Yesterday, near my office, in what is normally a sea of well over 40mm watches, or Apple “watches” I spotted a sweet tiny gold vintage watch. Unfortunately I couldn’t get close enough to verify, and the wearer was on a phone call, but I’m gonna say 26 or 27mm rectangular gold Cartier (not quite a tank or santos.) And it was stunning! Stood out of the crowd - simple, understated, gorgeous.

Us vintage lovers have known this for a long time, but size DOES matter. And small is awesome!

 

I agree. Here is my grandfathers 33-34mm Nivada. It is small but wears very well when you just get used to it. I love it.

 

Geophysic, 34mm of loveliness

 

Posted this awhile back (having sold it long time ago). It came with its original seiko bracelet and has an incredible wrist presence...despite its size. Oh, and also, it is quite bling-y

 

I love my 34mm Rolex

 

I feel that "undersized" watches are so underrated. When watches are moving to the larger side, it's nice to see smaller watches! It's also nice to see that some brands (Tudor for example) are making modern sports watches which are normally larger, being made in smaller sizes!

 

I agree! I also feel that those 45mm monsters is like strapping a truck spare wheel to your wrist. Sizes in the 34 to 38 mm range look much more elegant.
The attached photo is a Seiko that my father gave me in the 1980s, and although in the photo ir looks bigger, it wears quite small for today standards. Nevertheless, I love it.

 

Ten pages of small and awesome here: https://omegaforums.net/threads/small-things-radium-and-beautiful.80113

 

I'm sitting at my desk and soaking up my morning coffee whist I read this thread.

There's a Tudor on my wrist from 1947... about 33mm in diameter. I'm feeling pretty good about that right now.

Oh well, suppose I should start working....

 

Pure classiness right there! Family value too

 

When I first started collecting, I loved the grossly large Panerai’s. As my tastes evolved and eventually shifted to vintage pieces, diameter is less important. I think the “fit” of the watch is determined by 1) bezel thickness 2) lug length and 3) if there is a curved bracelet.

The other important factor is the thickness of the watch, a problem IMHO with modern Omegas.

Anyways here’s my 40mm Tudor Snowflake 9411/0 and 36mm Wittnauer 235t for comparison

 

Speaking of "size" and a lot of bang for the buck, I just listed this one for sale a few minutes ago on OF if anyone wants to step into the world of vintage Universal Geneve - just shy of 34mm, but wears larger due to the gorgeous tear drop lugs. (1945!).

 

I think rectangular watches have their own sizing "rules" , I will wear some smaller size cases of this type that I would never wear in a round case....

 

Relatively speaking, they're really cheap as well! (Excuse the first two - they've not been cleaned up yet).

 

here's my UG.....

 

Speaking of size, have to give credit to Tudor for going towards more proper vintage-sized watches with their FIfty-Eight. Hopefully, we'll see more brands (and more Tudors) following the same path.

 

being skinny... small stuff is good!

 

Exactly! I couldn't agree more

 

loving those rectangular Cyma pieces.

the UG is amazing.

 

Sharing a pic of perfection in a perfect size.