Any guys regret buying the smaller case?

[Bob190]

I have both a 38mm Series 2, and a 42mm Series 2 Nike Edition. Frankly, on your wrist, the 42mm really doesn't look that much bigger and I have a fairly small wrist (6.5"). If I had to have only one, it would be the 42mm for all the reasons stated in the thread (larger battery, easier to read screen, etc.). I rarely wear the 38mm.

Here's a comparison on my wrist.

 

[chilman]

I have both a 38mm Series 2, and a 42mm Series 2 Nike Edition. Frankly, on your wrist, the 42mm really doesn't look that much bigger and I have a fairly small wrist (6.5"). If I had to have only one, it would be the 42mm for all the reasons stated in the thread (larger battery, easier to read screen, etc.). I rarely wear the 38mm.

Here's a comparison on my wrist.

View attachment 702772 View attachment 702773

Thanks Bob, your pics does clarify my mind. My opinion the 42 looks better on your wrist. I may take the 42 as well, my wrist is abt the same size like yours. Tq

 

[SoN1NjA]

I actually regret purchasing the bigger case
comparing my 38mm SST and my 42mm Sport (which I bought first) I regret getting the 42mm, it's big and ugly just like the 7 Plus

 

[sean000]

Thanks Bob, your pics does clarify my mind. My opinion the 42 looks better on your wrist. I may take the 42 as well, my wrist is abt the same size like yours. Tq

I was going to say I thought the 38mm looked better on him

Just goes to show how subjective it all is. I've never been a fan of large watches that take up much of the wrist width, but I know that's counter to trends in watches in general. Conventional watch cases have been getting larger for many years now. The Apple Watch is the first watch I've worn since the 1990's, and back then I'd say larger men's watches were were just starting to become a fashion trend. That said, the 42mm AW still isn't that big. I've seen threads on here proposing an even larger Apple Watch model. Another "just my opinion" is that I think the black/gray cases make the watches look a little bit bigger or heavier than the other cases where the bezel contrasts more with the watch face. Some people like that about the darker cases though, and depending on the band pairing I sometimes like it too.

In the comparison shots posted by Bob190 the camera is closer to his wrist in the 42mm shot. That makes the 42mm look a little bigger than it actually is. The real telling statement here is that Bob190 has both and wears the 42mm most of the time. Over the last two years I've seen a number of posts from people who owned both sizes, and most of the time it seems like they end up preferring the 42mm. There are exceptions though, and some people think the 38mm is just more comfortable and/or better looking on them.

If you have large wrists I think it's an easy call for the 42mm. If you have average wrists (or small wrists but prefer big watches) then it really is a tough decision because the sizes are so close.

Sean
[doublepost=1496849313][/doublepost]

I actually regret purchasing the bigger case
comparing my 38mm SST and my 42mm Sport (which I bought first) I regret getting the 42mm, it's big and ugly just like the 7 Plus

Funny you should mention the 7 Plus. I bought an iPhone 6 not long before I bought a 38mm Apple Watch Sport a couple of years ago. At the time I thought the 6 Plus was way too big for a device I carry everywhere (I have an iPad when I want to do extensive reading or other work in iOS). Something I noticed soon after buying the Apple Watch is that I use my iPhone less frequently than I used to. Instead of carrying it in a pocket, my iPhone 6 is usually in my bag or in the charger/speaker dock. Quick interactions like checking the weather, a text message, calendar, etc. are all done from the watch. If I decide to take a call and my iPhone isn't handy, I just answer it on the watch until I can get to my phone. That's made me think that I might as well get the 7 Plus (or 8 Plus) for my next iPhone... because when I do use it the larger display and better camera would be nice.

My only concern is that I might be more likely to drop the Plus model while trying to operate it with one hand.

 

[44267547]

I actually regret purchasing the bigger case
comparing my 38mm SST and my 42mm Sport (which I bought first) I regret getting the 42mm, it's big and ugly just like the 7 Plus

42 mm might seem large to you and in some cases it could be. But in comparison to the other smart watches with Garmin, Android and even Mont Blancs new smart watch on the market, the 42 mm Apple Watch doesn't even fair in comparison to their sizes.

 

[Bob190]

I was going to say I thought the 38mm looked better on him.

I somewhat agree from a pure aesthetics perspective, but its no contest for me otherwise. I use my watch mainly for workouts (running, cycling, swimming), so the extra battery life, and larger screen make it no contest in favor of the 42mm.

I think for a non-smart watch, a watch closer to the size of the 38mm would be more appropriate for someone my size (5'7" and 145lbs), but when you have a watch that displays a lot more than just the time, the extra screen real estate is very welcome.

Also, as others have mentioned, even the 42mm is smaller than most other workout focused offerings from companies like Garmin. I had a Forerunner 225, and then a Forerunner 235 and they made the 42mm AW look small by comparison. I toyed with the idea of getting a Garmin Fenix 5S, but decided against it .. it is the smallest of the Fenix 5 series, but still much bigger than the 42mm Apple Watch.

 

[sean000]

I somewhat agree from a pure aesthetics perspective, but its no contest for me otherwise. I use my watch mainly for workouts (running, cycling, swimming), so the extra battery life, and larger screen make it no contest in favor of the 42mm.

I think for a non-smart watch, a watch closer to the size of the 38mm would be more appropriate for someone my size (5'7" and 145lbs), but when you have a watch that displays a lot more than just the time, the extra screen real estate is very welcome.

Also, as others have mentioned, even the 42mm is smaller than most other workout focused offerings from companies like Garmin. I had a Forerunner 225, and then a Forerunner 235 and they made the 42mm AW look small by comparison. I toyed with the idea of getting a Garmin Fenix 5S, but decided against it .. it is the smallest of the Fenix 5 series, but still much bigger than the 42mm Apple Watch.

Yeah... the 42mm is quite svelte compared to many of the other smartwatches on the market. One of my coworkers has a large Garmin that he often just carries with him (rather than wear it) when he isn't running or cycling. I will say that some small complications are a bit hard to see on the 38mm (some faces are worse than others). I'm sure they are a bit better on the 42mm. The small complications are probably the only thing about my 38mm that makes me think I will try on the 42mm again before I buy my next Apple Watch.

I have no trouble with my 38mm lasting the day when I record a 2 hour cycling workout, but longer than that is going to cut things close. I wish I had time for longer rides these days, but I'm usually lucky to get an hour in

Sean

 

[dmaxdmax]

I have both a 38mm Series 2, and a 42mm Series 2 Nike Edition. Frankly, on your wrist, the 42mm really doesn't look that much bigger and I have a fairly small wrist (6.5"). If I had to have only one, it would be the 42mm for all the reasons stated in the thread (larger battery, easier to read screen, etc.). I rarely wear the 38mm.

Here's a comparison on my wrist.

View attachment 702772 View attachment 702773

Thanks. I think the 38mm looks like a watch and the 42mm looks like a device (or something).

I had the 6s plus and traded it for a 6 after 48 hours. It felt like a mini tablet and I wanted a phone. Now I have a 7 and the only think I wish for is the 7 plus camera.

 

[0003462]

I'm so torn on this. I have skinny wrists. I bought a 38mm Sport a year ago because the 42mm, from the perspective of looking down at it, feels like a slab. However, when I catch myself in a mirror, my 38mm looks small.

Each time I go to try on a 42mm it feels too big but I can't tell if I'm just used to the 38mm now. I believe much of the 'slab' feeling is to do with the thickness rather than the face size.

Bob190's photos are really useful. On him, each looks good and the different sizes look like different devices - one looks like a watch, the other looks like a fitness/GPS device.

A happy conclusion from this though: my life must be pretty cushy if this is what concerns me.

 

[dmaxdmax]

I'm so torn on this...my life must be pretty cushy if this is what concerns me.

A great example of a first world problem.

 

[democracyrules]

I switched from a 42mm to a 38mm and wouldn't go back. The 38mm looks better on my wrist and the 42mm felt like a bit of a slab.

Agree with the above comment.
[doublepost=1497534095][/doublepost]

I don't think the 42 mm watch is to large per se. But ultimately, I think it's dependent on the size of the wrist that makes it comfortable and overall it's appearance for someone.

Agree with the above comment.

 

[5105973]

I'm a little 5'2"-ish female. I was wearing thick Samsung watches for so many months that it took awhile to get used to the 38 mm Apple Watch again. I was almost going to get a Gear S3 Frontier because I liked my husband's Frontier features so much! That would have looked like a truck tire on my little wrist! But I wouldn't have cared about that as long as I got what I wanted in terms of function. Some women's fashion watches are gigantic after all. However comfort would have been a problem.

So sanity prevailed and I got the 38 mm Nike Sport instead. It's so nice. A friend got the same size and model as my Nike and it looks fine on a guy. He wanted the lightest most barely there feel in a watch since he's not used to wearing watches at all. He is very happy with his choice.

 

[petsk]

38mm is perfect for me and I wouldn't change it to a 42mm.

 

[44267547]

38mm is perfect for me and I wouldn't change it to a 42mm.

Your avatar shows off the link bracelet nicely paired with the stainless model.

 

[WingNut33]

I started off with the 42mm for a few days and thought it looked a little big. I took it back and exchanged it for a 38mm. That one lasted 24 hours. It just looked too small and like a toy.

I have smaller wrists for a guy, but I still think the 42 looks better. You would have to have very thin wrists for the 42 to look too big.

 

[weigojmi]

I'm so torn on this. I have skinny wrists. I bought a 38mm Sport a year ago because the 42mm, from the perspective of looking down at it, feels like a slab. However, when I catch myself in a mirror, my 38mm looks small.

Each time I go to try on a 42mm it feels too big but I can't tell if I'm just used to the 38mm now. I believe much of the 'slab' feeling is to do with the thickness rather than the face size.

Bob190's photos are really useful. On him, each looks good and the different sizes look like different devices - one looks like a watch, the other looks like a fitness/GPS device.

A happy conclusion from this though: my life must be pretty cushy if this is what concerns me.

It can't be the thickness because both sizes are the same (series 1 anyway). I actually bought a 38mm and returned it for the 42mm the same day. The 38mm looked like a toy on my below average 6.5" wrists. The 42mm really doesn't wear too much bigger and has all the benefits already mentioned here.

 

[44267547]

I started off with the 42mm for a few days and thought it looked a little big. I took it back and exchanged it for a 38mm. That one lasted 24 hours. It just looked too small and like a toy.

I have smaller wrists for a guy, but I still think the 42 looks better. You would have to have very thin wrists for the 42 to look too big.

I think it really comes down to wrist size when it comes to choosing the casing. Smaller wrists likely would suit better for the 38 MM, where if you have larger wrists, the 42 MM would seem logical. Unless someone really wants the 38 MM just for the sake of having a smaller casing no Matter what the wrist size.

 

[CarlJ]

Ironic that the Apple Watch is the only product Apple makes where the majority of the customers would likely very much appreciate it being thinner, yet it's the only product Apple makes that isn't getting thinner every year.

Yeah, I know, needs room for battery. But where I'd be quite happy if the iPhone/iPad/Mac all were as thick as they were 5 years ago, I'd jump for joy if the Apple Watch were half its current thickness. It works fine as is, but thinner would be nice. It's also the only direction I can see them going in some future redesign, as I don't see them stepping away from the rounded rectangle layout, and I think the 38/42mm size points were likely carefully chosen.

More on-topic, it's funny sometimes to watch people (decidedly not in this thread) debate the two sizes and whether each one is too small/large, without stating up-front their wrist size in millimeters (common in the watch field, and 5mm increments are more precise than half-inch increments, and can be used directly with Apple's band sizes which are given in millimeters).

My wrist is about 185mm, and I find the 42mm watch just about perfectly sized (aside from wanting it to be 6-8mm thick). Meaning, the display is nice and large, but it doesn't overflow my wrist, so when looking at it head-on, the straps curve pleasingly out and around my wrist, rather than dropping straight down to the underside (as I see on many giant analog watches out on the web). I wouldn't watch the watch to be noticeably larger, or I'd run into precisely that problem (dinner-plate-itis).

FWIW, the picture below shows my 42mm series 0 Space Gray Sport next to (and underneath) my much-beloved 36mm Marathon "Search & Rescue Diver’s Quartz Medium" (note this is much smaller than your normal 40-45mm divers/military watch). I think they actually compare favorably in size.

 

[weigojmi]

The big difference there is the AW has no lugs which helps it look smaller on the wrist. The curvature you speak of is essentially the "lug effect" of the AW but since they're set back from the bezel it doesn't affect the size much. Lug to lug length is very important when considering a watch purchase whether it be traditional or smart. I think the thickness is perfect for this watch. 6-8mm is incredibly thin in regards to a traditional watch so I think the 42mm AW keeps everything in proportion well.

 

[CarlJ]

6-8mm is incredibly thin in regards to a traditional watch so I think the 42mm AW keeps everything in proportion well.

Understood, but I don't want the Apple Watch to merely match the notions of traditional watches. I want a tiny smart screen on my wrist that supplies me with situationally useful and relevant information. I've got a 6mm thick Mondaine Swiss Railway watch that's one of the prettiest and most elegant watches I've ever seen, and is extraordinarily comfortable as well. I'd like to see the Apple Watch eventually at 8mm or less.

I know they can't do it now because of everything it takes to make the watch function (circuitry, sensors, speaker, mic, screen, battery), but aside from those current physical constraints, there's no useful reason for the watch to be as thick as it is (i.e. a 7mm thick watch is much less likely to get subjected to accidental bending than a 7mm thick iPhone).