Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by nyc232, Apr 10, 2015.
I'm 6'2" tall, 185lbs with 171mm wrist
38mm is what I've chosen, just more subtle than the 42mm.
The Apple Watch looks shockingly better. I'm beginning to really appreciate the design.
Thank you for posting the first real comparison I've seen. I think it really puts things into perspective.
You mean 171mm right?
You're welcome! I was tired of seeing these threads hating on men wearing the 38mm. It's all personal preference.
How much is the omega worth?
I bought it brand new three years ago for $3,700
I agree. I never really liked watches before. I think the Apple Watch is beautiful. I'm starting to appreciate regular watches but I prefer a clean simple look.
It is incredible to me how the stainless steel link band model looks and likely feels superior to a $3,700 watch.
Perhaps, but if I went and got the Omega's band polished it would look a lot better.
The classic buckle looks great!
Which band did you go with?
I was able to preorder 38mm SS with classic leather, but will be selling that band - if anyone is interested let me know. Ordered the Milanese and Black sport.
I think subtle is the key word. I haven't seen them in person yet, but everyone seem to agree that neither is too big nor too small, and both look just fine in most people (sure, the wrist width has a bearing on that for extreme cases).
However the 42mm is screaming "here I am" whereas the other one is more discrete, while providing the same functionality.
I have small wrists and have ordered the 38mm version. I will not know which one looks better on me until I try them out, but all I'm expecting from the Apple Watch is to be an elegant device that makes my life a bit easier without getting too much in the way, and 38mm seem like a very sweet spot.
I guess I can't get a better gauge in size than this, I have a Seamaster and a 171mm wrist. I ordered the 42 last night, I'm thinking it will be ok.
Thanks for this - I was getting nervous about ordering the 38mm instead of the 42mm, since I have a 175mm wrist (big, for a woman!) But I really like the size of it on you, so I'm sure I'll like it on me too.
Thanks! I'm sure it will look great on you as well.
thats a small seamaster. what size is it?
Perfect. Thanks OP. I have a Omega Planet Ocean. Now I know how big the 42mm is that I ordered.
Very interesting post, and very informative pictures. Thanks for posting them.
No quarrel at all with the 38mm on a man - some of the modern wrist watches are too bloated for words, and wrists differ in size.
However, I am not sure that you are quite comparing like with like, when you post your current Seamaster alongside two Apple Watches.
Personally, I am a fan of the old 1950s and 1960s Seamasters; as the Apple Watch does seem to have nice, clean lines, the watch I would like to see it compared with (on a wrist, as you have done so thoughtfully) would be an example of the 1950s and 60s Seamasters, which also had nice, elegant, clean and uncluttered lines, and straightforward bezels and straps).
I agree with you, the post was really meant to show the size of the Apple Watch when compared to what I think is a pretty thin Swiss watch.
Great to hear!
Question for you, if you absolutely fall in love with the Apple Watch, will there be room for the Omega in your life? For me it's going to be hard to alternate a mechanical watch with a smart watch, especially if the smart watch begins to add tremendous value to my life. Thanks!
Thanks, OP, excellent post. We're in the same ballpark with height, weight and wrist size.
The 42mm is bigger, a little more conspicuous, but on the positive side, it's supposed to have better battery life, and I think with these small displays, every mm counts in terms of UI/UX.
I chose the slightly improved functionality over the subjectively better styling.
Here's one comparing my brothers Rolex Submariner: