Watches! What do y'all have on your wrists?

[rdenney]

Are chrono Monaco larger? Mine doesn't look that big. I like the Steve Mac one with the stripe.

This is actually the design for the watch McQueen wore in LeMans. Except that his had the original Caliber 11 with its left-side winding and setting crown and right-side pushers, themselves a product of the arrangement of the Dubois-Depraz module on the Hamilton/Buren micro-rotor base movement. The one with the Gulf stripes was a later creation that paid homage to the racing heritage, but this one is styled like the original. There was one Gulf-striped Caliber 36 model that had the Zenith El Primero in it that would be cool to own.

I don't know if the chronograph is larger than the three-hand automatic, but I rather doubt it. Both use the same base movement (a Sellita SW-300/ETA 2892), which is 11-1/2'''--about 25mm in diameter. I don't think the module adds diameter though it certainly adds thickness. The other automatic chronograph developed by Zenith at the same time as the original Caliber 11 was the El Primero, 3019PHC, which is 30mm in diameter. They might have added a millimeter or two to the case, but this case isn't more than a millimeter larger than the original, though I suspect it's several--more than several--mm thicker.

Watch size is a religious argument among enthusiasts that, with due respect to those present whose preferences are not required to be my own, bores me. The smallest that I'm happy to wear is 34mm, and the largest 48. I do have a couple of vintage watches that are larger than usual for their day--a ca. 1946 Jaeger-LeCoultre ref. 2953 that is 36mm and a 1955 Zenith caliber 40T that is 38mm. I'll dig the Zenith out this week and wear it.

Rick "wearing a 15-year-old Concord Mariner today--200m WR, 40mm case, only 10mm thick, and 0 seconds/day on the Timegrapher when I checked it last night" Denney

 

[Ken1951]

They may be "small" but I'd love to own and wear either a classic Cartier Tank or a Jaeger LeCoultre Reverso! Both are seriously beautiful.

 

[JiiPee]

My taste is fairly eclectic when it comes to watch size.

At the moment my smallest watch is Art Deco style IWC from mid 1930s - 24mm x 31mm, which was quite normal dressy watch size for males at the time.

My largest watch (by case diameter) at the moment is 44mm IWC Portugieser 5454 which really does not feel that big as it is reasonably slim at 10mm.

My watch that subjectively feels largest due to thick and heavy case is IWC "Collectors Forum #3" Pilot's Chronograph at 43mm diameter. Still - it feels reasonably sized in my opinion (after all, I used to own an Omega "Big Blue" in the past).

The pictures have been taken at various distances and with various lenses, so the usual caveats regarding impression of sizes apply here. My wrist size is approx 19cm (7.5")

 

[Frank Dernie]

Yes larger watches good, small dainty watches no.

I am old, and my interest in wristwatches old enough, to remember efforts made to make smaller equally accurate movements so wristatches didn't look (and weren't any more) pretty well a small pocket watch on a strap.
That combined with being an engineer makes me dislike/despise any case unnecessarily larger than the movement it contains.
I did sometimes wear an early altimeter watch with a pressure sensor in it, which was huge 30 years or so ago, but it has ruled out almost all fashionable clockwork watches over the last 20 years or so.
Mind you my daily for the latest 16 years has mainly been a IWC Portuguesier perpetual which is big, but the winding rotor does fill the case (and broke a bridge)

 

[Frank Dernie]

They may be "small" but I'd love to own and wear either a classic Cartier Tank or a Jaeger LeCoultre Reverso! Both are seriously beautiful.

One of my favourite watches to wear is my Reverso - original size - so small by today's standards but wears really comfortable and easy to read. I also agree about the elegant Cartier tank which I don't own but like a lot.

At the moment my smallest watch is Art Deco style IWC from mid 1930s - 24mm x 31mm, which was quite normal dressy watch size for males at the time.

That is stunning - want one!

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Size-wise, the smallest watch I own is the Casio F91-W I just got recently. I knew it's a small watch so I wasn't surprised, but even so I was a little surprised by how diminutive it actually is lol. It's a pretty small watch! As such, at first I didn't think I'd end up wearing it very often. It was just a fun one to have in the collection. However, after actually wearing it a couple times I quickly came to appreciate it for what it is - an extremely light, comfortable and un-obtrusive watch. It just dissappears on the wrist. It's the perfect "urban man about town" watch. I wear it regularly now. I also have a Casio F217 which is essentially a larger version of the F91 and I like that one a lot too. It's got a bit more stature on the wrist but still not overly large. I like that it has a slightly larger display - larger than even my G-Shock - which is clear and easier to read.

At the other end of the spectrum in my little collection is the Casio Duro which is a stonker of a watch. It's big and pretty heavy. I enjoy wearing it but I consider it my "dressy" watch. I wear it when I want something that has a bit of bling factor.

I think the perfect size is something like the F217 I mentioned or the Casio Royale or one of the two field watches I have (Timex Expedition and the Casio Forrester). They are just the right size for me - big enough that you know they are there but still not "in the way" in any way.

 

[Doodski]

Size-wise, the smallest watch I own is the Casio F91-W I just got recently. I knew it's a small watch so I wasn't surprised, but even so I was a little surprised by how diminutive it actually is lol. It's a pretty small watch! As such, at first I didn't think I'd end up wearing it very often. It was just a fun one to have in the collection. However, after actually wearing it a couple times I quickly came to appreciate it for what it is - an extremely light, comfortable and un-obtrusive watch. It just dissappears on the wrist. It's the perfect "urban man about town" watch. I wear it regularly now. I also have a Casio F217 which is essentially a larger version of the F91 and I like that one a lot too. It's got a bit more stature on the wrist but still not overly large. I like that it has a slightly larger display - larger than even my G-Shock - which is clear and easier to read.

At the other end of the spectrum in my little collection is the Casio Duro which is a stonker of a watch. It's big and pretty heavy. I enjoy wearing it but I consider it my "dressy" watch. I wear it when I want something that has a bit of bling factor.

I think the perfect size is something like the F217 I mentioned or the Casio Royale or one of the two field watches I have (Timex Expedition and the Casio Forrester). They are just the right size for me - big enough that you know they are there but still not "in the way" in any way.

You seem to maybe appreciate a Casio. I really enjoy them too. This is my favorite of all time heavier duty watch of all the Timex and Casio watches.

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B09XWD4R82?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_1

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

You seem to maybe appreciate a Casio. I really enjoy them too. This is my favorite of all time heavier duty watch of all the Timex and Casio watches.

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B09XWD4R82?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_1

Oh I'm a Casio fanboy for sure. lol.

 

[rdenney]

As promised, I wore my mid-50's Zenith today.

It has a 38mm case, but watches always look bigger in close-up photos from smart phones. This one is a real jumbo watch by the standard of the mid-fifties, when dress watches were 31 or 32mm and sport watches were 36mm.

Here's the movement that is recognizable as a Zenith to a Zenith fan from no less than 30,000 feet. Frank would be disappointed by the thick movement mounting ring

I do have a couple of watches with 17''' movements (which are small pocket-watch size). All else equal, which it never is, a larger watch is more accurate. But it is also easier to service--I can handle a 17''' handwind 3-hand watch myself. My training movements are ETA 6497's, or their cheap-as-chips Chinese imitators. One I have installed in a cheap case with a cheap dial and cheap hands just to see what it would take to assemble a watch from Amazon-level catalog parts. I have more serious intentions to do something similar with vintage Bulova-branded Unitas 6497's that originally appeared in cheap Bulova pot-metal pocket watches back in the 70's. I have a German-made wristwatch case for one of those movements at the ready for when I get that project done. I have serviced the movement but it needed a new shock spring which I have in hand but haven't yet gotten back to that.

There is more to a watch than a case that shrinks around the movement. Movements are designed for the ages while watch sizes are like hem-lines that go up and down. But the standard 3-hand movement for a man's watch going back at least 80 years is a 12'''--27mm--and current popular wristwatch movements still vary around that from 11-1/2 to 13'''. Some of the really tiny dress watches for me, like the Universal Geneve dress watch that I bought as new old stock, use 8-1/2 or 8-3/4''' movements, but today those would be found in ladies watches. It is a little too dainty on my arm, and my wrist is very much too large for the strap even though these days it is quite a bit leaner than in this photo. It's 21mm wide on an 18mm strap, and about the size of a vintage Cartier Tank. But the main problem I have with it is that it's too hard to read the time on that tiny dial. That's the other reason watches grew--a larger dial can be read with greater precision, especially if it has a lot of sub-dials and scales.

(UG was distributed by the Stern Agency in New York--since the late 20's the owners of Patek-Philippe--and was thus known as a "poor-man's Patek". This one dates from 1966, and the owner of the jewelry store who sold it to me had it in his desk since it was new. I also have the box and original price tag--$95.)

Rick "gorilla wrists" Denney

 

[JiiPee]

As promised, I wore my mid-50's Zenith today.

It has a 38mm case, but watches always look bigger in close-up photos from smart phones. This one is a real jumbo watch by the standard of the mid-fifties, when dress watches were 31 or 32mm and sport watches were 36mm.

Here's the movement that is recognizable as a Zenith to a Zenith fan from no less than 30,000 feet. Frank would be disappointed by the thick movement mounting ring

Rick "gorilla wrists" Denney

Nice Zenith, Cal 40 is a good movement. Movement serial number 457xxx dates it to 1956.

 

[Chaconne]

Oh geez. I think I mis-read the thread title.

 

[pablolie]

She loves her JLC. Was my recommendation.

Hers is obvious. Mine is a rather rare Glycine KMU48 (48mm duh) with an ETA2824.

 

[JiiPee]

For today: Vintage Tissot Navigator chronograph with Tissot 872 movement (née Lemania 1872 a.k.a. Omega 860)

 

[rdenney]

For today: Vintage Tissot Navigator chronograph with Tissot 872 movement (née Lemania 1872 a.k.a. Omega 860)
View attachment 490534

Classic C-case design from about 1970.

Today, for me, it’s a Concord Mariner from a couple of decades ago. Top-grade 2892, and 200m case that is only 10mm thick.

Rick “loves H-link bracelets” Denney

 

[mlankton]

used to have a whole collection of Ennebi, but I retired and I got rid of all but two

 

[Ken1951]

Classic C-case design from about 1970.

Today, for me, it’s a Concord Mariner from a couple of decades ago. Top-grade 2892, and 200m case that is only 10mm thick.

View attachment 490657

Rick “loves H-link bracelets” Denney

Great looking watch - classic.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

New Casio Day!

I honestly can't believe this thing only cost me $40...and Canadian dollars yet! It's ridiculously nice!

 

[xanalog]

I have had it with 4-figure mid-grade watches; like Omega, Bell&Rose, Brietling, Luminor, etc.

I wanted it to tell time,
I wanted a day window,
I wanted it to be simple,
I wanted it in titanium,
I wanted a sapphire crystal,
I wanted it automatic,
I wanted night view-ability,
I wanted it to be under $150:

[^^ Minute markers are on the outside^^]
Mission accomplished for under $86, sight unseen.
If it craps out, I may ballast it down to 100 feet to see if it was waterproof as advertised!

 

[pablolie]

I have had it with 4-figure mid-grade watches; like Omega, Bell&Rose, Brietling, Luminor, etc.

I wanted it to tell time,
I wanted a day window,
I wanted it to be simple,
I wanted it in titanium,
I wanted a sapphire crystal,
I wanted it automatic,
I wanted night view-ability,
I wanted it to be under $150:
View attachment 494963

View attachment 494962
[^^ Minute markers are on the outside^^]
Mission accomplished for under $86, sight unseen.
If it craps out, I may ballast it down to 100 feet to see if it was waterproof as advertised!

Very nice. I also find myself keeping the expensive watches in a protected box, and thoroughly enjoy the decreasing variety of smaller brands in the $500 to $2k range that still cater to >45mm needs (it looks better on my wrist, to me).

 

[JiiPee]

I have had it with 4-figure mid-grade watches; like Omega, Bell&Rose, Brietling, Luminor, etc.

That's a nice looking watch, and a perfectly good plan

It just reminds me, that there was a time when I had a good plan too...
I decided that I needed two watches: A semi-dressy one to wear at work, and other occasions that called for reasonably dapper attire, and then another one for casual occasions.
I got me a Zenith Class Elite for the first role

and an Eterna Airforce with ETA 2895 (A version of 2892 with a subdial for seconds) for the casual usage.

I managed to buy them both at significant discounts, and I felt content for a while. They are still both with me, and I was right too - They are actually all the watches that I need. So why the h*** did I buy all those other watches?