes for organs.... http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9SlYS77Pdxg/SYvVoChZdGI/AAAAAAAABtU/sbzvsGCunZk/s1600/size.matters.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now