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

Men with the 38

It's down to personal preference, 42mm isn't a mans size, and 38mm isn't a womans size.

For example, I see quite a few boys (Persons under 18) arms on this forum (and in this thread), who suit the smaller watch, which is to be expected.
 
Cory Bauer said:
Thanks. Apple ran diagnostics on the battery multiple times and reported it good. At 18% remaining, here's where I'm at:
Click to expand...

I'd say from the Battery side you would be OK. You will get to 16h of use easily with those 18% remaining. Do you constantly have 18h days? That would mean you have less than 6h sleep per day :( hopefully apple can push the watch's battery life in the next revision.
 
Well I cant really understand any men, with a wrist larger than 160mm who is not going with the 42mm.

The first Problem are the photos posted here. You cant tell if its a 38 or 42 in most cases because you dont know the wrist size and you have nothing arround the wrist for a size comparsion. Photos from far away will tell the truth more.
In reality the 38mm is a small watch and you see this only live.

I think most of you have seen my photos allready, but i will post again.
150mm Wrist, 50mm With, 185cm tall body, bodyweight 70kg.
So I am a skinny tall guy.
Maybe the 42mm is a tad too big for me, but at least for everyone with 10-20mm more wrist circumfence it would be absolutely perfect.
D6kNrqh.jpg

VIUDZ2w.jpg
 
p3ntyne said:
But they both have the exact same pixel density and if the battery really is better on the 42, the battery must be huge to offset the extra pixels.

I doubt you could have seen a non-existant lower PPI.

EDIT: I believe you (and I) have been confused by the incorrect articles stating that the 38mm has 290 PPI and that the 42mm has 302 PPI. They're both 326 PPI.
Click to expand...

I find the 42mm battery lasts longer for me, though there was nothing wrong with the battery life of the 38mm. I'm not using the display most of the time, so I guess that accounts for the difference.

I guess that is what I was misled by. I also noticed some details rendered better on my 42mm (such as the delineation between the activity rings), but that may simply be scaling rather than pixel density.
 
bunnicula said:
My husband's wrist is 175 and he chose the 38. It was closest in size to the Citizen EcoDrive he's worn for the past 10 years.

My son's wrist is 157 and he's also wearing a 38.

We all wanted these to look unobtrusive. Like watches.

A disadvantage with the 42 is that it looks even more obvious that you have a big, blank screen strapped to your wrist unless you just have big wrists that make it look proportionate.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point I think a lot of people forget. The watch screen is off most of the time, and the larger watch really does look like a giant black slab if there is not enough band on both sides.

----------
Mapple86 said:
Well I cant really understand any men, with a wrist larger than 160mm who is not going with the 42mm.

The first Problem are the photos posted here. You cant tell if its a 38 or 42 in most cases because you dont know the wrist size and you have nothing arround the wrist for a size comparsion. Photos from far away will tell the truth more.
In reality the 38mm is a small watch and you see this only live.

I think most of you have seen my photos allready, but i will post again.
150mm Wrist, 50mm With, 185cm tall body, bodyweight 70kg.
So I am a skinny tall guy.
Maybe the 42mm is a tad too big for me, but at least for everyone with 10-20mm more wrist circumfence it would be absolutely perfect.
Image
Image
Click to expand...

and to me the 38mm look better. That is personally how I want to be proportioned.

----------
robdeb said:
I love my 38mm SS with classic black buckle.
Got a (small) 165mm wrist, and the 42mm looks just too big, more like 'look at me and my big smart watch' (my personal thoughts!).
I prefer a smaller and premium, but not noticeable watch. Hardly anybody notices my watch as being a smart/Apple watch and I like it. My watch is not for showing around I own Apple premium hardware and bragging about it, I wanted it for its usability and design.

Small wrist, 38mm is just great, big wrist, 42mm looks great. It is all personal and Apple gave me the choice of size and make, which I like.
View attachment 554274
Click to expand...

that is my default band (classic buckle). Until I put the white sport on not a single person recognized my watch as the apple watch. 1) b.c the size of the 38mm and 2) b.c the non-intrusive band.
 
Being a fairly beastly beast of a gentleman, I found that the bands fit better on the 42's. I owned 1 42mm (SG Sport) and 2 38mm's (one Sport and one SS) and found that no matter what I missed a 42. So I ended up getting a 42 SS. Just get the 42 trust me.
 
DJLAXL said:
Being a fairly beastly beast of a gentleman, I found that the bands fit better on the 42's. I owned 1 42mm (SG Sport) and 2 38mm's (one Sport and one SS) and found that no matter what I missed a 42. So I ended up getting a 42 SS. Just get the 42 trust me.
Click to expand...

on the flip side, the size of the bands was another reason I got the 38mm. The milanese loop and classic buckle fit me better. I had a ton of excess with the 42 bands.
 
Mapple86 said:
Well I cant really understand any men, with a wrist larger than 160mm who is not going with the 42mm.

The first Problem are the photos posted here. You cant tell if its a 38 or 42 in most cases because you dont know the wrist size and you have nothing arround the wrist for a size comparsion. Photos from far away will tell the truth more.
In reality the 38mm is a small watch and you see this only live.

I think most of you have seen my photos allready, but i will post again.
150mm Wrist, 50mm With, 185cm tall body, bodyweight 70kg.
So I am a skinny tall guy.
Maybe the 42mm is a tad too big for me, but at least for everyone with 10-20mm more wrist circumfence it would be absolutely perfect.
Image
Image
Click to expand...

The reason the 42 doesn't look enormous on your 150 wrist is because you have rather large hands. If you had small hands and thin wrists, it would look enormous on you. :)

This watch case choice is very much dependent on individual factors. I've seen people wearing the 42 where it looked gigantic and people wearing the 38 where it looked minuscule. I posted a pic of me wearing my 38 and was asked if it was the 42. People really cannot tell unless they've got another watch in the picture beside it for comparison. :)

----------
mattopotamus said:
on the flip side, the size of the bands was another reason I got the 38mm. The milanese loop and classic buckle fit me better. I had a ton of excess with the 42 bands.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of that, but considering the spot where the Milanese closes on my wrist with the 38, I don't think I'd like the band with a 42. It would loop almost all the way around.
 
Mapple86 said:
Photos from far away will tell the truth more.
In reality the 38mm is a small watch and you see this only live.

I think most of you have seen my photos allready, but i will post again.
150mm Wrist, 50mm With, 185cm tall body, bodyweight 70kg.
So I am a skinny tall guy.
Click to expand...

Side by side I will look tiny compared to you because of my 173cm height. Most likely my hands are smaller too. My wrist circumvent is 155mm and wrist width is 55mm. One could say it like 38:42 ;-) if you like your watch everything is fine. And so it is when others like theirs. It's not a penis nor a bank account where 'bigger' gets you confidence.
 
roddenshaw said:
The actual size difference isn't particularly noticeable, especially since they are the depth/thickness is the same. So long as you don't have very small wrists the 42 should be fine.
Click to expand...

I first laid eyes on the 38mm yesterday. I have an 42mm since two weeks ago. the difference is dramatic. I have no idea why you'd say that the difference isn't particularly noticeable because that my friend is not true.

I'm not saying that some men can pull the 38mm off, I'm just saying it's very very small. Especially since the 42mm is smaller than anyone expects from seeing the images online only.
 
grenhall said:
I first laid eyes on the 38mm yesterday. I have an 42mm since two weeks ago. the difference is dramatic. I have no idea why you'd say that the difference isn't particularly noticeable because that my friend is not true.

I'm not saying that some men can pull the 38mm off, I'm just saying it's very very small. Especially since the 42mm is smaller than anyone expects from seeing the images online only.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I guess I was the only one who thought the 42 was larger in real life compared to the photos.
 
ipodlover77 said:
On the contrary, I guess I was the only one who thought the 42 was larger in real life compared to the photos.
Click to expand...

You weren't. The 42 does look larger than the photos.

I think the people who keep calling the 38 tiny must have been wearing enormous watches before.

Kind of how my 5s looked normal to me until I got a 6 plus and now my 5s looks tiny. That sort of thing.
 
bunnicula said:
You weren't. The 42 does look larger than the photos.

I think the people who keep calling the 38 tiny must have been wearing enormous watches before.

Kind of how my 5s looked normal to me until I got a 6 plus and now my 5s looks tiny. That sort of thing.
Click to expand...

No. The 42 is smaller than "normal" sized watches. If you were to compare the standard Rolex 40mm watch like the GMT-Master II then you'd clearly see that the Watch is smaller. The Rolex is "heftier" if you know what I mean? I think the 42mm Apple Watch is small. But in a good way. It's not too small it's just small. And compared to some Android Wear-watches it's a much better size.
 
bunnicula said:
You weren't. The 42 does look larger than the photos.

I think the people who keep calling the 38 tiny must have been wearing enormous watches before.

Kind of how my 5s looked normal to me until I got a 6 plus and now my 5s looks tiny. That sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I have worn a pebble steel before and I didnt like watches before the pebble and I hated big watches.
I would say people who like the 38mm have not worn watches before the apple watch for a long time.

Here an other photo. On this the 42mm look enormus on me. But it doesnt as you can see on my other pictures.
Next to it a Samsung Galaxy Gear. Just for showing how small the 42mm is compared to other smartwatches.
XivHu34.jpg
 
grenhall said:
No. The 42 is smaller than "normal" sized watches. If you were to compare the standard Rolex 40mm watch like the GMT-Master II then you'd clearly see that the Watch is smaller. The Rolex is "heftier" if you know what I mean? I think the 42mm Apple Watch is small. But in a good way. It's not too small it's just small. And compared to some Android Wear-watches it's a much better size.
Click to expand...

I have a 40mm watch. I love how the 40mm fits but for some reason I just couldnt do the 42mm apple watch as it just covered my whole wrist. More importantly the apple watch being a rectangle instead of a circle with lugs threw off the fit completely. While the height of the apple watch against the regular watch is pretty drastic (see photo) on wrist, the 38mm apple watch looks 10000000% better on me than the 42mm version which is weird because height wise the 42mm apple watch is still shorter than my 40mm mechanical watch. But again, its probably more so because of the shape of the actual watch with rectangles giving off a more "Bigger" look. I wanted to love the 42mm and I have no shame in admitting I thought "im a guy so I have to get a 42" but if you saw how comical the 42 looked on my wrist, you would understand why I went with the 38.

Then again, different styles for different folks. Im a person that likes subtle watches like a tangente.

http://i.imgur.com/I5cZAwO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YyTbUWk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NPXDsa1.jpg
 
ipodlover77 said:
I have a 40mm watch. I love how the 40mm fits but for some reason I just couldnt do the 42mm apple watch as it just covered my whole wrist. More importantly the apple watch being a rectangle instead of a circle with lugs threw off the fit completely. While the height of the apple watch against the regular watch is pretty drastic (see photo) on wrist, the 38mm apple watch looks 10000000% better on me than the 42mm version which is weird because height wise the 42mm apple watch is still shorter than my 40mm mechanical watch. But again, its probably more so because of the shape of the actual watch with rectangles giving off a more "Bigger" look. I wanted to love the 42mm and I have no shame in admitting I thought "im a guy so I have to get a 42" but if you saw how comical the 42 looked on my wrist, you would understand why I went with the 38.

Then again, different styles for different folks. Im a person that likes subtle watches like a tangente.

http://i.imgur.com/I5cZAwO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YyTbUWk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NPXDsa1.jpg
Click to expand...

I totally get your point but like I said before. It is without a doubt a "small" watch. For some. For others it's a perfect fit. But sizewize the 40mm mechanical watch is considered "standard" and the Apple Watch is smaller, bot the 38 and 42mm, than that.

But I can say that the 38mm is a much better fit for you than how I imagine the 42mm looking on your wrist.

I have a 42mm on the picture below.
 

Attachments

  • FullSizeRender-11.jpg
    FullSizeRender-11.jpg
    201.2 KB · Views: 774
ataq said:
Can you please describe how your Apple Watch is set up? Like which Glances are activated, is Hey Siri on and what you do over the day regarding the usage.

I just need some more experiences so I have more clearance wether my 38mm battery is ok or not, because i have the same issues as Cory Bauer.

Today i put on the AW at 7am and now we have 11am, battery is now on 86% and i literally did nothing with except raising my arm a few times. I just wanted to test this day doing "almost nothing" with the AW to see how much battery will be left at around 10pm.
Click to expand...

Sure be glad too;

As far as activity on my watch, I get numerous notifications, most of which I just glance at then dismiss, I will read a couple emails a day. I get several (15-20?) text from my wife, 98% off which I reply to via the Watch, 95% of those replies are done using voice dictation. I use hey Siri a few times a day for "set a timer for" or "what's 636x42" kind of stuff. It look at my watch a few times per hour for the time. I also look in my glances at my battery meter as I don't like the complication shown on my watch face. The battery life I showed up is typical, I generally finish the day in the 50% neighborhood. Overall, during the course of a week I'd say I average about 2 relatively short phone calls on it per day.
I also check my activity tracking 4-6 times per day. And read 1-2 snippets from CNN, which is currently my only 3rd party app.
I would consider myself to be an average user maybe? Or a little on the low side perhaps? I don't use any "work out" apps as I'm disabled from a motorcycle accident. But the heart rate sensor is in my glances and takes a reading every 10 minutes.

Now I'll try to go through my settings;

I use the modular face. no battery % on face.
(On the face is time, date, calendar, temp and stop watch)
Brightness is on high
Bold text on
Text size medium large
Heptic is on high
Prominent Haptic is on/ sound is off
Volume for calls is high
Hey Siri is on
Raise wrist is on
Heart beat is in glances reading every 10 min.

In glances I have, in this order:
Battery meter
Calendar
Weather
Activity
Heart rate
CNN

I believe this covers everything!
 
bunnicula said:
I hadn't thought of that, but considering the spot where the Milanese closes on my wrist with the 38, I don't think I'd like the band with a 42. It would loop almost all the way around.
Click to expand...

yeah, during my try on the leather loop and milanese on the 42mm went all the way around and touch the side of the watch.
 
42mm would look silly on me imo. I am fairly close to the size on the promotional images by apple I would say

2ikf2w.jpg


edit: another one side by side with my old casino

s28rxt.jpg
 
I've always been a watch guy and never liked the oversized watch trend myself. I have 165mm wrists and am really enjoying the 38mm. I could have pulled off the 42mm, but like others have said, I wanted something more discreet that didn't look a like a big slab of screen on my wrist. I think the 38mm looks more centered on my wrist from all angles and slips under shirts better than the 42 on me. I also agree the difference between the two is negligible and people always ask me if it's the bigger one.

Overall depending on your wrist size, I think the 38mm looks great on men, especially if you are looking for a discreet smartwatch. I quickly got used to it and never even consider what the bigger one would look like. Also if you have especially small wrists as a man, I would avoid the 42mm altogether. In my opinion it's like wearing an XL shirt because you're a man when you really look better/bigger in more size appropriate clothes. I think the smaller watch makes my wrist actually look bigger than it is and fits in better with my overall wardrobe.
 
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