I just visited the beautiful boutique of Shreve, Crump and Low in Boston. They carry many luxury brands of watches such as AP, VC, Roger Dubuis, JLC, and mid-high brands such as Longines, IWC, and of course Omega. These are beautifully displayed and the staff is very nice.

I collect vintage watches and my collection spans from the 1920's to the late 1980's. I occasionally venture into stores that offer new watches but I was struck by the physical size of the offerings. The AP Royal Oak probably the model that started the trend but today's watches are HUGE. I handled the Lange & Söhne Platinum Lange 31, with its 31 day power reserve, over-the-top width, thickness and weight. OMG. This thing is impressive but would look out-of-place on all but the largest wrists. Even the beautifully elegant JLC Reverso is largish. Although I'm an average size man I would probably go the ladies version because it would better suit my wrist.

Do others have the same impression when viewing contemporary watches?

Michel

 

My smallest is a UG field watch at 34mm. My two largest are my 42mm RGM 801 coe and My JLC Grand Reverso duo. 35-38mm is my preference. I can get away with 35mm as long as they have wrist presence. The classic Reverso should be a good size ... no?

 

Which size reverso did you put on. There are at least 3 in that model. Personally I like the mid size one.

My thought is we hit peak size last year. And stuff will start coming back down in size next year. I think the large sized watches in the fashion area are trending down, but large watches still trend with new buyers, hence some of the new Omega models which seem way to large to me and I own a 3313 POC. Look on the forum not a lot of people with multiple watches are buying the new PO's and the size of the new speedies are not making them popular with people that already own speedies. These watches seem to be going to new buyers as their first or maybe second luxury watch.

I think the larger watches resonate with these buyers as they have a larger perceived value due to size. As a bonus they stick out more and appear to be more showy to people getting into the watch world.

Just my thoughts... there is nothing wrong with the current batch of large Omegas but I've got a 7.5 inch wrist and they are to big for me. I think in another 5 years the Classic speedy pro will be a large watch again.

 

Some modern watches like this Girard Perregaux Vintage 1945 isn't that big and it wears very well on an average wrist size (6.75" to 7.00"). This watch is 29mm wide and I think the Reverso is very similar in size as well.

 

For me, another determining factor is the lug length. I just don't like lugs that sit flat and overhang the wrist. That's the primary reason why I didn't buy a Longines Legend Diver

 

The Reverso wears akwardly on some wrists, I for one can't wear one

But yes, very few modern watches fit me. Unfortunately.

 

Been seeing that thought on forums for years now and it hasn't really happened yet. Average size has moved up, and not likely to go down to where it was in the past. Probably some movement at the margins, and some brands may come out with a few smaller watches here and there, but bigger watches are here to stay for the most part. They might co-exist alongside some more modest offerings as the brands chase customers.

Not really. Pure size is only one factor of many in determining if I like a watch enough to buy it or not. I pretty regularly wear watches from 34 mm to 44 mm, and enjoy them all equally.

Once again this question was asked in the vintage section of a vintage heavy forum, so the answers will be skewed towards people who feel similar to you I suspect.

Bingo - I love the way the Reverso looks, except when I'm wearing one! Not related to size, but shape, and I just can't get past the way it looks...I can't tell you how many times I've tried to like it enough to plop down the coin...

Cheers. Al

 

I tried the medium and small (i.e. ladies) Reverso. Beautiful watches: the guilloché central part of the dial and surrounding satin finish just oooooozes elegance. The medium sized version would be pretty my maximum size. The width is fine (24 mm) but the length, at 40 mm, is up there. My wrist is 7" (18 cm). My 32 mm vintage military Bulova looked like a midget in the store.

 

True. I actually started writing the post for the Modern Omega forum on this site, but then thought it would land nowhere so I posted here.

 

Confirmation bias FTW!

 

I've got the same problem with the Monaco. I can wear watches that size and do but I've tried 3 sizes on from vintage to modern but something about the square case and height makes it just looks wrong on me.

Sorry for the thread drift but this has been annoying me for a long time.

 

You need huge wrists for a Monaco. It's kind of fun but the thing sits like a skyscraper on your wrist. Or, doorjamb scraper. Though it won each and every encounter; it's a tough watch.... The doorjambs in my apartment a few years ago didn't look great though

 

I think the watchmaking industry is willing to reduce the size to a more wearable one! Ad tudor and the blackbay heritage or nomos and its perfect size case. The SM300 CoAxial is 41mm and well balanced. There is still hope!!
Longines with its heritage production is also smaller. They look to be more and more inspired by vintage watches => style and size.

 

The Reverso that's 23.5mm wide by 38.5mm long fits sub-7" wrists very well. (battery or not )

Roger Dubuis makes a rose gold and black dialed Excaliber model that's gorgeous. The problem is it's 43mm, and the 36mm version is designated as a Lady's watch..... therefore alienating a whole group of potential customers who are more vintage oriented due to size preferences. What a pity for them - they could have had thousands of dollars of my money.

 

By chance one of my colleagues was wearing the gold Lange moon phase yesterday
He's not a big chap and didn't look too OTT
Looks surprisingly clean even with the additional complication
He normally wears a platinum Breguet which looks bigger on the wrist
With my skinny wrists I'll stick to my Connies

 

Anecdotally I seem to see more WTT ads with "nothing larger than 42mm please".

 

I have a scrawny 6.3" wrist. As someone's pointed out, the Reversos come in different sizes, so one of them might fit. I'm lucky that my wrist, though slim, has a flattish 'top' so the 26x42mm Reversos fit, as do the 28x46mm ones (just barely).

As for other modern watches:
1. There are smaller versions of the Royal Oak. The 36mm 14790 seems to wear OK on my wrist.
2. You mentioned the Langes. There's a smaller version of the L1, called the Little Lange 1, which is 36mm vs the usual 38.5mm. There are older 1815's that are 36mm, and the current Saxonias come in between 35-37mm, very well sized for a slim wrist.
3. There are quite a few modern Zenith El Primeros that are 38mm in size (a nice one just sold on this forum recently) and not all are 42mm.

So there are modern watches that are 'mid sized' (35-37mm for dress, 38-40mm for sports) and it is possible to find them. In fact, it might be time to revive that old thread of mine...

 

Nice watch. Relatively new to high end watches although I owned a Grand Reverso and GMT Master at the time, I was doing some watch shopping in Paris three years ago and looked at these in an AD. I was immediately intrigued but shocked at the price and the depreciation on GP especially in gold. I love this watch. Timeless. Since then of course, bitten by the vintage bug on a subsequent Parisian watch hunt, I have amassed a sizable collection. Back on the radar! (not new though)

 

Seiko makes so many nice watches, especially the cushion case one with a green dial, but its so big. I wish most watches were <40mm, or at least came with that option.

as others said, i sure hope the larger sizes are trending down!