Any men pre-order a 38mm and then tried it on and are sticking with 38mm?

[virginblue4]

Yes, after trying it on, I'm really happy with my choice! I ordered a 38mm stainless steel with white sport band and also a Milanese loop.

See photos below of my try on experience. The four photos are all the 38mm model.

 

[jbachandouris]

I tried both on, went and walked around, and came back and tried them on again.

It is very strange to me the way reception works. The pictures CLEARLY show that the 42mm is way TOO big for my 155mm wrist, but when I wore it in the store, both times, it seemed like a better fit. Maybe the 3am pre-order messed with my vision...

Anyway, I ordered a 42mm to be delivered in June.
The 38mm is set for May 13-27.
Both are Space Gray Aluminum Sport.

I'm not sure I can wait until June, so I may keep the 38mm. No way am I canceling a pre-order.

 

[bchreng]

As he stated earlier his wrist is approximately 160mm. I'm sorry but most of these people posting pics of the 42 should be getting 38's. The 42's look comical in many of the pics on these forums.

The point of a watch isn't for it to cover the entire surface of your arm. When it doss that it looks silly and quite goofy.

I was thinking the same thing. My wrists are larger than I thought however. Does the 42mm look overly large on mine?

 

[n8c]

I also just had a try-on appointment and am sticking with the 38mm.

It is true that the 38mm looked smaller than I expected. Both watches were also chunkier/thicker than I expected. On my wrist (165mm; width is the width of a credit card, whatever that is), the 42mm felt like a behemoth—I felt like it would truly get in the way of things during the day. The 38mm just felt more proportional, which I think is what a lot of folks who say "the 42mm looked just fine" are missing. "Fine" might mean that the 42mm is not spilling over the edges of your wrist, but that doesn't mean that it looks proportional or in any way sensible.

Here are pics of the milanese on my wrist. Top is 38mm, bottom is 42mm.

 

[SHKLMRE]

I tried on both a 38 and a 42mm watch today... The funny thing is that I thought both watches were small on my 60mm wide, 187mm circum. wrist. In my eyes, both watches actually looked alright on my wrist. For the 38 to be as small as it is, I think it's amazing as it still an apple watch that's smaller than a lot of other wrist watches out there.

 

[spytech]

I also just had a try-on appointment and am sticking with the 38mm.



It is true that the 38mm looked smaller than I expected. Both watches were also chunkier/thicker than I expected. On my wrist (165mm; width is the width of a credit card, whatever that is), the 42mm felt like a behemoth—I felt like it would truly get in the way of things during the day. The 38mm just felt more proportional, which I think is what a lot of folks who say "the 42mm looked just fine" are missing. "Fine" might mean that the 42mm is not spilling over the edges of your wrist, but that doesn't mean that it looks proportional or in any way sensible.



Here are pics of the milanese on my wrist. Top is 38mm, bottom is 42mm.



Image

Image

Well, seems we've got pretty much the same measurements. I think both look good on you... But I do prefer the 42mm. It doesn't go "out" of your wrist, or so it seems, am I right?

 

[mattopotamus]

I also just had a try-on appointment and am sticking with the 38mm.

It is true that the 38mm looked smaller than I expected. Both watches were also chunkier/thicker than I expected. On my wrist (165mm; width is the width of a credit card, whatever that is), the 42mm felt like a behemoth—I felt like it would truly get in the way of things during the day. The 38mm just felt more proportional, which I think is what a lot of folks who say "the 42mm looked just fine" are missing. "Fine" might mean that the 42mm is not spilling over the edges of your wrist, but that doesn't mean that it looks proportional or in any way sensible.

Here are pics of the milanese on my wrist. Top is 38mm, bottom is 42mm.

Image
Image

Both looks fine, but I agree the 38 looks more proportional. I'm going back in the morning again haha. I'm in a similar boat. The 42 looks just fine, but the 38 has better proportions. Wearing a pebble for a few years has jacked my prospective. I'm also 165

 

[jaykk]

This is my experience trying out in person.

38mm is a more elegant fit for my 177mm(but narrow), but i felt 42 mm is perfect for my hand/palm/wrist. it is not just the wrist, it should just feel for the entire hand.

I think most men can pull off a 42mm, not vice versa. That is, 38mm may feel a bit small for most men.

 

[melman101]

Ok I'm back from my try out appointment. And yes, what people are saying is true. The 42mm is a lot smaller then it appears to be. It also felt a lot more comfortable on my tiny wrist. Seriously. I'm not sure why. In the pictures, it does look way to big for me, but it felt right. In a weird way. Also, not being sexist or what not, but my wife remarked that the 38mm looked like a girls watch on my wrist. That is not to say anyone getting a 38mm is getting a girls watch. It's just the view expressed by my significant other to me about that particular watch on me.

I only took pictures of the 42mm because I forgot to take pictures and had to re-go back and have her put the 42mm back on so I can take the pictures. I liked it a lot. I can definitely rock the 42mm.

Which means I canceled my launch day 38mm Milanese loop, and am sticking with my May 13th - May 27th 42mm Milanese loop.

 

[slicecom]

Has everyone gone mad!? I just got back from trying on the 38mm and 42mm. I ordered both, but was pretty sure I'd go with the 38mm and trying them on, quickly confirmed it. I have a 180mm wrist and its 60mm wide. The 38mm fits so much nicer and looks more like a watch than a hulking gadget. They both looked exactly like my mockups, and wasn't surprised at all when seeing them in person.

 

[n8c]

Well, seems we've got pretty much the same measurements. I think both look good on you... But I do prefer the 42mm. It doesn't go "out" of your wrist, or so it seems, am I right?

Nope it fit within my wrist. But keep in mind that the watch is fairly thick, which the pictures do not show and which significantly affects worn perception.

 

[nutmac]

My wrist is barely classified as medium size, measured at 165mm or 57mm across left to right edges. That leaves about 0.3-inch margin for 42mm and 0.37-inch margin for 38mm.

Trying both at the Apple Store this morning, I cancelled the order for 38mm and kept 42mm. While 42mm is noticeably bigger, it felt right and I like bigger target areas for launching apps, as well as for slightly larger battery capacity.

 

[mattopotamus]

Has everyone gone mad!? I just got back from trying on the 38mm and 42mm. I ordered both, but was pretty sure I'd go with the 38mm and trying them on, quickly confirmed it. I have a 180mm wrist and its 60mm wide. The 38mm fits so much nicer and looks more like a watch than a hulking gadget. They both looked exactly like my mockups, and wasn't surprised at all when seeing them in person.

Image

Image

I think it has a lot to do with screen size. Everyone looks at it a lot different than a traditional watch. It seems like edge to edge is the look people want with a smartwatch.

 

[slicecom]

I think it has a lot to do with screen size. Everyone looks at it a lot different than a traditional watch. It seems like edge to edge is the look people want with a smartwatch.

Makes sense if that's what you're after. Personally I don't want it to stand out. I think all smartwatches to date look big and dorky. I'm glad Apple was able to make one that is sized more like a traditional watch.

The thing is, everyone was going on about how it looks so much smaller in person, but in my opinion it doesn't at all.

 

[melman101]

Has everyone gone mad!? I just got back from trying on the 38mm and 42mm. I ordered both, but was pretty sure I'd go with the 38mm and trying them on, quickly confirmed it. I have a 180mm wrist and its 60mm wide. The 38mm fits so much nicer and looks more like a watch than a hulking gadget. They both looked exactly like my mockups, and wasn't surprised at all when seeing them in person.

Image

Image

It's funny, after trying them on, my perception has completely changed on it.

I think the 42mm looks WAY better on you now. I think the 38mm looks too small. It's so weird. Before my appointment I would have said the opposite.

The human brain is a funny thing.

 

[mattopotamus]

Makes sense if that's what you're after. Personally I don't want it to stand out. I think all smartwatches to date look big and dorky. I'm glad Apple was able to make one that is sized more like a traditional watch.

The thing is, everyone was going on about how it looks so much smaller in person, but in my opinion it doesn't at all.

I like my watches to be small. I always have. For some reason I think the Apple watch looks good being slightly larger. Obviously some pictures are ridiculous with the watch being wider than the persons hand, but the ones where it is close to edge to edge still look good.

For example n8c could do either.

The 42 on bchreng looks good too. Both are on this page.

I bet both work on your wrist too.

I have both sizes coming and it may take me the full 14 days to decide. I agree about the "it looks like a smartwatch" comment. I use to hate that, but wearing one for nearly 2 years had made me so use to it.

 

[slicecom]

Here's the 38mm SS Link. My favourite one, but way too much for me to spend on a 1st gen product:

Again, 180mm wrist, 60mm wide.

 

[mattopotamus]

Here's the 38mm SS Link. My favourite one, but way too much for me to spend on a 1st gen product:

Image

Image

Again, 180mm wrist, 60mm wide.

I think that looks damn good. Back to the debate haha. I think the larger size only looks good with rubber bands. Once you get into leather, Milanese, and steel I like the smaller look. I think the bands fit more snug, like they should.

 

[spytech]

Any men pre-order a 38mm and then tried it on and are sticking with 38mm?

Nope it fit within my wrist. But keep in mind that the watch is fairly thick, which the pictures do not show and which significantly affects worn perception.

I see, thank you you didn't try a sports bracelet?

 

[slicecom]

I think that looks damn good. Back to the debate haha. I think the larger size only looks good with rubber bands. Once you get into leather, Milanese, and steel I like the smaller look. I think the bands fit more snug, like they should.

Yeah, the bands with lugs really add to the height of the watch.

 

[Fester1952]

Again, 180mm wrist, 60mm wide.

Same measurement as me. The 38mm looks good on you, you have now
convinced me to stick with the 38mm.
I have had a Seiko wrist watch for many years and it is much smaller than the 38.

 

[betabeta]

I also just had a try-on appointment and am sticking with the 38mm.

It is true that the 38mm looked smaller than I expected. Both watches were also chunkier/thicker than I expected. On my wrist (165mm; width is the width of a credit card, whatever that is), the 42mm felt like a behemoth—I felt like it would truly get in the way of things during the day. The 38mm just felt more proportional, which I think is what a lot of folks who say "the 42mm looked just fine" are missing. "Fine" might mean that the 42mm is not spilling over the edges of your wrist, but that doesn't mean that it looks proportional or in any way sensible.

Here are pics of the milanese on my wrist. Top is 38mm, bottom is 42mm.

Image
Image

I have exactly the same size wrist, about 2" (credit card width is perfect example) the 42 is just not right for those with 2" wrists or smaller, forget the circumference it's your wrists height.

The 38 looks and the bands lay much better in my opinion.

Your pictures show this perfect, you really lose nothing as far as the screen, both display all the same info.

 

[rorschach]

I ordered the 38mm and I'm sticking with it. The 42mm was a lot more reasonably sized in person than photos make it seem, but ultimately I decided against it. I'm not going to be spending great lengths of time staring at the screen or actually interacting with it — more like a few seconds at a time, at most, so the slightly larger screen didn't interest me.

 

[Uccle]

I also just had a try-on appointment and am sticking with the 38mm.

It is true that the 38mm looked smaller than I expected. Both watches were also chunkier/thicker than I expected. On my wrist (165mm; width is the width of a credit card, whatever that is), the 42mm felt like a behemoth—I felt like it would truly get in the way of things during the day. The 38mm just felt more proportional, which I think is what a lot of folks who say "the 42mm looked just fine" are missing. "Fine" might mean that the 42mm is not spilling over the edges of your wrist, but that doesn't mean that it looks proportional or in any way sensible.

Here are pics of the milanese on my wrist. Top is 38mm, bottom is 42mm.

Thank you for posting this! My wrists are also 165mm and I've been driving myself crazy. I mainly wear sports/casual watches (think basis band) that are chunky and fun.

But for a dress watch I'd want something more unobtrusive. And this watch would have to serve both sports and dress purposes since I'm not buying two

This helps me feel comfortable with my 38mm pre-order.

 

[spytech]

Damn, all you 165's are driving me nuts haha. I think I'm just going to say "screw it all" and bet on 42mm. If 38 is too small I wouldn't be able to live with that I think. if 42mm is too big I'll simply adapt...
I think 42 looks good on 165mm. I was afraid it went "over" the wrist but since that doesn't seem to be the case...