# Does this watch look too large?



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

Here are some photos of a new watch that I ordered last week and received a couple of days ago. I had asked opinions about three options in this thread.

















At any rate, I am trying to adjust my "eye" to the size of the watch. I had not realized that watch sizes have evidently gotten larger over the past few years, and the watch is larger than what I'm used to wearing. This watch was advertised as 40mm case diameter and 10mm thick, but the Citizen site says it is 41mm.

I bought it as an all-round watch. Citizen calls it a "sports" watch, but it's dressy enough for me. At any rate, many of you have a good eye for such things and I would appreciate your opinion. Too large? Okay? I know it's not too small. :smile:

Thanks much.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

Here are a couple more photos.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

And a final one (the forum site won't allow more than a couple per post).


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I do not like the modern trend for oversized watches. For example, compare the current Omega Seamaster diving watches (oversized) with the vintage Seamasters from the 1960s (typically 34 mm diameter). To my mind, the watch is too big.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

40/41mm is actually towards the smaller end of the scale today, given that brands such as Hublot, Panerai and others would like to sell you monstrous contraptions measuring 48-50mm and more. I would say the Citizen looks OK, but it's about as large a watch as you can get away with if you care about proportionality. A couple millimetres more and it would begin to stray into silliness.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

The watch wears a bit big on your wrist in the photos, but it might be because of how you're wearing it. Slide it away from your hand so it rests behind the wrist bones and cinch it down as required and this might help.

With regards to watch scale, they've seen both extremes throughout the years. As with most things, the middle ground is usually best. Something around the 38mm size is good all around, IMO.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

Knowing what I have learned, I suspect that 38mm would be just right. Unfortunately, the seller has a very restrictive return policy, so I would probably have to go with eBay to sell it.


----------



## srmd22 (Jun 30, 2009)

Lugs don't hang over your wrist bones, therefore it is not too large -- a popular way to determine this, but not an iron clad rule.

I think it looks good.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

No, it looks just right. Given a short lug length, you could wear even a slightly larger watch, casually. 

With a suit, I like a 42 mm or slightly smaller. Generally, keeping down thickness and bling is more important IMO.

With a t-shirt I like my 46mm x 17mm diver


----------



## Mister Krabs (Jun 1, 2012)

I like it a lot, excellent choice. It's got classic good looks, large and easily readable but not clownishly big. I say keep it.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Hey, didn't that use to be part of Flavor Flav's necklace? (lol... couldn't resist)


----------



## jankdc (Jul 7, 2012)

I think it looks fine. If you don't like it, sell it on Ebay. If you like it, then wear it. While it is big compared to watches from the 50's and 60's, but it's not too big.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

You wouldn't want to go any bigger, but I think it's fine.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> I do not like the modern trend for oversized watches. For example, compare the current Omega Seamaster diving watches (oversized) with the vintage Seamasters from the 1960s (typically 34 mm diameter). To my mind, the watch is too big.


Another example is the Rolex Sea Dweller, which was always a large watch, which has now been superseded by the 'Deepsea' - which is of such outlandish proportions that only The Incredible Hulk can pull it off...


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

My hope is that skinny pants and large watches are both fads that are coming to an end.


----------



## flinch (Sep 8, 2008)

I have also found any watchband wider than a #20 is too big and will increase the appearance of an over sized watch.


----------



## pusso (May 5, 2009)

I recently part exchanged a very small Citizen Eco Drive diamond watch towards a Kutchinsky oversized pink watch on a pink baby crocodile strap.

I find the contrast with my plain clothes makes the watch stand out on its own, and I'm very pleased with it.

I suggest you keep the watch and enjoy the fashion for oversized watches - mine takes up nearly my whole wrist but is not too heavy and doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## roba (Mar 5, 2005)

*It looks fine...*

The lugs don't extend beyond the sides of your wrist which is, I think, the absolute upper limit. The best way to gauge watch size is to look at yourself from a distance in a mirror. Looking at it on your wrist makes it look bigger than it really is.

Nice watch - enjoy it.


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

The size is fine and it is a good looking watch. The dial reminds me of a vintage pie pan Hamilton.


----------



## sqroot3 (Jun 13, 2012)

not too large.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

pusso said:


> I recently part exchanged a very small Citizen Eco Drive diamond watch towards a Kutchinsky oversized pink watch on a pink baby crocodile strap.
> 
> I find the contrast with my plain clothes makes the watch stand out on its own, and I'm very pleased with it.
> 
> I suggest you keep the watch and enjoy the fashion for oversized watches - mine takes up nearly my whole wrist but is not too heavy and doesn't bother me at all.


Pusso, I find that women can get away with larger, more playful watches than men when worn as jewelry. Men have to straddle the fine line between a tool and a decoration on their wrist (there's merit to both). Of course, these standards may only exist in my mind.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

It is just right...for King Kong. 

...and for pretty girls...


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

Orsini said:


> It is just right...for King Kong.


Always given to hyperbole, or is this a special occasion?

So what size would you recommend?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Broadus said:


> Always given to hyperbole, or is this a special occasion?
> 
> So what size would you recommend?


No, no extra charge. This Orsini character pretty much writes itself now.

I think we can agree that is a large watch, n'est-ce pas? I think on anyone but Clint Walker it will look quite large. That does not press any buttons -- to me it is just a colossal watch and "Orsini" needs to get a laugh.

But, what does a large watch mean? What will this watch project in your image? I recommend gentlemen consider what they want to communicate to the world and dress accordingly.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

Orsini said:


> No, no extra charge. This Orsini character pretty much writes itself now.
> 
> I think we can agree that is a large watch, n'est-ce pas? I think on anyone but Clint Walker it will look quite large. That does not press any buttons -- to me it is just a colossal watch and "Orsini" needs to get a laugh.
> 
> But, what does a large watch mean? What will this watch project in your image? I recommend gentlemen consider what they want to communicate to the world and dress accordingly.


On the larger side, c'est vrai. "Colossal"? Adjectives begin to lose their meaning. If 41mm is colossal, what would 45mm or 53mm be?

But still, in that style watch on an average-size man's wrist, what size would you recommend?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*"Those Were Just Jokes!"*



Broadus said:


> On the larger side, c'est vrai. "Colossal"? Adjectives begin to lose their meaning. If 41mm is colossal, what would 45mm or 53mm be?
> 
> But still, in that style watch on an average-size man's wrist, what size would you recommend?


Sorry. I thought I had changed that to "real big watch" or somesuch. I was only vaguely aware there were watches this big but I guess a 53mm watch would be a "really, really, big watch."

I recommend you do what is best for you. Orsini is not very big and aspires to a neo-Roetzel/Flusser/Keers reality so he would probably wear an old-fashioned tank or pilot watch, which would be consistent with the image he wishes to project.

Please tell me what the big watch means. I want to know.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

Orsini said:


> Sorry. I thought I had changed that to "real big watch" or somesuch. I was only vaguely aware there were watches this big but I guess a 53mm watch would be a "really, really, big watch."
> 
> I recommend you do what is best for you. Orsini is not very big and aspires to a neo-Roetzel/Flusser/Keers reality so he would probably wear an old-fashioned tank or pilot watch, which would be consistent with the image he wishes to project.
> 
> Please tell me what the big watch means. I want to know.


"Big watch?" Do you mean the watch I have? It doesn't mean anything. I don't really keep up with what is fashionable and was surprised that the watch was larger than I had anticipated. Consequently, I thought I would ask the forum members' opinions. So far, the opinions appear mixed, thought those in favor may be a few more than those not. I may very well keep the watch. It's growing on me. :smile:

Thanks for your perspective.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Broadus said:


> "Big watch?" Do you mean the watch I have? It doesn't mean anything. I don't really keep up with what is fashionable and was surprised that the watch was larger than I had anticipated. Consequently, I thought I would ask the forum members' opinions. So far, the opinions appear mixed, thought those in favor may be a few more than those not. I may very well keep the watch. It's growing on me. :smile:
> 
> Thanks for your perspective.


Everything you wear should mean something.

The watch is too big for anyne but Frankenstien. Throw it away!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

40-41mm is a traditionally sized watch to wear casually. The submariner is 40.

A size difference between 36-41 is a size difference of less than 15%. 

IMO, 36-38 rules out chronographs, fliegers and divers completely. A chrono that small is useless, a flieger that small is inauthentic and a diver that small, if it has a proper case, is ridiculous. Most people are perhaps not really interested in watches, and know little about them. But those who are a little interested would hardly limit themselves to smaller sizes. 

Also, I see favorable comments here on watches such as timex, as long as they adhere to to the both outdated and historically incorrect sizing norm. While a quality watch such as citizen is proclaimed to be "huge" at 41 mm.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Broadus said:


> On the larger side, c'est vrai. "Colossal"? Adjectives begin to lose their meaning. *If 41mm is colossal, what would 45mm or 53mm be?*
> 
> But still, in that style watch on an average-size man's wrist, what size would you recommend?


Gargantuan, perhaps? Behemothic, maybe?

Actually 'Hubristic' seems to fit the bill best of all, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> Pusso, I find that women can get away with larger, more playful watches than men when worn as jewelry. Men have to straddle the fine line between a tool and a decoration on their wrist (there's merit to both). Of course, these standards may only exist in my mind.


Exactly. As I said above, I'm not keen on oversized watches at all. But they look especially out of place when worn with formal dress (suit or odd jacket): as Bjorn said, they are seen as more casual watches so there is a tension between the mode of dress and the watch in these circumstances.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Gargantuan, perhaps? Behemothic, maybe?
> 
> Actually 'Hubristic' seems to fit the bill best of all, wouldn't you agree?


Oversize watches, as well as other stylistic disadvantages, have connotations with misguided millionaire football players, a bit like giant tie knots.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

You have to realize, that among several very established styles of watcher, such as the flieger, 41-46mm is not "oversized". A chrono at 40-42 mm is not oversized. 

And oversized watch for men often approaches 45-55 mm.

You are confusing dress watches with all watches. The JLC duo is roughly 42 mm tall. It's narrow, but it's still that wide across the wrist. 

For casual wear, which might include a trip in the woods or to the beach or doing some work in the yard, a 36mm dress watch makes little sense. A watch with military or sports provenance does. You don't want to knock your IWC dress watch on something, then it's expensive service time.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> For casual wear, which might include a trip in the woods or to the beach or doing some work in the yard, a 36mm dress watch makes little sense. A watch with military or sports provenance does. You don't want to knock your IWC dress watch on something, then it's expensive service time.


Fine, but I think Haffman had in mind (as did I) people who wear these sorts of watches with suits / tailored jackets. That indeed is seen as a 'spivvy' look in England.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Exactly. As I said above, I'm not keen on oversized watches at all. But they look especially out of place when worn with formal dress (suit or odd jacket): as Bjorn said, they are seen as more casual watches so there is a tension between the mode of dress and the watch in these circumstances.


Would like to point out that neither lounge suit nor odd jacket (!) are formal in any sense of the word. With a sports jacket, or a blazer, a sporty watch is perfectly ok.

A more casual watch is perfectly ok with either odd jacket or suit, though of course it makes the suit less strict and less suitable for business.

This is not a 'rule'. For black tie a small watch, if any, but for anything else it's up to the wearer to balance things out.

Also, I know I guy who has wrists that are twice the size of mine. He could never wear a 36mm watch, it would completely disproportionate. Another friend tried one of my larger dive watches, and I convinced him to go for a much smaller version. His wrists are tiny, and kind of round, so the watch sat really badly.

All in all, only one kind of watch only gets you that far. It's like owning one tie. Or any other kind of accessory.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Fine, but I think Haffman had in mind (as did I) people who wear these sorts of watches with suits / tailored jackets. That indeed is seen as a 'spivvy' look in England.


I'm not saying a 46 mm gold/steel/blue shiny breitling worn loosely out on the hand with a blazer, 4 unbuttoned pink shirt, red pants and spray tan is a good look 

Though I could see myself wearing a Breitling Superocean Heritage 46mm:

Perhaps like this, wouldn't that be annoying:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> ....All in all, only one kind of watch only gets you that far. It's like owning one tie. Or any other kind of accessory.


A watch is not an accessory, it is a tool. A lady's watch may be an accessory, of course.

Owning one tie will degrade that tie extremely quickly due to repeated wearing. This could not be said of a watch.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Balfour said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. As I said above, I'm not keen on oversized watches at all. But they look especially out of place when worn with formal dress (suit or odd jacket): as Bjorn said, they are seen as more casual watches so there is a tension between the mode of dress and the watch in these circumstances.
> ...


Nonsense: An expression derives its colour from its context. In the sense I was using the expression, a suit and an odd jacket tend towards the formal end of the spectrum. Although obvious from the context, I included the parenthetical words to avoid any confusion that I was using 'formal dress' in the more restricted sense of evening dress or formal day dress.

On the rest of it, I simply disagree. A clunky, oversized watch does not in my view complement any dress shirt and tailored jacket, either aesthetically or in mode. As you said, if you're working in the yard or hiking, then a dress watch is clearly inappropriate (although I'm not sure I would be wearing a four figure diving watch either!).

We also disagree about watches being an accessory like a tie. In previous threads, you've advanced this position when discussing matching metals. People are free to collect watches if they want (I don't, but can understand the attraction of the hobby). But to suggest they are accessories is odd - they are personal possessions like glasses or a briefcase. CuffDaddy has expressed this better than me.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Perhaps like this, wouldn't that be annoying:


Yes, I agree, it would. Someone like Agnelli could get away with this as sprezz, in the same way that an ancient peer can get away with receiving people at the weekend in a motheaten pair of cords and a jumper full of holes.

Most people wearing a watch over a shirt sleeve would be--

(1) perceived by the population at large as a halfwit, and

(2) perceived by those in the know as having read an article on sprezz, and aping a look without really understanding it.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Yes, I agree, it would. Someone like Agnelli could get away with this as sprezz, in the same way that an ancient peer can get away with receiving people at the weekend in a motheaten pair of cords and a jumper full of holes.
> 
> Most people wearing a watch over a shirt sleeve would be--
> 
> ...


:thumbs-up:


----------



## pusso (May 5, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> Pusso, I find that women can get away with larger, more playful watches than men when worn as jewelry. Men have to straddle the fine line between a tool and a decoration on their wrist (there's merit to both). Of course, these standards may only exist in my mind.


Yes of course you are right.

And because my clothes are very neutral the watch stands out as an accessory and is not out of place.

The rest of my jewellery is simple and classic.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Nonsense: An expression derives its colour from its context. In the sense I was using the expression, a suit and an odd jacket tend towards the formal end of the spectrum. Although obvious from the context, I included the parenthetical words to avoid any confusion that I was using 'formal dress' in the more restricted sense of evening dress or formal day dress.
> 
> On the rest of it, I simply disagree. A clunky, oversized watch does not in my view complement any dress shirt and tailored jacket, either aesthetically or in mode. As you said, if you're working in the yard or hiking, then a dress watch is clearly inappropriate (although I'm not sure I would be wearing a four figure diving watch either!).
> 
> We also disagree about watches being an accessory like a tie. In previous threads, you've advanced this position when discussing matching metals. People are free to collect watches if they want (I don't, but can understand the attraction of the hobby). But to suggest they are accessories is odd - they are personal possessions like glasses or a briefcase. CuffDaddy has expressed this better than me.


I don't find the 46mm SOH clunky, though I do find the Monaco a bit clunky even though it's sub 40mm. Nor is it, really, oversized...

I'm not forwarding the mode of wearing your watch on the sleeve, however, the slightly narrow minded chorus that comes up here whenever watches are discussed should bear pointing out that various watches, rather than just 36mm dress watches, have been worn for the last 100 years at least by many well dressed men. I understand a certain hesitancy towards fashion but I don't understand the fervent pleasure some here seem to take in going in for being unfashionable.

And also, wrist size is important in choosing watch size. There's no one size fits all.

An odd jacket in no way tends towards the formal end of the spectrum, IMO. A lounge suit may tend towards business or casual. Neither is too formal to be accessorized with various watches.

As for watches being accessories. I think I made a reference to a source in that thread. As well as the general definition of accessory. This does not preclude them being personal possessions. Rather than communal ones?

Oh, and glasses and briefcases are accessories as well. Of course...


----------



## JMC... (Aug 7, 2012)

Since the question you asked can only really be answered with an opinion, here's mine: I like the watch, and don't think it's too big. Any bigger and I may think differently, though.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

JMC... said:


> Since the question you asked can only really be answered with an opinion, here's mine: I like the watch, and don't think it's too big. Any bigger and I may think differently, though.


Thanks for posting. I appreciate your opinion. And I agree with the "any bigger" concerning a watch like this one.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> ...As for watches being accessories. I think I made a reference to a source in that thread. As well as the general definition of accessory. This does not preclude them being personal possessions. Rather than communal ones?
> 
> Oh, and glasses and briefcases are accessories as well. Of course...


Hello Bjorn. Plese forgive me this my ineptitude but I find myself currently unable to locate this alluded definition of 'accessory'. Would you mind re-stating it for the purposes of this thread?

I am rather desperate to establish whether or not I am accessorising. I believe that I am not and further that the urge to accessorise is yielded to with the dressing style of a lady, or at least someone who might wear an 'outfit'.

Still it will be a relief to uncover the truth and thus prevent my fallacy embarrassing me further if I am indeed deluded.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Hello Bjorn. Plese forgive me this my ineptitude but I find myself currently unable to locate this alluded definition of 'accessory'. Would you mind re-stating it for the purposes of this thread?
> 
> I am rather desperate to establish whether or not I am accessorising. I believe that I am not and further that the urge to accessorise is yielded to with the dressing style of a lady, or at least someone who might wear an 'outfit'.
> 
> Still it will be a relief to uncover the truth and thus prevent my fallacy embarrassing me further if I am indeed deluded.


Well. I think we can safely agree to disagree on this. But: (IMO)
Everyone accessorizes, everyone wears to some extent "an outfit". There's a social context to clothing. There's no way out of that unless one lives on mars.

As for sources:
There's Wikipedia:



Wikipedia said:


> A fashion accessory is an item which is used to contribute, in a secondary manner, to the wearer's outfit. The term came into use in the 19th century. Accessories are often used to complete an outfit and are chosen to specifically complement the wearer's look.[1]
> Fashion accessories are categorized into two areas: those that are carried and those that are worn. Carried accessories include canes, hand fans, swords, handbags, parasols and umbrellas. Accessories that are worn may include, jackets, boots and shoes, cravats, ties, hats, sunglasses, belts, gloves, muffs, jewellery, watches, shawls, scarves, socks, bonnets and stockings. Detachable accessories can also be included, aigrettes and lapel pins.[1]
> One of the most favored forms of semiotic distinction is fashion, because fashionable clothes, accessories, and body adornment are easy for others to observe at glance. Incidental items, particularly branded specific handbags, footwear, jewelry, accessories, and new hairstyles act also as important status symbols. Certain items of clothing, such as hats, were particularly important, sending instant signals or ascribed or aspired social status. As communications improved, styles also spread to members of the elite classes in other parts of the world.


And there's also (for example) Nicholas Storeys "History of Men's Accessories" which features watches as such.

For the more academic scholar there is McNeil and Karaminas "The Men's Fashion Reader", Berg Publishers, 2009:

On page 70, in the section on Macaroni Masculinities, the following can be read:
"Other macaroni accessories include the snuff-boxes and cane-handles of precious and semi-precious materials that survive in the decorative arts collections of most European museums, the glamour of which can be gauged from the relevant plates inDiderot's Encyclopédie (1762). The British museum holds a sumptuous male châtelaine à breloquet of green enamel and gold, from which a watch is suspended. This object, which was hooked over the belt, often with a fausse montre (fake watch) at one end, is the type of extravagant object associated with the macaroni stereotype. I England, this type of fashionable manner of wearing a watch was passing from the male into the female wardrobe by the late 1780s (Tait 1984: 86)."

I can also point out that early 1900s, men only wore watches on chains, and (some) readily stated that they'd rather wear skirts than wristwatches. But look at us now.

The pretense of "eternal style" and "classic menswear" as something very much apart from fashion really breaks up if one visits a museum.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

34mm is an appropriate size for a man's every day watch.
36mm is large, but still o.k. for every day or dress.
40mm or larger is good for a sport watch, such as diving, where a larger dial may be beneficial to underwater viewing.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*You're killing me, Larry!*

You got a shirt.

You got slacks.

You got a jacket.

The rest is, by definition, 
The rest is, by definition, 
The rest is, by definition,

alllllllll accessories.

Now, I'll tell ya where Ah'm goin' boy 
Down the Rock Island Line...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

DG123 said:


> 34mm is an appropriate size for a man's every day watch.
> 36mm is large, but still o.k. for every day or dress.
> 40mm or larger is good for a sport watch, such as diving, where a larger dial may be beneficial to underwater viewing.


So, the size is derived from some practical capability...


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> And also, wrist size is important in choosing watch size. There's no one size fits all.


A fair, but limited, point. But a giant would still wish to select a dress watch that had the characteristics of a dress watch - not a bulky, oversized, overengineered sports watch.



Bjorn said:


> An odd jacket in no way tends towards the formal end of the spectrum, IMO.


This is an arid debate now. The simple fact of the matter is my intended meaning was clear from the clarification provided in parenthesis, so I was bemused by your apparent need to 'score a point' over this.

You also seem to take these statements entirely out of context. If you are comparing the situations where a dress watch is appropriate, with situations where it is not (as was implicit in my original post), then an odd jacket indeed tends towards the formal end of the spectrum. And an odd jacket with a dress shirt and tie is pretty formal by the standards of most people's dress (although I am not suggesting for a moment that this is the yardstick by which things should be judged).



Bjorn said:


> As for watches being accessories. I think I made a reference to a source in that thread. As well as the general definition of accessory. This does not preclude them being personal possessions. Rather than communal ones?


Again, the distinction drawn in that thread used the expressions "accessories" and "personal possessions" in a specific sense. One camp suggested that watches were just accessories that should be appropriately matched to 'outfits'. The other camp suggested that watches did not need to be matched, that they were distinct from accessories (such as belts, ties, etc.) and it was better to have one or two really good watches than a collection of less high quality watches in different metals and with different coloured straps to be matched to 'outfits'. For convenience, the tag of 'watches as personal possessions' was used as shorthand for the latter view. Reasonable people could hold either view, but I subscribe to the latter.

No-one was suggesting that watches were communal property, so you are again ignoring the specific sense in which the expression was used, in what appears to me to be an exercise in pedantic sophistry.

And to suggest as you do above that a watch is "like owning a tie" is nonsensical on its face.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I understand a certain hesitancy towards fashion but I don't understand the fervent pleasure some here seem to take in going in for being unfashionable.





Bjorn said:


> I can also point out that early 1900s, men only wore watches on chains, and (some) readily stated that they'd rather wear skirts than wristwatches. But look at us now.
> 
> The pretense of "eternal style" and "classic menswear" as something very much apart from fashion really breaks up if one visits a museum.


Again, I think the distinction most people draw when they talk about 'classical dress'(*) is between things, on the one hand, that change from year to year (like women's fashions) or from decade to decade, and, on the other, that change at a much slower pace.

Sure, the appropriate standards of classical dress change over time. But the pace is glacial - measured more over 30 or 50 year intervals than even decades.

This distinction is certainly not a pretense. For example, lapels I favour on my suits do not change. They are not particularly fashionable now, nor would they have been in the 1980s, but they are appropriate and classical now and would have been appropriate and classical in the 80s.

(*) The term 'eternal' in reference to anything other than religion sounds gauche - let's not get onto religion.:wink2:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Balfour said:


> A fair, but limited, point. But a giant would still wish to select a dress watch that had the characteristics of a dress watch - not a bulky, oversized, overengineered sports watch.
> 
> This is an arid debate now. The simple fact of the matter is my intended meaning was clear from the clarification provided in parenthesis, so I was bemused by your apparent need to 'score a point' over this.
> 
> ...


 I primarily disagree with the conclusion that since odd jackets and lounge suits have migrated towards more formal wear for most people, they require the use of a dress watch. An odd jacket is the well dressed mans sweater. In fact, a somewhat bulkier, engineered sports watch (such as a Seiko Marinemaster or IWC flieger or Tag Heuer Monaco) may often suit an odd jacket or less businesslike suit better than a 36mm dress watch. Especially if the attire tends towards traditional sports, summer or country wear; tweeds, blazers, linen, cotton etc. This is 'within context'. Describing the "traditional" dress watch as the only kind of watch having suitability with these kinds of modes of dress (or outfits) is moving the dress watch 'out of context'. A traditional (vintage) dress watch does not have scratch, water nor shock resistance. Not to the extent that it can withstand scratches, rain or being dropped or otherwise shocked. A dress watch is not a "do-all" watch.

As for the tie analogy, following the complete reasoning above, no man can remain well dressed at all times while owning only one dress watch. Only if he often chooses not to wear it. Several different watches are required. As well as several briefcases, or at least one brown and one black. Glasses are matched to the face and coloring, to which all clothes also must adhere. So no, not nonsensical on its face. IMO...

I don't really agree on your description of the two "camps", but I think well just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Yes, of course.



Orsini said:


> So, the size is derived from some practical capability...


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I primarily disagree with the conclusion that since odd jackets and lounge suits have migrated towards more formal wear for most people, they require the use of a dress watch. An odd jacket is the well dressed mans sweater. In fact, a somewhat bulkier, engineered sports watch (such as a Seiko Marinemaster or IWC flieger or Tag Heuer Monaco) may often suit an odd jacket or less businesslike suit better than a 36mm dress watch. Especially if the attire tends towards traditional sports, summer or country wear; tweeds, blazers, linen, cotton etc. This is 'within context'. Describing the "traditional" dress watch as the only kind of watch having suitability with these kinds of modes of dress (or outfits) is moving the dress watch 'out of context'. A traditional (vintage) dress watch does not have scratch, water nor shock resistance. Not to the extent that it can withstand scratches, rain or being dropped or otherwise shocked. A dress watch is not a "do-all" watch.
> 
> As for the tie analogy, following the complete reasoning above, no man can remain well dressed at all times while owning only one dress watch. Only if he often chooses not to wear it. Several different watches are required. As well as several briefcases, or at least one brown and one black. Glasses are matched to the face and coloring, to which all clothes also must adhere. So no, not nonsensical on its face. IMO...
> 
> *I don't really agree on your description of the two "camps", but I think well just have to agree to disagree*.


Indeed we will need to agree to disagree.

On the bold portion, probably better to let anyone who cares to bother make up their own mind: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-acceptable&highlight=matching+blazer+buttons


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Orsini said:


> You got a shirt.
> 
> You got slacks.
> 
> ...


How so, Orsini? Why are the three items that you have chosen to mention (shirt, slacks, jacket) not to be considered as accessories but all 'the rest...by definition' are? What property do these three items own which sets them apart from, say, shoes or a tie?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I have a very simple rule regaridng watch size for 2 classes of watches.

1. classy watch on leather/cloth strap - no larger than 38 mm. Because a classy watch on a leather strap should not be obtrusive.

2. metal straps and flashy/gaudy watches - as large as you like. Because they are meant to be seen 

And so as such I think it is too big on your wrist.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Well. I think we can safely agree to disagree on this. But: (IMO)
> Everyone accessorizes, everyone wears to some extent "an outfit". There's a social context to clothing. There's no way out of that unless one lives on mars.
> 
> As for sources:
> ...


Hello Bjorn,

I could prove any initial premise that took my fancy by quoting published works. I could diatribe with extensive referencing that the Queen of England is a seven foot tall blood guzzling lizard. This would not make it so (to the best of my knowledge).

Wikipedia especially is a notoriously unreliable source - indeed at the University where I am employed our students are prohibited from citation of this dubious authority.

I am perhaps merely quibbling with you now, though. I will desist.

We are both free to describe our accoutrements as we wish. Even still, I shall forever be inclined to consider 'accessorising' an 'outfit' a wholly feminine pursuit.


----------



## Mister Krabs (Jun 1, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I have a very simple rule regaridng watch size for 2 classes of watches.
> 
> 1. classy watch on leather/cloth strap -* no larger than 38 mm*. Because a classy watch on a leather strap should not be obtrusive.
> 
> But no smaller than 36, else effeminate. That's a pretty small window.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

*Returned*

A final update: I returned the watch. I really wanted to keep it, but each time I looked at it, whether looking directly at my wrist or the reflection in a mirror, my thought was, "It's too large for me." Others thought it looked fine, but I wasn't comfortable with it. The seller agreed to a return even though I had removed the tags, so now I'm looking for another, a solar/quartz that's 37-38mm in case diameter.

Thanks for your input, whether pro, con, or indifferent.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Good call. Glad you were able to sort out a return.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

The customer is always right. Always.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Shaver said:


> ...'Hubristic'...


I'm getting one of those surgically removed from my toe next month.

And, actually, the fall allready happened...


----------



## pusso (May 5, 2009)

My oversized watch was also regretted at first, but I couldn't return it because it was on sale.

Luckily I've grown to love ie and so it's not a problem, but given the opportunity I might have returned it.
Plus the shop threw in a free baby crocodile strap, with over$150, so I couldn't complain.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

pusso said:


> My oversized watch was also regretted at first, but I couldn't return it because it was on sale.
> 
> Luckily I've grown to love ie and so it's not a problem, but given the opportunity I might have returned it.
> Plus the shop threw in a free baby crocodile strap, with over$150, so I couldn't complain.


I don't think women are subject to some of the same concerns with style and fashion as are men.

A gentleman might wear the big watch to demonstrate social and financial superiority and to project an image of dominance.

When a lady wears it, it frequently is just an oversize bauble and the only concern is if it looks pleasing and enhances allure.

That croc strap sounds nice...


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

You got that right !



Orsini said:


> A gentleman might wear the big watch to demonstrate social and financial superiority and to project an image of dominance.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

DG123 said:


> You got that right !


You should have at least two Ferraris or be an actual UDT guy as well as a good sized fellow before you think about a watch like this.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> A watch is not an accessory, it is a tool. A lady's watch may be an accessory, of course.
> 
> 
> > Shaver, could you please elaborate? What is it about a lady's watch that makes it eligibile to be described as an accessory in contrast to a man's ?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

DG123 said:


> Yes, of course.


Could you actually use it for diving?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> Shaver, could you please elaborate? What is it about a lady's watch that makes it eligibile to be described as an accessory in contrast to a man's ?


Of course, it is my pleasure to elaborate.

A lady's watch can be - but is not always -an accessory. Perhaps if it might be a semi-disposable purchase worn to compliment an occasional 'outfit', or that it could be a gaudy overlarge bauble, or even possess a metal bracelet strap, these are feminine attributes which when ascendant reduce function to less than secondary. Thus the watch is so much less of a tool and more a piece of, in common parlance, bling.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Of course, it is my pleasure to elaborate.
> 
> A lady's watch can be - but is not always -an accessory. Perhaps if it might be a semi-disposable purchase *worn to compliment an occasional 'outfit'*, or that it could be a gaudy overlarge bauble, *or even possess a metal bracelet strap*, these are feminine attributes which when ascendant reduce function to less than secondary. Thus the watch is so much less of a tool and more a piece of, in common parlance, bling.


Sounds like I am in touch with my feminine side then !


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> Sounds like I am in touch with my feminine side then !


I did not doubt it. :devil:


----------



## adriancol (Oct 20, 2011)

Broadus said:


> A final update: I returned the watch. I really wanted to keep it, but each time I looked at it, whether looking directly at my wrist or the reflection in a mirror, my thought was, "It's too large for me." Others thought it looked fine, but I wasn't comfortable with it. The seller agreed to a return even though I had removed the tags, so now I'm looking for another, a solar/quartz that's 37-38mm in case diameter.
> 
> Thanks for your input, whether pro, con, or indifferent.


You may want to consider the Citizen BM8240. It's 37mm with Eco Drive. 
or the AU1040-08e at 40mm without a seconds hand.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Of course, it is my pleasure to elaborate.
> 
> A lady's watch can be - but is not always -an accessory. Perhaps if it might be a semi-disposable purchase worn to compliment an occasional 'outfit', or that it could be a gaudy overlarge bauble, or even possess a metal bracelet strap, these are feminine attributes which when ascendant reduce function to less than secondary. Thus the watch is so much less of a tool and more a piece of, in common parlance, bling.


"possess a metal bracelet strap" "feminine attributes which when ascendant" 

You guys crack me up sometimes.

I like the Eco-Drive with no seconds though. You don't even have to see that pesky ticking.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> "possess a metal bracelet strap" "feminine attributes which when ascendant"
> 
> You guys crack me up sometimes.
> 
> I like the Eco-Drive with no seconds though. You don't even have to see that pesky ticking.


I have no objection whatever to a gent adopting feminine garb and/or attributes, please to be my guest. However if one chooses to wear high heels or a metal bracelet then one must accept that this is feminine. No criticism or derision intended - merely a bald statement of fact. :devil:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

May I in return suggest a loincloth, plenty of body hair, and poor personal hygiene as a way to strengthen that masculine vibe coming off your miniature watch?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> May I in return suggest a loincloth, plenty of body hair, and poor personal hygiene as a way to strengthen that masculine vibe coming off your miniature watch?


A laudably spirited response. :icon_smile:

Should the loincloth be tailored from cashmere with a hand rolled hem? Or is that a shade too formal?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Or is that a shade too *formal*?


Come now Shaver, you haven't been reading the thread. I have learnt in this thread that - uniquely in the English language - the word "formal" refers only to evening dress or formal day dress, irrespective of the context in which the word is used or any attempt expressly to define what is meant on the part of the person using the word.:devil:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Come now Shaver, you haven't been reading the thread. I have learnt in this thread that - uniquely in the English language - the word "formal" refers only to evening dress or formal day dress, irrespective of the context in which the word is used or any attempt expressly to define what is meant on the part of the person using the word.:devil:


Well, we can't be completely postmodern about language, a word has to mean something in particular. Even in this day and age...

We can't have everyone just making it up as they go along.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Well, we can't be completely postmodern about language, a word has to mean something in particular. Even in this day and age...
> 
> We can't have everyone just making it up as they go along.


Hmmn. If you really believe that context is irrelevant and a word can only have one meaning, your interactions with the world must be challenging.

Say you see a sign: "Fine for parking". An invitation or a warning? And would you want to argue the point with a New York City traffic cop?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Hmmn. If you really believe that context is irrelevant and a word can only have one meaning, your interactions with the world must be challenging.
> 
> Say you see a sign: "Fine for parking". An invitation or a warning? And would you want to argue the point with a New York City traffic cop?


I thought I was arguing the complete opposite of that, in claiming that formal has a contextual meaning here, in this context.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I thought I was arguing the complete opposite of that, in claiming that formal has a contextual meaning here, in this context.


Hardly. You appeared to be suggesting that formal can only have one meaning in the context of clothing, whereas I was making the point that even in the context of clothing "formal" could bear different meanings depending on the specific context in which it is used (depending on context - leaving aside the express clarification of the meaning I also provided).


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

And it was in the context of clothing I in turn suggested that your concept of formality as pertaining to suitable watches was wrong, and while there is surely a narrow set of watches that go with formal wear (dress watches, if any), such is not the case with non-formal wear, such as a lounge suit or odd jacket & trousers, to which a much wider range of watches can be worn successfully as accessories than only 36-38 mm dress watches. For example, a 41mm Citizen Eco Drive...

The notion that proper watches are worn on the wrist at no greater size than 36-38 mm is wrong, outdated, and was not really in play for more than a few generations. A well dressed man accessorises with a watch suitable to the occasion, himself and his clothes.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Does 'formal' in the context of clothing or shoes not simply mean that there is an accepted or assumed protocol to be followed ? 

For example, in my university days, 'formal hall' meant that you were required to wear your gown to dinner. Perhaps many years ago you were required, or expected, to wear a dinner suit also, but even today the phrase does not seem inappropriate because there is still a form to be followed - wearing a gown. 

Black-tie and white-tie occasions are obviously 'formal' as there is a (fairly) rigid protocol of acceptable dress. There are plenty of other ceremonial occasions which also have 'formal' requirements of different kinds. 

There is also a 'formal' businesswear - lounge suit, dress shirt, tie, laced leather shoes. To not wear these at such formal business occasions would be...a breach of form.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> And it was in the context of clothing I in turn suggested that your concept of formality as pertaining to suitable watches was wrong, and while there is surely a narrow set of watches that go with formal wear (dress watches, if any), such is not the case with non-formal wear, such as a lounge suit or odd jacket & trousers, to which a much wider range of watches can be worn successfully as accessories than only 36-38 mm dress watches. For example, a 41mm Citizen Eco Drive...
> 
> The notion that proper watches are worn on the wrist at no greater size than 36-38 mm is wrong, outdated, and was not really in play for more than a few generations. A well dressed man accessorises with a watch suitable to the occasion, himself and his clothes.


Not really.

The issue as to what watches are appropriate is distinct: here we disagree (although that does not make my view wrong).

On the issue of "formal", I said:



Balfour said:


> Exactly. As I said above, I'm not keen on oversized watches at all. * But they look especially out of place when worn with formal dress (suit or odd jacket): *...


And you replied (in part) that:



Bjorn said:


> *Would like to point out that neither lounge suit nor odd jacket (!) are formal in any sense of the word. *With a sports jacket, or a blazer, a sporty watch is perfectly ok.


This ignored the clear context in which I had used the word and the express clarification I provided in parenthesis. You seem unwilling to accept that "formal" in the context of clothing can bear a narrow meaning (i.e. white tie, black tie, morning suit) or a broad meaning (things more formal than sweat pants, khakis and polos, etc.) depending on context. I'm not sure why, but this will be my final post on this turgid subject.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Balfour said:


> Not really.
> 
> The issue as to what watches are appropriate is distinct: here we disagree (although that does not make my view wrong).
> 
> ...


I cannot put my finger on it at the moment but there is a great post on this or another site, in which Michael Anton, explicated Balfour's point about the word "formal". Mr. Anton's point was that the word "formal" can refer either to a difference in kind or a difference in degree. "Formal"when used with White Tie or Morning Suit ,or semi-formal Black Tie or Stroller, is a difference in kind, juxtiposed with that which is not "formal", that is to say everything except white tie, morning suit, black tie, or stroller.

On the other hand, "formal" can also be used to refer to a difference in degree, to say a suit is more formal than a sport coat is to say that a suit is 'dressier' than a sport coat, the suit has a higher degree of formality than the sportcoat.

When "formal" is used to refer to a difference in kind, (white or black tie, morning suit or stroller), only a very few watch styles are appropriate, or "formal" watches.In this use, a watch is either formal or it is not.

When "formal" is used to refer to a difference in degree it is to compare the dressiness of a watch, an example being, a thin gold, white faced watch with a leather band is more formal than a sports watch.

If I can find Mr. Anton's post I will link to it.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

This is, at the end of the day, the only solid definition of "too large." That is, if you think it's too large, it is. I thought it was fine.

I have a 6.5" wrist and keep to watches below 40mm. I think I could go up to 42mm, but it depends on the watch and the context. I think a dress watch that big would look stupid on me and on most people. A Seiko Sumo or Marine Master might look stupid...if I attempted to wear it with, say, a dress shirt...but less stupid if I were wearing it casually or...can you imagine?...if I were actually to wear one diving, in which case perhaps a Sumo would make sense, being a Sumo and all. Now, a Hublot will always look stupid; an Omega Ploprof arguably more so. Wear a Ploprof, and I will mock you.

Still, I really want a Speedmaster, which is about 42mm and would really be pushing it on my wrists.



Broadus said:


> A final update: I returned the watch. I really wanted to keep it, but each time I looked at it, whether looking directly at my wrist or the reflection in a mirror, my thought was, "It's too large for me." Others thought it looked fine, but I wasn't comfortable with it. The seller agreed to a return even though I had removed the tags, so now I'm looking for another, a solar/quartz that's 37-38mm in case diameter.
> 
> Thanks for your input, whether pro, con, or indifferent.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

This distinction is a commonsense proposition that can be applied to virtually any use of language: A word can be used to define a specific subcategory (i.e. formal meaning white tie, etc.) or one end of a spectrum (formal where most formal is white tie / morning suit and least formal means pyjamas / sweats, etc.). In the former the word is to be interpreted as bearing a specific meaning, in the latter the word is to be interpreted as bearing a relative meaning. The sense in which the word is used can either be expressly spelt out (as I did) or inferred from the context (i.e. in what sense would the author have intended the expression to be interpreted).



arkirshner said:


> If I can find Mr. Anton's post I will link to it.


Please do - I'm sure he will have explained it much better than me.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Found it, from the London Lounge. As a bonus, his footnote is an apt explanation of the term "rules".



by manton » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:46 pm 

"Formal" is used in two senses: 

1) A distinction in kind: a dinner jacket, a tailcoat, a stroller, and a morning coat are "formal" coats in a way that even the dressiest lounge suit coat is not and can never be. There is a fundamental difference in kind between any lounge suit and these coats. 

2) A distinction in degree: a double-breasted midnight blue lounge suit is more "formal" than a worsted glen-plaid, which is more "formal" than white linen. Nonetheless, these are all lounge suits; no fundamental difference in kind separates them from one another. 

To the best of my knowledge, there is no "formal" overcoat in sense #1. Rather, overcoats are more or less formal only in sense #2. Thus it is not possible to "match" the hat with the overcoat, in the way that (for instance) the top hat is "required" with the morning and tail coats. The "rules"* of proper dress have never dictated what hat belongs with which overcoat; rather, they have matched hats with the underlying ensemble. The principle, I think, is a sound one: relative to the suit or coat, the overcoat is an accessory. Your suit or coat determines how "dressed up" you are; it is your primary presentation to the world on that day. Thus your overcoat should be chosen with that in mind, not the other way. The hat, which is even more of an accessory (which is to say, even less intergral to the ensemble) than the overcoat, ought also to be chosen with the suit in mind. 

Now, as a practical matter, I think too much is made of the apparent difficulty that might arise from incongrutiy between suit and overcoat. Because, if one assembles one's ensembles wisely, there such incongruity will not arise. The suit and overcoat should both be at roughly the same point on the "formality continuum", or at most one or two clicks divergent. Therefore, it ought to be easy to choose a hat that goes well with both. 

Where one might run into a problem is if one were to tro to "push the outside of the envelope" in some way. For instance, wearing Ed Hayes' marvelous -- but by no means formal -- tweed Raglan coat with a formal navy suit. Even then, the difficulty is more apparent than real. To assume that there is a difficulty, one must assume that there is no single hat that works well with both the suit and the coat. But is that true? Would not a chocolate brown fedora work equally well? (Especially assuming a pair of brown shoes.) 

Which brings me to my final point. A "formality continuum" exists for every garment type, and they overlap. Pick any suit, from any point on its continuum. There is a range of hats and coats that go with it. The only way you will not be able to choose a hat that works with both is if the coat and suit are so incongruous that they don't belong together in the first place (Brtish warm with a dinner jacket, for instance). 

*If anyone would like, yet again, to dispute my use of this term, by all means I am prepared to have that debate. But in order to stave it off, since it has become tiresome, let me say simply that I mean it in the most uncontroversial way possible: the historical reality that, in certain cultures at certain times among certain groups of people, certain standards and protocols of dress were expected to be followed, and were followed by and large, in the same way and for the same reason that rules of etiquette (such as the proper way to address an invitation, or set a table) were followed."


Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:37 pm 
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report this postReply with quote by


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

tocqueville said:


> Still, I really want a Speedmaster, which is about 42mm and would really be pushing it on my wrists.


In a weird twist, I was checking out the Omega website for smaller watches today, and I saw a few Speedmasters with 40mm cases, and one with a 39.something case.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I'm gonna stick with that the issue at hand is that the relative formality between lounge suits, odd jackets and other types of non-formal "formal" wear is near to a non-factor in choosing between different size watches (within reason), while formal "formal" wear being a dress code where wearing a non dress watch is a faux pas. Or even wearing any watch. 

If one is wearing an odd jacket and trousers, that's pretty informal on that relative scale, in my book. I mean, it's more formal than what, jeans and a t shirt? An Adidas jumpsuit?

To clarify, theres a huge amount of freedom up to the point where one dons formal "formal" wear IMO. And, if you can see what actually looks good with your chosen dress, little use for a rule regarding size. 

I read somewhere that the Italians advise three watches at the very least. One that suits your occupation, a dress watch for formal or evening wear, and a robust watch for sport or holidays.

With a dress watch for everything, there can be little sprezz. The lack of playfulness and plain drab that's in a 36 mm watch rule is hard to like. It's very dull in a distinctly protestant, killjoy kinda way. 

More of this:

Looks like a navitimer on bund. I like it.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> In a weird twist, I was checking out the Omega website for smaller watches today, and I saw a few Speedmasters with 40mm cases, and one with a 39.something case.


The Porsche Boxster of Speedmasters? 

The first version was 39.something I think... Chronos need space to breathe though.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I'm gonna stick with that the issue at hand is that the relative formality between lounge suits, odd jackets and other types of non-formal "formal" wear is near to a non-factor in choosing between different size watches (within reason), while formal "formal" wear being a dress code where wearing a non dress watch is a faux pas. Or even wearing any watch.
> 
> If one is wearing an odd jacket and trousers, that's pretty informal on that relative scale, in my book. I mean, it's more formal than what, jeans and a t shirt? An Adidas jumpsuit?
> 
> To clarify, theres a huge amount of freedom up to the point where one dons formal "formal" wear IMO. And, if you can see what actually looks good with your chosen dress, little use for a rule regarding size......


Might I enquire as to your stance on "non-formal" formal "formal" wear?


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> I read somewhere that the Italians advise three watches at the very least. One that suits your occupation, a dress watch for formal or evening wear, and a robust watch for sport or holidays.


A phrase to remember. The Italians are on to something.



Bjorn said:


> With a dress watch for everything, there can be little sprezz. The lack of playfulness and plain drab that's in a 36 mm watch rule is hard to like. It's very dull in a distinctly protestant, killjoy kinda way.


Quiet true, I completely agree. On the other hand, with a sport watch for everything, when worn with a dressy suit, it will be a jarring as wearing field boots.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Balfour said:


> I'm not sure why, but this will be my final post on this turgid subject.


I'm not sure why either, but then this was not your last post after all...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> Quiet true, I completely agree. On the other hand, with a sport watch for everything, when worn with a dressy suit, it will be a jarring as wearing field boots.


That is also true...


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> In a weird twist, I was checking out the Omega website for smaller watches today, and I saw a few Speedmasters with 40mm cases, and one with a 39.something case.


There's something called a "Speedmaster Reduced," that would probably fit me better. Still, in my eyes it's not a "real" Moon Watch. Stupid, I know. Either way, it's moot since I'm no where close to having $2k (about what a nice one costs second hand) to blow on a luxury item.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> More of this:
> 
> Looks like a navitimer on bund. I like it.


I don't. Ugly watch. But it proves the point that a certain person in a certain context can pull off something big and flashy like that.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> The Porsche Boxster of Speedmasters?
> 
> The first version was 39.something I think... Chronos need space to breathe though.


I believe the watch I found was, in fact, a reissue of the first one -- manually wound, even.

https://www.omegawatches.com/gents/speedmaster/moonwatch-first-omega-in-space/31132403001001

I like it, despite my aversion to chronos.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I'm not sure why either, but then this was not your last post after all...


Well, those were in response to contributions by others (rather than further attempts by yourself to argue the unarguable).


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

tocqueville said:


> There's something called a "Speedmaster Reduced," that would probably fit me better. Still, in my eyes it's not a "real" Moon Watch. Stupid, I know. Either way, it's moot since I'm no where close to having $2k (about what a nice one costs second hand) to blow on a luxury item.


Not many 145.012s floating around these days and they run about the same as a new 3570.50. You could of course always buy a modern 3570.50 and try to find the vintage bracelet, which might set you back almost as much as a second hand 3570.



Bjorn said:


> The Porsche Boxster of Speedmasters?
> 
> The first version was 39.something I think... Chronos need space to breathe though.


The Speedmaster Pro was and always has been 42mm


----------



## roba (Mar 5, 2005)

*Speedmaster sizes...*



M Go Crimson said:


> ...The Speedmaster Pro was and always has been 42mm


You're both correct, the Speedmaster Professional models are 42mm across the case. The earlier models without the "professional" designation (did the Swiss have marketing departments in the 1960s?) had a slightly different case which did not have any shrouding round the crown and pushers. The shrouding on the "professional" case made it slightly larger if it's measured from 2:30-8:30.

I've got a 1960s 321 Professional, it's 42mm across its case (2:30-8:30) and 39mm across the bezel (12:00-6:00) which would have been the largest dimension across the non "professional" model.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

*Replaced with a Seiko SNE031*

Having returned the Citizen that started this thread, I ordered and received a Seiko SNE031. I replaced the metal bracelet with a black leather strap.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Broadus said:


> Having returned the Citizen that started this thread, I ordered and received a Seiko SNE031. I replaced the metal bracelet with a black leather strap.
> 
> View attachment 5280


It's always nice to see a thread concluded nicely. That's a sharp watch, and in better scale than the original post.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> It's always nice to see a thread concluded nicely. That's a sharp watch, and in better scale than the original post.


Thanks. I'm pleased now and wanted to bring some closure to the thread.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Thread reopening:




"OVERSIZED ZENITH COMPAX CHRONOGRAPH​
This watch is worn by Simon Cundy of legendary Savile Row tailor Henry Poole & Co. ​ It belonged to Simon's great uncle, who used it for time trials in his local racing club. " 

By way of Hodinkees watch spotting at the Goodwood revival:


Showing a very proper amount of cuff as well.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Thread reopening:
> 
> "OVERSIZED ZENITH COMPAX CHRONOGRAPH
> This watch is worn by Simon Cundy of legendary Savile Row tailor Henry Poole & Co. It belonged to Simon's great uncle, who used it for time trials in his local racing club. "
> ...


Dreadful, just dreadful. But I like to flatter myself by imagining that this might have been posted (in part at least) to provoke that reaction from me?

Don't like the matchy-matchy pocket square and tie either.

Agree about the cuff. Suit looks beautiful.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Dreadful, just dreadful. But I like to flatter myself by imagining that this might have been posted (in part at least) to provoke that reaction from me?
> 
> Don't like the matchy-matchy pocket square and tie either.
> 
> Agree about the cuff. Suit looks beautiful.


Forget about the watch. I want to know more about that Blackwatch sport coat and fuchsia tie on the shaggy bloke in the background with the pub cap.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> Forget about the watch. I want to know more about that Blackwatch sport coat and fuchsia tie on the shaggy bloke in the background with the pub cap.


If you check the original blog, there's more bwt jacket in another pic... Nice looking, I thought.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Found it... Arno Haslinger:


And this chap sure knows how to accessorise


----------

