Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
42mm is a tiny watch
- Thread starter wlossw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love my Apple Watch but I also agree with the OP. It's smaller than a Panerai I was wearing.
And the people clamoring for thinner and lighter I am highly against. If anything make it thicker and have a longer battery. I'm happy with the battery life, I'm wearing it two days, but wouldn't refuse 3 or 4 days.
And the people clamoring for thinner and lighter I am highly against. If anything make it thicker and have a longer battery. I'm happy with the battery life, I'm wearing it two days, but wouldn't refuse 3 or 4 days.
+1 for either keeping this thickness or even making it a little thicker - add battery life, faster CPU and maybe 802.11AC to the next one?
You slammed the Apple Watch. That's forbidden here. You must say only nice things.
Remember the 4" iPhone was the perfect size for a phone, until it wasn't. And now people here claim the regular 6 is too small and the 6+ is the best phone.
We will be wearing 48mm Apple Watch 3's and I will remember this thread and repost in it.
In case this hasn't already been mentioned.
Rolex GMT II 40mm
Montblanc Timewalker 41-43 mm
Raymond Weil don Giovanni 38 mm
Sure the watch is probably much lighter but the size is comparable to your watches. Up until recently 38mm watches were considered big. I have an Omega Seamaster from the 70's with a 35mm case.
I believe that since Apple Watch is missing the lugs and frame around the watch it is experienced as smaller overall.
My Rolex Explorer is over 40 years old and the diameter is 36mm. They upped it to 38mm for the more recent version which looks about right. If I get the AW it wil be the 42mm one for the additional real estate for my old eyes!
It's the exact same physical size as the Pebble Steel... I'm 5'7 210 and it looks good on me. It has a larger screen than both my Pebble and my Fitbit Surge. Is it one of those oversized gaudy watches? No, but it is far from feminine in my opinion.
----------
No it's the Big Show.
There's not much point in arguing about whether it's "big" or "tiny" because it depends entirely on what you're accustomed to. But I think the OP could certainly get used to a smaller watch if he tried.
I agree with the op. I think their should have been a larger option. I'm 6 foot 3 250 lbs weight lifter, and my wrists are huge. Even g shocks look dainty on me. I was really happy when the dinner plate watches came into style because they are proportional to me. I have the 42mm on order, but plan to put a case on it, and get a thick band to add a bit of machismo.
No they won't, because having a watch that is longer in height than the width of your wrist is an awkward look.
Most people do not have big enough wrists to not be overwhelmed by watches with larger than 45mm in height.
48mm will not work visually.
The phone example does not apply here because phones are not worn on a body part.
I'm confused....or maybe it's the wine but I'm leaning towards the first part
----------
I'd buy it.......said no one ever
----------
I'd buy it.......said no one ever
https://medium.com/@flyosity/inconvenient-truths-about-the-apple-watch-11bafa44551b
Just came back to post this link...
"Most watches are round. When a manufacturer says that their watch is 42mm, its the diameter across the case of the watch. Depending on the exact type of watch, its usually 42mm all the way around. However, when Apple says that the Apple Watch is 42mm, theyre measuring it from top-to-bottom. From side-to-side its only 35.9mm wide which is tiny in the world of mens watches and actually closer to a womans watch size. "
Just came back to post this link...
"Most watches are round. When a manufacturer says that their watch is 42mm, its the diameter across the case of the watch. Depending on the exact type of watch, its usually 42mm all the way around. However, when Apple says that the Apple Watch is 42mm, theyre measuring it from top-to-bottom. From side-to-side its only 35.9mm wide which is tiny in the world of mens watches and actually closer to a womans watch size. "
That link had already been discussed a while ago, and largely dismissed as click-bait.
If history is anything to go by then Apple will keep the watch at a reasonable size for some seven generations and then bring out one so large that you'll pull your iPhone out of your pocket to glance at notifications, just to avoid having to raise your wrist
hmm. i'm a guy and i love the classic buckle. it's available in 42mm though. are you sure you're not thinking of the modern buckle?
Yes. As someone else pointed out. I meant modern. The magnetic one. That's only available for the 38mm.
I think a lot of watch people are used to the size of their watch faces, and that is what makes the apple watch seem small. My Carrera (39mm) paired with the watch makes the Apple watch face seem tiny.
Plus traditional watches are measured by the width, not he height. The 42mm of the Apple watch is really only 35.9mm
Plus traditional watches are measured by the width, not he height. The 42mm of the Apple watch is really only 35.9mm