Just got back from trying it... the problem with the 42 is NOT that it is "big"

[Arran]

...Most large watches have a stepped shape that builds up from the lugs to the crystal...

Indeed. Even already-thin watches use that basic design "trick" to make them look and behave even thinner. And by "behave" I mean not catch on clothing, pockets, seat-belts, furniture, etc.

It seems odd. Apple is a past-master at using bevelled/chamfered edges to make their other products look and behave "thin". Think how the Macbook Air's wedge shape lets it slide effortlessly into a crowded laptop bag. Why not use some of those design skills on the watch?

 

[pflau]

The problem is that it is too THICK. Almost to the point of being comical.

No it is NOT too thick. Most quality mechanical sport watches are just as thick if not thicker. The Apple Watch is no thicker than most Rolex sport watches. People who think the Apple Watch is too thick are probably used to watches with electronic movements.

However, I do concede that the Apple Watch might appear thicker than mechanical watches with the same thickness because the Apple Watch does not taper off toward the edge.

 

[Arran]

No it is NOT too thick.

But it's definitely too blunt. IMHO.

 

[VSMacOne]

But it's definitely too blunt. IMHO.

Maybe the SS, but definitely not the Sport.

 

[Arran]

Maybe the SS, but definitely not the Sport.

They're all the same in profile.

Just to explain, I'm talking about the edge. Here's a diagram showing different types of edges. The Apple watch edge is blunter (squarer) than a "Full Bullnose" to my eye, whereas most traditional wristwatches employ something even more tapered than a "Double Bevel".