42 or 38?

[langl3y]

Hi Guys,

Appreciate the feedback and opinions, how do you get on with the different bands, I'm getting the black sports band to start with then possibly looking to get either the milensse loop and / or the space grey link bracelet.

Thanks

 

[sean000]

sean000 said: ↑
I have 170mm wrists and love my 38mm. I have had it for 4 months and would buy the 38mm again. I tried on a 42mm in the store. It didn't look huge on my wrist, so I figured why not go with the larger watch? Well I just couldn't get the 42mm to sit comfortably on my wrist. It looked fine, but it didn't feel fine. I kept fiddling with the strap. Maybe I would have gotten used to it, but the 38mm just felt right from the start...and I prefer the look of a smaller watch.

interesting, was it the 42 sport you tried? i had the same problem. but it didn't happen with the stainless steel, i think the weight probably helped it sit better.

I tried both the Sport and the SS with leather loop and classic buckle. I agree that the material and the watch band can make a difference. I thought the 42mm felt better on my wrist with the infinitely adjustable leather loop than it did with Sport strap (it is also important to try the different strap sizes), but the 38mm still felt slightly better to me given the same band (I kind of regret not splurging on the 38mm SS with leather loop). It was close, and honestly I probably would have been perfectly happy with the 42mm after a few days. As you know the difference in size is really subtle. I'd say the 38mm seemed slightly larger than I expected in person, and the 42mm seemed slightly smaller than I expected in person. I leaned towards the 38mm all along because I have always preferred smaller watches. Since the smaller watch looked better to me on my wrist, I'm sure that affected how I thought it felt a well.

Sean

 

[sean000]

You wouldn't think that a few millimeter would make much of a difference display wise but it does

You know I was concerned about that when I compared them in the store, because I have pretty terrible eyesight. I've been nearsighted all my life, and now my 45 year old eyes are developing some astigmatism that makes it more difficult to see things close unless I look over or under my glasses. Bifocals are in my near future. I prefer smaller watches, but I certainly did not want to get a smaller watch if the larger one was easier for me to read. The thing is that I couldn't really see much difference in readability when I compared them in the store. I thought the maps definitely looked better on the 42mm, and of course pictures are a little larger... but those aren't features I use a lot. I thought text messages and watch faces + complications were easy to read on either size for me. I don't even have Bold text or the largest text size enabled on my 38mm. Of course if you want to use the largest text size, the 42mm gives you a bit more real estate so you get to see an extra line of text for example. And that's the difference I noticed: The 42mm was a little roomier for certain types of information, but that didn't necessarily make a difference in readability for me. To me it seemed like the 42mm probably made a bigger difference for someone with larger fingers than for someone with poor eyesight. Targets will be easier to tap with the extra room. My fingers are not that large, so I rarely encounter a problem missing a target when I tap.

I think when it comes to eyesight, you have to keep in mind that either size is going to present some challenges compared to reading information on an iPhone (I have the text size jacked up on my iPhone). The 42mm might be bigger than the 38mm, but it's still a tiny screen. Fortunately there are some features that can help readability: Bold text, text size, enabling the double-tap zoom. It also helps that these tiny displays are also excellent displays. Everything is very crisp. Even though I use a really large text size on my iPhone, I find that I prefer a text size right in the middle on my 38mm watch. That allows me to easily read it through my glasses with my watch 10 to 15 inches from my face. I expect it will look even batter after I get my bifocals

Sean

 

[sean000]

Hi Guys,

Appreciate the feedback and opinions, how do you get on with the different bands, I'm getting the black sports band to start with then possibly looking to get either the milensse loop and / or the space grey link bracelet.

Thanks

Try on different bands and different size bands in the store since this can impact how the different sizes feel. I bought a sport band and then added a couple of third party bands: A leather loop knockoff and a brown leather strap with a buckle.

Sean

 

[nicho]

42 for the battery and larger screen which will surprisingly make a difference in your interactions imo

The battery will easily last wake til sleep on the 38, so I really think people should stop claiming its some kind of super awesome benefit on the 42...

Similarly, perhaps I'm helped by perfect eyesight and having the smallest text size but unless op is receiving text messages exactly 2 words or so longer than the length of what fits on the 38, then what benefit is there to the 42?

If the iPhone 7 Plus came with a chocolate teapot and the 7 didn't, would everyone parrot that as being a distinguishing feature that made it superior?

It really is how it looks and more importantly feels on the wrist that's important. Those couple of millimetres really do make a difference on some people. There's plenty of pictures you see posted and anyone's first reaction would be "dude, that's way too big for you it completely hides your wrist" but if that person says it doesn't feel too big and they like it who is everyone else to argue? I think for anyone for whom a 42mm looks too big, so would almost any commercially available watch, given the fashion trend for oversize and generally larger watches in recent years.

 

[Ecoh]

Either size looks good on your wrist. So I think it just comes down to what you personally like.

I have a few sport bands and the milanese. They are both very comfortable, and the watch fits the same with both types. The milanese is a bet dressier. For me, the sport bands are better for everyday wear because the clean up easily.

 

[2010lexus]

Hi Guys,

I am near the point of ordering the SS apple watch, but just want to ask for opinions of which watch looks best on my wrists.They are 180mm.

First is 42, and the second is 38.

Appreciate opinions.

Thanks
Lloyd

View attachment 598146 View attachment 598148

I say 38

 

[nicho]

The only "problem" you might face with the 38 Milanese loop is it doesn't open as far as the 42, obviously, so it depends on your hand size for slipping it onto your wrist. I never have trouble, but you should try it. I actually like that it doesn't go on too easily, because even if I catch the magnet on something it's going nowhere. It also means less of the loop doubles back and the "catch" will be on the inside of your wrist not the outside with the 42 but again I like this because I find it easier to adjust when it's close to me.

 

[ayasinsk]

interesting, was it the 42 sport you tried? i had the same problem. but it didn't happen with the stainless steel, i think the weight probably helped it sit better.



battery life is going to be bad the first few days while it beds in, regardless of size. are you running OS2.0.1? using the heart rate monitor for a solid hour will have used a lot of your battery life, but if you utilise the rest of that 27%, thats still over 20 hours - that's not exacty terrible.

I'm running latest software. This morning I did turn off wrist detection option and also set my watch to grayscale mode to save some battery. Also did 50 min exercising with heart rate turned on (heart rate monitoring off rest of the day). I've received some texts and maybe 20 emails. 14 hours later I'm at 48% which is definitely better than 27%. Running my watch in grayscale mode is definitely depressing though. I switched back to color. I know I can turn off animation to save some battery but I really like animation effect. I'll see how tomorrow goes with wrist detection off.

 

[warburg]

42–44 mm. are standard sizes for a man's watch.

 

[nicho]

42–44 mm. are standard sizes for a man's watch.

The acceptable range for most male wrists is 36 to 40 millimeters, and there’s no excuse for buying larger unless you’re a sumo wrestler. - http://www.askmen.com/fashion/mens-watches/watch-size.html

i'm not saying you're wrong - it definitely is the standard size when you look at mainstream watches that are currently available - but there are definitely some people who strongly disagree this should be called the "standard" size. Even bloggers who are pro bigger watches, seem to acknowledge that they are oversized in this range (they simply have a preference for that look) - http://mensfashion.about.com/od/shoesbeltsandmore/a/menswatches.htm

 

[Theophil1971]

Hi Guys,

I am near the point of ordering the SS apple watch, but just want to ask for opinions of which watch looks best on my wrists.They are 180mm.

First is 42, and the second is 38.

Appreciate opinions.

Thanks
Lloyd

View attachment 598146 View attachment 598148

I say 42, no question. If it's not overlapping your wrist (which it isn't) then it's not too big. The 38 looks too small on your wrist.

 

[maflynn]

The battery will easily last wake til sleep on the 38, so I really think people should stop claiming its some kind of super awesome benefit on the 42...

From my research the battery on the 42mm is better. I've seen people complain about the 38mm not lasting as long and given the meager battery life of the watch in general (compared to other smart watches that last a lot longer) I think its a nice benefit of the 42mm In other words I don't feel the need to stop saying that imo the 42mm has better battery life

 

[nicho]

From my research the battery on the 42mm is better. I've seen people complain about the 38mm not lasting as long and given the meager battery life of the watch in general (compared to other smart watches that last a lot longer) I think its a nice benefit of the 42mm In other words I don't feel the need to stop saying that imo the 42mm has better battery life

apologies, i read your IMO to belong to the interactions and thought you were presenting the 42mm's battery being better as fact.

there's no doubt it lasts longer, but enough to matter? IMO no - you'll charge the 38 every night, but what are you gonna do if at midday the next day your 42mm is running low, charge it at work with the proprietary cable left on your nightstand? like i say, i really don't think it matters until we start to see apple watch approaching pebble territory on battery life.

 

[Night Spring]

apologies, i read your IMO to belong to the interactions and thought you were presenting the 42mm's battery being better as fact.

there's no doubt it lasts longer, but enough to matter? IMO no - you'll charge the 38 every night, but what are you gonna do if at midday the next day your 42mm is running low, charge it at work with the proprietary cable left on your nightstand? like i say, i really don't think it matters until we start to see apple watch approaching pebble territory on battery life.

Totally agree with this. Yes, the 42 has longer battery life, but in practice, you still have to charge it every night, the same with the 38. Unless you want to run a marathon with your watch, the difference in battery life doesn't matter.

 

[sean000]

I say 42, no question. If it's not overlapping your wrist (which it isn't) then it's not too big. The 38 looks too small on your wrist.

I bought the 38mm for my 170mm wrist precisely because I did not want a watch overlapping my wrist too much (if by overlapping you mean that the watch pretty much spans the width of your wrist). I prefer the classic look of a smaller watch centered on the wrist so you can see some strap when looking straight down at the watch face. That said the size difference was really subtle and I thought the 42mm looked fine on my wrist as well. I would not want to go any larger than that for myself though.

The New York Times ran an articles a few years ago about the increasing size of men's watches:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/fashion/mens-watches-keep-getting-bigger.html?_r=0

It seems that big watches trend in and out of fashion, while average size watches (34-40mm... okay maybe even 42mm) are considered the norm. As the article mentions though, the more recent trend towards bigger was kind of driven by sports watches with lots of features, waterproofing and shock resistance... while the WWII trend towards bigger was to help aviators ready their watches more easily: Both cases of form following function. You could say the same about smart watches. There is a functional reason to have a bigger smartwatch... especially if you have big fingers. For me the 42mm did not seem to have a functional advantage when I compared them in the store, because my fingers are not that big. I also found readability to be about the same, although the larger display of the 42mm can display another line or two of text without scrolling for a given text size.

Sean

 

[sheldomacrumors]

42mm definitely.

 

[telefono]

My wrist is 170 mm and I have the 42mm, its the perfect size. Go with the 42mm watch

 

[ftlum]

If the cut out is what an actual watch will look like, then the 42 looks fine. The main thing I see on forum posts are people who went too big. You can't see much of the strap when looking down at the wrist-- just the watch face itself, and this looks really bad, IMO. It's important to test the sizes out in the store, though. You really can't tell, otherwise.