Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Are any of the reviews using the 38mm version?

melman101 said:
Wrong. Lance used a 42mm. I asked him specifically on Twitter.

However, the NYTimes guy definitely used the 38mm. Also talked about on Twitter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/t...ss-but-only-after-a-steep-learning-curve.html
Click to expand...

He stated that he used the 42mm in the article.

There is a correction that was posted to the article today, which said:

"Correction: April 8, 2015
An earlier version of this article described incorrectly the size of the Apple Watch tested by the author. It was the 42-millimeter version, not the 38-millimeter version."

I wonder if there are any 38mm reviews out there currently to see.
 
NickY91 said:
He stated that he used the 42mm in the article.

There is a correction that was posted to the article today, which said:

"Correction: April 8, 2015
An earlier version of this article described incorrectly the size of the Apple Watch tested by the author. It was the 42-millimeter version, not the 38-millimeter version."

I wonder if there are any 38mm reviews out there currently to see.
Click to expand...

Again, the nytimes guy used the 38mm
 
melman101 said:
Again, the nytimes guy used the 38mm
Click to expand...

The way they made the correction to the new york times article, and said that it was actually the 42mm model that was used, I assumed that meant he used the 42mm model, and they accidentally listed it as the 38mm initially when the article was written.
 
I think the best way to judge will be during the 15 minute trials. I understand that Apple wants to run as many people through the experience as fast as possible, but that's quite contrary to the very respectful way one is treated at the stores that sell conventional watches.

I'll go and observe since the Apple Store is less than five miles from me. It'll be fun to watch how this plays out. I'm very happy to wait for the real reports from users here in this forum. Hopefully it won't be as buggy as some of the iPhone 6 Plus models have been.

I must admit that if my iP6 Plus would have not wasted so much of my time, I'd be more likely to buy this original watch. At least Apple has replaced it twice. This current phone is better. But the time lost is priceless.
 
The NYT appears to be a 42mm to me. The Milanese loop goes almost all the way up the other side of the face as well. This doesn't sound right for a 38mm band that supposedly able to fit women/135mm wrists. He may have been mistaken IMO
 
papa8706 said:
The NYT appears to be a 42mm to me. The Milanese loop goes almost all the way up the other side of the face as well. This doesn't sound right for a 38mm band that supposedly able to fit women/135mm wrists. He may have been mistaken IMO
Click to expand...
Nope Farhood used a 38mm, he just has very thin wrists.
 
i0Nic said:
Nope Farhood used a 38mm, he just has very thin wrists.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I wonder how small his wrists really are. Proportionally, it looks much like many of the 42mm's I've seen on reviewers wrists. I would guess he would be below 160mm then. Anyone know?
 
papa8706 said:
Interesting, I wonder how small his wrists really are. Proportionally, it looks much like many of the 42mm's I've seen on reviewers wrists. I would guess he would be below 160mm then. Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Not sure but I'd say his wrist is closer to 150mm, even less maybe.

It's definitely a 38mm watch I chatted with him on Twitter about it.
 
i0Nic said:
Not sure but I'd say his wrist is closer to 150mm, even less maybe.

It's definitely a 38mm watch I chatted with him on Twitter about it.
Click to expand...

That's very odd, because the NY Times article has this disclaimer written at the bottom:

"Correction: April 8, 2015
An earlier version of this article described incorrectly the size of the Apple Watch tested by the author. It was the 42-millimeter version, not the 38-millimeter version."
 
JCT1212 said:
That's very odd, because the NY Times article has this disclaimer written at the bottom:

"Correction: April 8, 2015
An earlier version of this article described incorrectly the size of the Apple Watch tested by the author. It was the 42-millimeter version, not the 38-millimeter version."
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a 42mm... If you look at his diary article of the week he spent wearing it, there's a pic of the watch with a leather loop (only possible with 42mm). He says in that article that they sent him a Milanese loop, blue Leather loop, and sports band. Not doubting the above poster who said the author tweeted otherwise but he must've been confused, because it's definitely a 42mm.
 
jrlepage said:
Yeah it's a 42mm... If you look at his diary article of the week he spent wearing it, there's a pic of the watch with a leather loop (only possible with 42mm). He says in that article that they sent him a Milanese loop, blue Leather loop, and sports band. Not doubting the above poster who said the author tweeted otherwise but he must've been confused, because it's definitely a 42mm.
Click to expand...

Yes guys, he was confused. I asked him to confirm over Twitter and he said it was 42mm :)

He also said he'll be sticking to that model, which I think looks a bit big for him.
 
I really think the difference in battery life will be negligible. There is slightly more room for battery, but you're powering a slightly bigger screen.
 
Wow it does look like he has the 42mm on now. And he has been flip flopping on Twitter.

Either way, it looks incredibly big on his wrist.

https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/58601453767912243

Edit: also just saw his diary page. I didn't see that before.

Anyhow I think I'm still going 38mm. 42mm looks like it would be way too big on me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back