Men with the 38

[CostaMoses]

Just another guy chiming in here - wearing a 38 and totally happy with it. 42 would have worked, too, but I liked the feel of the 38 better.

 

[nburwell]

I'm a guy who's has thin wrists and the 38mm works perfectly for me. I tried the 42mm at my local Apple Store and it looked silly on my wrist.

 

[SoN1NjA]

I have almost an exact 6" wrist, and I much prefer my 38mm models over my 42mm model, the 38 just looks more fitting

 

[dmaxdmax]

To my eye the 38 looks like a watch and the 42 looks like a device. I ordered a 42 for me and a 38 forDW for Xmas so will get a few weeks of real world testing! Go me.

 

[SoN1NjA]

To my eye the 38 looks like a watch and the 42 looks like a device. I ordered a 42 for me and a 38 forDW for Xmas so will get a few weeks of real world testing! Go me.

I totally agree, the 42mm models make the Apple Watch look like a gadget and the 38mm a real watch

Okay, so in this uber rare instance I saw a guy with a 42mm SB with Link and that looked good, but that's 1/100

 

[sean000]

Same here...bad eyesight pushed me to go 42, even though 38 probably looks better on my 160mm wrists.

I have bad eyesight and wear progressive trifocal lenses, so spent a lot of time in the store going back and forth to make sure I wasn't sacrificing readability by going with the smaller watch. My conclusion was that there is no difference in readability because font sizes are adjustable. The difference is that, for a given font size, the 42mm can display more lines of text. It can also display more content for something like a map. For most features there just isn't much difference that I could tell. The 42mm display was just roomier, but the 38mm is perfectly readable for those with poor eyesight... once you set it up properly. The only exception that I have found to be an issue are with some of the tiniest complications on certain watch faces. I imagine those complications might be a little bigger on the 42mm. The display on these watches is fantastic. Even with my poor eyesight and progressive lenses I would purchase the 38mm again.

Sean

 

[Otflyer]

I totally agree, the 42mm models make the Apple Watch look like a gadget and the 38mm a real watch

Okay, so in this uber rare instance I saw a guy with a 42mm SB with Link and that looked good, but that's 1/100

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. I have a large wrist. The 38 looks small.

I totally agree, the 42mm models make the Apple Watch look like a gadget and the 38mm a real watch

Okay, so in this uber rare instance I saw a guy with a 42mm SB with Link and that looked good, but that's 1/100

Aren't both size Apple watches gadgets?

 

[dmaxdmax]

I’m a pretty big guy, but not a big big guy. I don’t know what my wrist size is and have no intention of getting up off the couch to fetch a ruler and find out. This is why I’m a pretty big guy.

 

[ericg301]

i had a 38mm for over 2 years (original) and just upgraded to a series 3 42MM. i have smaller wrists (160mm), but got used to the 42 in about 2 days. i really doesn't look that much bigger...but i am enjoying the extra screen real estate and battery life. along with what appears to be a greater variety of 3rd party bands.

only real "issue" i've found is when i cross my arms. sometimes that registers as a tap and wakes the watch. whereas before my other arm would hit the band of my 38, not the face.

part of the reason i initially went with the 38 was the price. correct if im wrong, but for the first apple watch, the 42 was $70 more than the 38. now that' been cut to $30.
[doublepost=1513269183][/doublepost]i had a 38mm for over 2 years (original) and just upgraded to a series 3 42MM. i have smaller wrists (160mm), but got used to the 42 in about 2 days. i really doesn't look that much bigger...but i am enjoying the extra screen real estate and battery life. along with what appears to be a bigger variety of 3rd party bands.

only real "issue" i've found is when i cross my arms. sometimes that registers as a tap and wakes the watch. whereas before my other arm would hit the band of my 38, not the face.

part of the reason i initially went with the 38 was the price. correct if im wrong, but for the first apple watch, the 42 was $70 more than the 38. now t

 

[canyonblue737]

It depends on the look you are going for and what you are used to. I'm a short guy at 5'5 and have thin wrists, just 165 mm but I've been wearing Garmin sport style watches for years and for dressier events a 42mm Omega Speedmaster Pro. To me they all look very much "normal" on my wrist and I've certainly never heard anyone say differently to me so when I tried on the 38mm it looked small to me and my wife felt the same way. 38-42mm is the classic range for men's watches (essentially all Rolex watches for example fall in that range) so either is going to work great IMHO and its all up to personal choice.

One quick note... do NOT look at photos someone took of the watch on their wrist. That isn't how you really look. You need at least a 1/2 body shot to see what a watch really looks like on yourself and I think you will find that the 42mm won't look nearly as large and at the same time the 38mm will still look great.

Again total personal preference IMHO.