Forums Latest Members

"Jumbo" isn't what it used to be

  1. Gstp Mar 9, 2018

    Posts
    468
    Likes
    1,928
  2. ConElPueblo Mar 9, 2018

    Posts
    9,587
    Likes
    26,961
    Fullywound really IS the master of bullshit. That listing triggers my vomit reflex big time!
     
    kov, Gav1967, Mr.Cairo and 2 others like this.
  3. Noddyman Mar 9, 2018

    Posts
    1,116
    Likes
    1,771
    Yep totally agree.
    The black Connie saga did it for me, I won’t be going anywhere near him.
     
    ConElPueblo likes this.
  4. Seacow Mar 9, 2018

    Posts
    333
    Likes
    355
    I wonder what is consider jumbo? 37mm+?
     
  5. Rman Mar 9, 2018

    Posts
    2,408
    Likes
    9,485
    This is a good topic for a new thread but 36mm+ is safe territory...
     
  6. TropicConnie Mar 10, 2018

    Posts
    346
    Likes
    282
    I guess he does have a point - at the time a man's watch would typically be 28-32 mm, so 33.5 mm is technically large for the period, though I wouldn't call it jumbo or oversized. Just large.

    I'll have a stab at a definition here, jumbo or oversize is a watch that wouldn't look out of place today alongside other contemporary watches. I feel this starts at 37 mm or thereabouts.
     
  7. Bill Sohne Bill @ ΩF Staff Member Mar 10, 2018

    Posts
    3,846
    Likes
    8,939
    Hi Everyone....

    My take is it is a relative frame of reference with in a model , class etc....
    as an example ...

    Bumper Seamaster chronometres were offered in two models ref 2520 and the " Jumbo" ref 2521 in this case the 2520 has a OD ( outside diameter) of 34 mm not counting crown or lungs... and the 2521 the OD of 36 mm not counting crown or lugs... in this case I call the 2521 the "Jumbo" .

    In the case of the 30T2Rg std snap back case ref is 33 and the " Jumbo" Ref is 35.5 , yes there are other exceptions in the 30 mm chonometre but the above covers 90% of the case references...

    Back to my point its really relative frame of ref... now back to the OP and the listing... 33.5 not jumbo as in the " class" of range... maybe call that Full size .. I dont know the range of the 6 slot Longines.... what is std size 30 ? 31 ? then you have the 33.5 and what else remember seeing like 36/37 mm ?

    I think you get the idea...


    Best

    bill
     
    Jwit, patrick1616 and Rman like this.
  8. 77deluxe Mar 10, 2018

    Posts
    2,058
    Likes
    4,613
    At least he didn’t call it a “calatrava”. Seems like everyone is calling a three hand vintage watch a calatrava lately.
     
    Gstp and TropicConnie like this.
  9. COYI Mar 10, 2018

    Posts
    496
    Likes
    723
    33.5mm is a decent size from this era but it is certainly pushing it to describe it as ''jumbo'. My rule of thumb is 36mm +
     
  10. Seacow Mar 10, 2018

    Posts
    333
    Likes
    355
    Normal size at around 40's are about 33mm to 35mm. 35mm Chronos are very common. I've seen some 40's Omega 3 hands around 37.5mm to 38mm. Small movment but
    I agree with Bill, maybe we should review it case by case. Its like today's rolex explorer. 36mm consider normal, and later 39mm model is jumbo.
    But they don't have anything in between.(eg. 37mm explorer..)
     
  11. Rman Mar 10, 2018

    Posts
    2,408
    Likes
    9,485
    Well, I thought we were discussing vintage.:D

    Not sure anyone would describe a modern watch as "jumbo" unless they were referring to a Panerai or Hublot.

    Bill is spot on in that that when comparing two sizes within a model the larger is often referred to as jumbo. In my limited experience that would indeed be 35.5mm--- this marks the smallest of the jumbos when referring to Omega. I was approximating when I said 36mm across most vintage because of the preponderance of 35mm and smaller watches, and think thats a fair mark.

    Dealers like to use the term for hype but few ever dare to call anything 35mm and below a jumbo, the ones that do I'd avoid hahhahahaah.
     
  12. Rman Mar 10, 2018

    Posts
    2,408
    Likes
    9,485
    (Rectangular watches within a model range would obviously have a different set of measurement criteria.)
     
  13. Gstp Mar 11, 2018

    Posts
    468
    Likes
    1,928
    Well it sure ain't 33 mm
     
  14. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Mar 11, 2018

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,037
    I would disagree with this. In the '40s, I would say that 30-33mm was much more typical than 34mm+. To use just one example, the largest high-production model made by Mido during that period was 34mm, while that vast majority were 29-33mm. And Mido was a very successful manufacturer during that period, as evidenced by the number that circulate in the market today.

    In the '50s the typical case sizes for all brands certainly did grow, and 33-36mm would probably be an accurate assessment.
     
  15. Matty01 Port Adelaide's No.1 Fan Mar 11, 2018

    Posts
    1,778
    Likes
    4,699
    52mm, is this jumbo or family?
     
    6613BCEA-A83E-4292-8715-EF9DD9606E7F.jpeg
  16. Gstp Mar 12, 2018

    Posts
    468
    Likes
    1,928
    I think you are right, but even so it can't be justified to call a 33 mm with 16 mm lug width "jumbo"
     
  17. ConElPueblo Mar 12, 2018

    Posts
    9,587
    Likes
    26,961
    FWIW, in some way I'd say that since the term "jumbo" is as flexible as it is, due to the massive spacer in that case an argument could be made for the watch being oversized. Not in comparison with other, contemporary types of watches, but when viewed from a movement/case perspective.

    That said, I'd love to see the first time the new owner pulls out that 33.5mm watch and presents his "oversized" Longines to anyone :D
     
  18. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Mar 12, 2018

    Posts
    7,348
    Likes
    24,037
    I agree completely.