38mm vs 42mm: side by side comparison on wrist

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by NauticalDan, Mar 13, 2015.

?

should I get the 42mm or 38mm

  1. 38mm

    15.6%
  2. 42mm

    84.4%
  1. NauticalDan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    #1
    What do you guys think? 42mm or 38mm? I think I could probably get away with either as both sorta look very similar.

    My wrists are about 170mm, so maybe just a bit below average.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Runt888 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    #2
    I would go with the 42. I think the 38 looks awkwardly small - like you're wearing a smaller persons watch.
     
  3. AngusW macrumors 6502

    AngusW

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    #3
    Pictures didn't post. Looks like broken links or something. Or something's wrong with my connection.

    Edit: something wrong with my browsers. It opened on my iPhone, yeah I'd go with the 42. I now need to measure my wrist as I had been leaning towards the 38mm myself.
     
  4. Alvi macrumors 65816

    Alvi

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Location:
    Mars
    #4
    I'm not sure, the small one looks too small and the big one looks too big.

    (I have a really small wrist)
     
  5. mattopotamus, Mar 13, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2015

    mattopotamus macrumors G5

    mattopotamus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #5
    Your wrist look bigger than mine, 38. Thanks for this picture though. I think people have been looking for something similar. The 38mm looks better on you. The 42 looks like a smartwatch.

    The 38mm looks a little smaller in that first picture b.c it is not quite the "head on" shot the 42mm is.

    You have good wrist and could do either haha.
     
  6. JFazYankees macrumors 6502

    JFazYankees

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
  7. bumpylumpy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    #7
    42 for you, but how big are your wrists?

    Nevermind, my brain just skipped over your measurement. :)

    Wow, I'm actually surprised by what I see. I printed out a sample and on my wrists, which are also 170mm around, the 42mm is totally sticking out across the top of mine!
     
  8. NauticalDan thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    170mm (just slight below 7")
     
  9. papa8706 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    #9
    Your wrists look much bigger than 170mm in those pics to me. I agree the 38mm looks too small though. 42mm without a doubt in my opinion
     
  10. bumpylumpy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    #10
    I was going to say, either your wrists are much bigger than 170mm, or your printouts are small.

    I printed out the paper by Ryan P Mack on US Letter paper and it ended up being too small. Also, I think the paper is curved on your wrist and the watch will be totally flat, sticking out more.
     
  11. NauticalDan thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    #11
    I measured it, and the watch dimensions on the printouts are correct (made sure to print original size, and not scaled).

    Also, there is about 8 business cards i cut and taped to back to give it a firmer flat surface resting on my wrist. But I agree, the thickness of the actual watch isn't adequately pictured.

    To be honest, just looking at the watches sitting on my desk, the 38mm does look quite small. Especially the band being a few mm narrower, it looks girly.
     
  12. bumpylumpy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    #12
    Do you have a link to the printouts that you are using on your wrists in that picture? The business card stack is genius!
     
  13. NauticalDan thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    #13
  14. douglasf13 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #14
    Both work. It just depends on your style. I think the blank LCD looks a little off putting too large, and I like classic watches, so I'd go 38mm. My wrists are about the same size, and I'm going 38mm.
     
  15. Brian Y macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    #15
    To be honest, I think that's the biggest factor between which you choose - and I don't mean that in a sexist way.

    Mens' watches are usually big and chunky, whilst womens' are usually much smaller. I would guess that 95% of women will buy the 38mm, and 95% of men will buy the 42mm.

    I'm a little surprised at the measurements to be honest, I'd have thought 35mm, or maybe 34mm would have been a better "small" model than 38. 34 and 40 would have made better choices IMO.
     
  16. douglasf13 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #16
    According to the forum poll, about 66% of the men are going 42mm. I'd agree that I'm surprised that the small watch isn't smaller. IMO, it's simply sized at the classic "gentleman's" watch size, rather than a youth/female watch, and I prefer a man's watch in the 36mm-39mm range. I guess they can only go so small with the technology for it to be usable.
     
  17. NauticalDan thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    #17
    I think so many people right now are focusing on the case size when deciding what watch to get. But the band size is actually what tipped me in the direction of the 42mm case. My wrists are pretty average, or slightly smaller, but the band is quite noticeably narrower on the smaller watch. I'd say it would look a bit awkward on most guys wrists, even if the 38mm case seemed to be the right fit by itself.
     
  18. papa8706 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    #18
    This was one of my concerns as well. I have a 165mm wrist and want to go with the link band. I fear the narrower link band on the 38mm may look a little more feminine and unfortunately the 42mm band isn't compatible.

    My pebble steel is 10mm think so I overlaid the 42mm printout over the top of that and it seem to fit me better than I was expecting. Actually shorter, but just a little wider
     
  19. douglasf13 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #19
    That's funny. I had the opposite reaction. It's the wider band size of the 42mm that really turns me off. It looks like the 38mm band size is somewhere in the 20-22mm range. I highly prefer my 20mm watch straps to my 22mm watch straps, and it looks like most of the straps for the 42mm case are even larger.
     
  20. profmatt macrumors 65816

    profmatt

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    I agree. I think in general the 38mm is too small, and 42mm too big.
     
  21. RJEvans macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    #21
    Your wrists are big enough for the 42mm and then some. Go with the 42mm. It looks more masculine and its fashionable (not too bulky).
     
  22. douglasf13 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    #22
    I think people forget how small lots of Rolexes and other watches actually are. Sure, there are big watches out there, but more mid-sized watches are still very popular. Here is a random pic I just saw of a Rolex Milgauss on Daniel Craig:

    [​IMG]

    And a Submariner on 50 Cent:

    [​IMG]
     
  23. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #23
    But remember, this is a smartwatch and it's going to be showing a lot of text. Text would have to be really tiny on a 34mm screen,
    or the
    lines
    would
    be very
    narrow
    like
    this.
     
  24. betabeta macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    #24
    I have small wrists, and the 42 looks fine, but mostly I want more battery life.
     
  25. ipodlover77 macrumors 65816

    ipodlover77

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    #25
    Well technically the Milguass is a 40mm. Not sure if that would be considered a mid-size. I always considered mid-size to be 36-38.
     

Share This Page