Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just got back from trying it... the problem with the 42 is NOT that it is "big"
- Thread starter NOLF1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yupjust measured my current watch (SS Invicta Pro Diver, $50 on Amazon, makes watch buffs physically ill 
): 46 mm high x 40 mm wide x 13 mm deep, with a mass of just under 250 grams. It's very much a dumbwatch, but I like it for what (little) it can do. Somehow I don't think the 42 x 36 x 10.5-mm 90-g AWatch (with black sport band) is going to crush my wrist.
): 46 mm high x 40 mm wide x 13 mm deep, with a mass of just under 250 grams. It's very much a dumbwatch, but I like it for what (little) it can do. Somehow I don't think the 42 x 36 x 10.5-mm 90-g AWatch (with black sport band) is going to crush my wrist.
thick? It's about the same size as most modern watches.
It's got to be the shape that makes the difference.
Most large watches have a stepped shape that builds up from the lugs to the crystal.
From the Apple Watch wearer's viewpoint, they're not seeing the thick underbelly of the beast, which others and photos do see.
I think the same goes for the Moto 360 with its straight edges. It just doesn't look that thick on your own wrist, but from a photo angle, it looks thicker.
3 of my Fossil watches (I'm not a watch connoisseur, but I love the look of them) measure 10mm exactly. I've had them for 15+ years and never once have I thought they were too thick. They appear "normal" to me.
I agree with the above poster that the shape probably plays a role in the Apple Watch feeling thicker?
I agree with the above poster that the shape probably plays a role in the Apple Watch feeling thicker?
Absolutely, I think this explains the many people that remark how much smaller it seems when they try it in person. I wish they went with a tapered design or even better, a round face. The UI looks *made* for a round face, so I'm hoping that's the future of the watch.
I just left the Apple Store and I think the 10.5mm thickness is just fine. The 42mm fit under my sleeve with no problem.
I felt quite the opposite. I went over during my lunch and did a try on of the 42mm version. I was concerned, after seeing all the photos, that it would be too "deep" and would sit to high off my wrist. I was shocked at how well it fit, was comfortable, and light. It didn't feel awkward at all. Obviously, everyone is different. I'm about 6 feet tall. I have somewhat larger hands, but I've always thought my wrists were a bit small (compared to my hands) and it felt perfectly natural to wear it.
At first I seen the 38mm it looked very small. But after trying it on i felt more comfortable on my wrist versus the 42mm
Edit** this is the 38mm
[url=http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i115/abcdefmoe/Mobile%20Uploads/image_9.jpg]Image[/URL]
Do you by chance have a picture from further out of the 38mm on your wrist? It seems like this is the one for me, but I'm still not sure.
thanks
At just over 10mm thick to me it's the thinest watch I will own. The 42mm watch should be viewed as 35.9mm comparing it to other watches. I say this because other watches at 42mm don't include the height measurement (strap lugs). Which would be around 48mm +
The 42mm Apple Watch at 35.9mm x 10.5mm is actually a small watch.
It will seem large to people that don't currently wear a watch or to people that have only worn Quartz watches that measure under 35x7mm with thin leather straps.
The 42mm Apple Watch at 35.9mm x 10.5mm is actually a small watch.
It will seem large to people that don't currently wear a watch or to people that have only worn Quartz watches that measure under 35x7mm with thin leather straps.
Sorry I don't. I'm kind of mad I didn't get one further away. But I wasn't thinking about it at the time.
I didn't find the watch thick at all. I was expecting it to be all around a lot bigger than it actually was in person. I'm glad I went with the 42mm.
Anyone that thinks a 10mm thick watch is too thick must have been exclusively wearing cheap Timex and Casio watches up to this point in their life. Most QUALITY wristwatches are more than 10mm thick.
Mark
Mark
When evaluating case thickness, the industry defines 6-8 mm as "thin", 8-12 mm as "average", and 14-18 mm as "thick."
Source: http://www.watchstation.com/webapp/...eftNav_CustomerCare&catalogId=23503&langId=-1
So at 10.5 mm Apple is right in the middle for an thickness average of a watch.
Source: http://www.watchstation.com/webapp/...eftNav_CustomerCare&catalogId=23503&langId=-1
So at 10.5 mm Apple is right in the middle for an thickness average of a watch.
Well, there are also quality thin watches, of course.
As for thick ones, they don't usually have the shape of a rounded rectangular bar of soap, or a pillbox, strapped to your arm.
(see photo slightly above this post)
Thickness perception is all about the shape, and band attachment points.
It was actually a gift from my company's president a few years back. I did something that made him very happy at the time. And it's more like a $6,500 watch, but either way it wasn't my money.
I tried on the 42mm Black Sport Watch (the one I pre-ordered with a delivery date of 24 April-8 May..woot!) and i had to ask the girl three times, are you sure this is the bigger one? The 42mm is not big at all. And the thickness is not noticeable. I know this is going to sound fanboish, but the size is literally perfect.
Now I'm REALLY excited to get it.
----------
The superocean is a beautiful!
I wear a G-shock daily, so even the 42mm seems small. I have both on order until I make my final decision as I may have to try them on again.
I don't think that's going to be an issue. When I tried it on it didn't really stick out that much, even using the flubber band. But I don't wear skinny shirts.