Another "38mm or 42mm" Thread

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by lupend88, Mar 30, 2015.

?

38mm or 42mm?

  1. 38mm

    15 vote(s)
    20.3%
  2. 42mm

    59 vote(s)
    79.7%
  1. lupend88 macrumors 6502

    lupend88

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    #1
    We'll keep this poll simple, which one looks better on me? 38mm in the first pic and 42mm in the second pic. My wrists are 180mm by the way. Thanks for your input!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Wallabe, Mar 30, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015

    Wallabe macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    #2
    Based on the two pictures, you should be ok with either one or the other, assuming both the printouts are accurate in their sizes. The 42mm doesn't take up your whole wrist.

    But if you want the best, more proportional one, it seems to be the 38mm. My wrist is 175mm, and I am getting the 38mm. I'm a guy, if that really matters.
     
  3. Fester1952 macrumors member

    Fester1952

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #3
    I think the 38mm looks better. That is what I will be getting, I hate these oversized watches you see on people now, to me is seems that functionality has been taken over by pose value.
     
  4. GrimmsGirl macrumors 6502

    GrimmsGirl

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2013
    #4
    My vote for you is the 42mm. I'm a woman and I'll be getting the 38mm if that matters. I think the 42mm is right on the verge of almost being too big but it still fits your wrist. The 38mm looks just a tad too small.

    My humble (and possibly very odd) opinion is that a woman can wear a watch that is "too small", a man should not.

    *and now all you watch collectors who know the rules of what fits and what doesn't can start throwing things at me*
     
  5. Lobwedgephil macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2012
  6. DanTSX macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    #6
    They both look large and goofy.

    Get the 42mm.

    This watch serves one of two purposes....1. Utility of using the apps. And 2. Fashion / lifestyle statement.

    In both instances, the 42mm will serve virtually every user better.
     
  7. Vundu macrumors 65816

    Vundu

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
  8. papa8706 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
  9. lupend88 thread starter macrumors 6502

    lupend88

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    #9
    Wait, if they both look large in your opinion, why are you suggesting the larger one?
     
  10. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    He stated why:
     
  11. jmbrown91 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Location:
    Northampton, UK
    #11
    Sorry to kind of go slightly off topic, I don't suppose you could supply the link as to where you got the prints for the different size watches could you?

    Also, I think the 38mm looks more suitable for you, however they do both work.
     
  12. mattopotamus macrumors G5

    mattopotamus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #12
    I like the way the 38mm looks on you. It is sleek and does not scream smart watch.

    To those that say: 1. function, 2. fashion. That is all subjective. Many will say fashion is most important, even if it is a smart watch.

    You also have to account for the depth, which the printout cannot account for. That will make it look larger than it really is.
     
  13. bumpylumpy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    #13
    OP, what is the circumference of your wrists?
     
  14. Haysbert macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    #14
    Sorry if I missed this but is it possible to link to where you found those templates for both sizes? Thanks!
     
  15. lupend88 thread starter macrumors 6502

    lupend88

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    #15
    180mm

    ----------

    I found it on a thread created by another awesome forum member :D

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1858835
     
  16. Haysbert macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    #16
  17. lupend88 thread starter macrumors 6502

    lupend88

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    #17
    No problem. Now if only there was a 40mm size then all my problems would be solved!
     
  18. tgi macrumors 65816

    tgi

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2012
    #18
    When compared to the 42mm, the 38mm just looks too small for your wrist. IMO, the 42mm is perfect for you.
     
  19. Wallabe macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    #19
    It's subjective then. What looks good for one person looks undersized/oversized and goofy for another.
     
  20. Haysbert macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    #20
    I'm in the same boat as you, not sure which size to get. The problem I am having is the shape. I own a couple round watches with a 44-46 mm case and they are fine but there is something about a square/rectangle watch that large that doesn't look quiet right to me. Think it's going to come down to trying them on in person and deciding then. Good luck!
     
  21. bnekic macrumors 6502a

    bnekic

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
  22. AreYouIn? macrumors 6502a

    AreYouIn?

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #22
    My wrist are 184 mm. I'm in the same boat. I would say the 42mm based on the pictures you posted. I'm leaning towards the 38 mm for myself as on my wrist size it looks more feminine.
     
  23. KauaiBruce macrumors 6502a

    KauaiBruce

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Kauai, HI
    #23
    I never even considered the smaller one. I have 195 mm wrists.
     
  24. franzkfk macrumors regular

    franzkfk

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    #24
    Most people will be fine with 42mm. The Apple Watch is a competitor to mechanical Watch under $1000. If you made your research you'll find out that most of the watches are big. 38mm will be for teenagers, women and men with really slim hands.

    I bought quartz titanium Tissot when I was 18. I was trying to find a watch with small face because my hand was too slim for bigger watch. Now everything under 40mm is a non-sense for me. And I do have 160mm-170mm wrist;)
     
  25. cambookpro macrumors 603

    cambookpro

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #25
    I'm still on the fence about 38mm vs 42mm. I thought I wanted 38mm, but I measured my wrist (185mm) and my current watch (50mm x 48mm x 13mm, 189g) and I'm starting to think that the 42mm may be better.

    That bumps up the price again though - may have to settle for the Sport this time round.
     

Share This Page