I just want to point out the crown scar in the above picture. The true evidence of real watchismo (a variation of machismo).
If watchismo is not registred as a word I hereby claim it...

Here is a pic from a couple of years ago:





Anyone else?

 

No, because I wear my watch on my wrist, rather than down on my hand...

 

I got my first wristwatch when I was 6 years old, and have worn one ever since. I do have that crown rub too, and from time to time various other damages on my hands. Like the last month, a big burn mark after have tried to co-operate with my father-in-law in the kitchen. A really stupid attempt

 

Au contraire - i e - I do believe you have come to the wrong conclusion...

I normally wear my watches fairly tight (not OCD/fetish tight though...). When taking photos I loosen the strap to get the dial facing more towards me and the camera. I have my watches at the wrist smallest circumference and when bending the wrist the crown always hits the same spot (+/- 5mm) - which has given me my scar. IF I would have worn my watches looser there would be no mark - as they would "flop around" not rubbing the same spot all the time.

You not having a scar - beats me. Suppler watchmaker skin?

 

Nope no wrong conclusion - you are wearing your watches down too far on your arm, which is the cause of the mark. It's okay, I see this often and if it's your preference to wear them there please go ahead, but really a watch should be worn further up the wrist, not down on the hand IMO.

The tan line illustrates the difference quite easily when I compare mine to yours...



Mine is up on the wrist, while yours is down touching the hand. I have no mark from the crown because I wear the watch where it was meant to be worn, so the crown never touches the back of my hand.

Cheers, Al

 

There is a very inexpensive solution to the root of the problem:

 

The simple solution.

 

I don't have any scars either, and Al is (of course) correct... proper placement of that watch for 99.99999% of the people, is above the wrist-bones.

If the crown hits your hand you have very loose joints (and some people do, flexion greater than 90 degrees) or it's below the wrist-bones.

Tom

 

Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. Let us put what is "meant to be" or "should be" aside for now (and maybe forever - as I believe that could end up a longer conversation than pro/con Watchco...) and focus on physical differences.

As can be seen in my picture (the tan line pic further above ) you and me are very differently built. Your arm have a thinner parallell portion before your wristbones and then it narrows again afterwards - making the wristbone the widest part and a natural stop for the watch when the arm is hanging straight down - and the parallell part perfect for a watch. I have very narrow bone structure at wrists (hand and feet) and at the same time being built like a tank otherwise. My forearms taper from its widest muscular point just below the elbow, all the way down to the hand. As I wrote earlier - "I have my watches at the wrist smallest circumference" - which IS the wristbone (look at above pic). I guess all those younger years weighttraining, wrestling and thaiboxing has not done me good in that sense. If I try to strap a watch further up the forearm it will always work itself down because of that taper. Hence the crown scar.

I am a freak...

 

destro is a nice alternative. I don't wear this one daily but it helps keep the crown problem at bay

 

Nice Sinn, Rockmastermike.

Wearing it though would leave me feeling disoriented in much the same way I feel while driving in the UK. Texans probably shouldn't wear watches with crowns on the opposite side just as they probably shouldn't drive in England.

 

I use this solution myself.

 

Thanks - LouS - I feel better now.



Or maybe... ( I do seriously not know which I want to be me... the one to the right is probably the real bad ass freak)

 

Sorry, I didn't realize we had anywhere to get to. I knew where I was all along.

Anyway, regardless of descriptions you use for yourself (not my place to say either way!), there is actually a "proper" place to wear a watch, and that is where I have shown mine is worn. If you ask anyone in the industry, the people who design, produce, market, and sell watches, there really isn't any debate.

Although it's far from the end of the world, there are some detrimental aspects to wearing the watch as you do, in particular since you say you wear it fairly snug. Wearing it down on the hand like this will cause more stress on the watch when you flex your wrist. These aren't earth shattering immediate effects, but over time this creates more wear on parts such as bracelet links, and will potentially cause greater flexing and faster deterioration of spring bars, and can even cause increased wear in lug holes in the case where the spring bars mount.

And of course the final reason this is clearly the improper place (or less than ideal place if it sounds better) to wear the watch is....it will cause the crown to leave a mark on the back of your hand.

Cheers, Al

 

Just sayin'....

 

Thank you all for suggesting different watches. There might be a small misunderstanding though. If you are reading my first post again - I never wrote about it as a problem. I have a scar from wearing watches. That is not a problem - I wear it proudly. Archers input around what is right and wrong in wearing watches does not change how we freaks wear our watches. I guess his build has its own set of disadvantages - which probably is right or wrong in another situation/setting - making him the freak or "wrong" in that other situation/setting. Things are seldom white or black. Even if people often try to place things at poles - not much good comes out of it. Me calling myself a freak was satirical - as I do believe quite a substantial portion of the worlds population is built like me. Regardless of what the watch industry dictate.

 

Archer is just being very rational. As always.

I for one can see the point in his arguments.

As for myself, this is not the first thing I detect that I've been doing wrong for the whole of my life, or for a very long time at least

 

Absolutely, and I also see the point in his arguments. I am just not very much for categorical right/wrong statements. One thing I have learned - regarding claimed right and/or wrong - the claims tend never to hold all the way and some humbleness in regard to that gets you way further along lifes path.

 

Look mate, I didn't intend for this to turn into a big discussion, and I'm not putting forth arguments - there is no argument to win or lose here. I only stated that I don't have this mark because I don't wear my watch down on my hand as you do - the position you wear in in for whatever reason is the cause of the scar and it's simple cause and effect. I've said all along you can wear it however you like - it matters not to me. You came back saying I was misunderstanding something (which I'm not) and now here we are.

If the right/wrong thing has you upset, let me rephrase it by saying that the watch is intended to be worn above the bone as I do, not down on the hand as you do. No watch company designs a watch to cause a scar on your hand - I can't see how this idea is even remotely controversial or up for debate...but YMMV.

Can we all sing kumbaya now?