Are any of the reviews using the 38mm version?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by deanfitz1, Apr 8, 2015.

  1. omgitscro macrumors 6502a

    omgitscro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    #2
    Guy from the Mashable review used a 38mm Watch with Steel Link band.
     
  2. melman101 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #3
  3. NickY91 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Location:
    Iowa
    #4
    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.
     
  4. melman101 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #5
    Again, the nytimes guy used the 38mm
     
  5. Kavier macrumors 6502a

    Kavier

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #6
  6. NickY91 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Location:
    Iowa
    #7
    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.
     
  7. technosix macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Location:
    West Coast USA
    #8
    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.
     
  8. papa8706 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    #9
    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
     
  9. JonMPLS macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    MN
  10. i0Nic macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #11
    Nope Farhood used a 38mm, he just has very thin wrists.
     
  11. papa8706 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    #12
    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?
     
  12. i0Nic macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #14
    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.
     
  13. JCT1212 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #15
    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."
     
  14. Domino8282 macrumors 6502a

    Domino8282

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Southeast USA
    #16
    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.
     
  15. i0Nic macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #17
    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.
     
  16. Time Less macrumors 6502

    Time Less

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Location:
    Planet Earth
  17. RayDonovan macrumors regular

    RayDonovan

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    #19
    Im a bit concerned about the battery life of the 38mm. If the 42mm only just gets you through the day, does that mean the 38 won't?
     
  18. mightyjabba macrumors 65816

    mightyjabba

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Location:
    Tatooine
    #20
    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.
     
  19. melman101, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2015

    melman101 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #21
    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.
     

Share This Page