The 38mm is TINY

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by leeingham, Apr 10, 2015.

  1. leeingham macrumors 6502

    Apr 9, 2015
    Birmingham, UK
    I've just been to try both on at a store. I have 155mm wrists and very slim. I preordered the 38mm earlier on thinking it would be fine. I've just tried on the 38mm and although it fits my wrists it very much looks like the girls version (not to offend anyone on here)

    Just cancelled the order in store and reordered the 42mm but haven't recieved my confirmation email yet :/
  2. telefono macrumors 6502


    Dec 17, 2007
    Ive mentioned this on many threads about the two sizes and always said the 42mm should be advertised as small and the 38mm as extra small. I knew some people would make a mistake and regret it.

    Also its not just the size of the watch, its how it sits on the wrist. Some 45mm watches are more comfortable than some 40mm watches. The 42mm Apple Watch is not big at all.

    At least you got it sorted out :)
  3. scrapple macrumors regular


    Sep 23, 2004
    I got the 38mm black sport..

    if I don't like it, ill return it, or just resell it for double (heck why not, they aren't shipping next batch till June).
  4. Donoban macrumors 6502a


    Sep 7, 2013
    You're right man. The guy put the 42mm on my wrist and I thought it was the 38. Lol.

    It's tiny and the Sports model is very, very light.

    I think Apple has created a nice product with the Apple Watch. It looks like a quality watch.

  5. Cool Pup macrumors 6502a

    Cool Pup

    Jun 18, 2010
    Dallas, TX
    I wish people would stop saying it's a "girl's watch" in terms of the size. The 38mm is exactly what the size states it is. A watch shouldn't be an anchor on your wrist, so ideally for a lot of us, a smaller size for a companion device is beneficial.
  6. Bazooka-joe macrumors 68000


    Mar 12, 2012
    Swindon, England
    Yeah tried the templates and the 38mm was so small. It may be a struggle to see the screen. I think there may be a few returns or changes to orders
  7. Mr.C macrumors 601

    Apr 3, 2011
    London, UK.
    I had my try out appointment this morning and both are smaller then they look. In my opinion the 38mm is too small and I'm glad I went with the 42mm.
  8. Ewan Hoozarmy macrumors regular

    Ewan Hoozarmy

    Feb 2, 2007
    Cambridge, UK

    I've got small wrists - 160mm / 50mm width and have always had small watches.

    Just tried on the 42mm and 38mm SS versions and the 42mm looks perfect. I agree the 38mm is definitely the feminine version. It really surprised me. The thing is, in all the photos the 42mm looks huge but it couldn't be more different in real life.

    I would urge all men to go and try them on in person - you will DEFINITELY be surprised too!
  9. ksuyen macrumors 6502a


    Jun 26, 2012
    Can you believe it that prior to the store open for public for try-on, everyone said 42 is HUGE and 38 is preferable.

    Oh how do we change our tones now :eek:

    First lesson: Never assume.
  10. Tezcatlipoca macrumors regular


    May 23, 2012
    Cambridge, UK
    I have the same size wrists as you, and also found that the 38mm Watch looked quite small.

    I also tried a 42mm, and it was absolutely fine. Looked great, and didn't dominate my wrist.
  11. papa8706 macrumors 6502a

    Apr 24, 2010
    You're obviously you're saying things to offend the opposite side when you say "an anchor" referring to the 42mm. The 38mm certainly has it's place but I suspect most women, boys, and men with smaller wrists will go this route.

    Even though Apple didn't use gender roles to market the watches, it' obvious they made a smaller version to target this demographic
  12. AaronChicago macrumors member

    Mar 29, 2015
    People prefer different sized watches, no matter what their gender happens to be. I prefer smaller watch faces (I'm a guy). Alot of guys prefer big watch faces. Same with women. It's not really a formula based on your wrist size.
  13. Cool Pup macrumors 6502a

    Cool Pup

    Jun 18, 2010
    Dallas, TX
    Saying an anchor to signify the size is a lot different than gender-defining it as a notion.

    Maybe so Apple did make this watch to appeal to those demographics, but they avoided that logically so they wouldn't offend anyone. It's a simple "big vs. small" marketing system which works as well as anything. It's typical of MacRumors to get antsy about the sizes of the devices, many people ardently talked about the iPhone 6 Plus size in a similar manner.

    But yes, down right to it, both sizes have reasons to exist and I am happy that people want the bigger size (as well as the smaller), but to decry it as a "woman's watch" comes off a little bad to me because it isn't doing anything different than the size itself, whereas most "women's watches" will often appeal for a feminine look in the band and style of design. They have different sizes due to the weight, wrist size, and general look and flashiness of the watch itself — not because of a gender reason.
  14. mattopotamus macrumors G5


    Jun 12, 2012
    This just confirms why I ordered both sizes. I thought I wanted the 38mm, but everyone who has seen them in person is commenting on how small the 38mm actually looks.
  15. Steviejobz macrumors 68000

    Jun 19, 2010
    Some guys needs big items to compensate for other shortcomings.
  16. JSRockit macrumors 6502a


    Aug 24, 2002
    Yeah, because we all know 4mm in watch size is really a telling sign of someone's shortcomings. :rolleyes:
  17. stu.h macrumors 65816


    May 8, 2010
    West Midlands, England.
  18. jbachandouris macrumors 601


    Aug 18, 2009
    Upstate NY
    Yet every picture I've seen so far supports the opposite. Those who claim that the 42mm fits just fine all prove themselves wrong by the pictures they post.
  19. atiffarooq macrumors 6502


    May 27, 2006

    Wow that thing is going to be huge on your wrist
  20. Domino8282 macrumors 6502a


    Apr 22, 2010
    Southeast USA
    Not really. They're also claiming that the photos don't paint an accurate picture of how they appear in person. And the only people who can dispute that claim are others who have seen it in person.
  21. scrapple macrumors regular


    Sep 23, 2004
    Its all Freudian..

    just like the iphone 6 plus..
  22. Pinksteady macrumors 6502a


    Aug 19, 2008
    I think the point we can all accept is that pictures are clearly not giving an accurate representation of how well the sizes 'fit' and look on your wrist, and are tending to make the watches look larger.
  23. djrm macrumors 6502


    Feb 12, 2010
    Norwich, UK
    +1 the 38mm is tiny...FACT
  24. Bazooka-joe macrumors 68000


    Mar 12, 2012
    Swindon, England
    Ok I have just had my try-on appointment and played with the demo watches.
    There's no doubt in my mind that the 38mm is really small. My wrists are medium sized and the 42mm is a lot smaller than some of my existing watches but God that 38mm was minuscule.
    Others may disagree but it is traditionally feminine in the sense that most ladies wear watches with tiny watch faces
  25. iseras macrumors member

    Aug 18, 2012
    I tried both the 38 and 42 and this is what I think. I'm a guy with very small wrists. The 42 fits fine but is definitely less discreet than the 38. They both fit fine, but the 38 felt more like a "real" watch. It was less obvious and felt more snug. It's smaller but not in a dramatic way. So it comes down to preference: do you want a watch that brings attention to itself, or something more discreet? I went with the latter.

    Also, the bands make a huge difference. The white band on the 38 made the watch DEFINITELY look more petite than the leather buckle or other loops. I would imagine the black band also works better. So if you're going with the 38, i'd choose a darker colour band.

Share This Page