I am happy to see the 40 mm in divr and upcoming cobalt, but seriously , how about some LT's in the 39-42 mm size range in good ole brushed stainless steel in auto and /or quartz? Big market here Chris/Bes, how about it? What do you guys think?
39-42 MM Stainless Steel Cased LT"s
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Joined
·
56 Posts
agreed, I don't care what the fad is, or isn't... large watches fit and feel right on me. 47mm M cobalts would be wonderful! (even better with single color blue lume)
I only like something smaller when I'm in a suit. Even then 40-42mm would be my preference, I just want it nice and thin to fit under the cuff.
Joined
·
56 Posts
agreed, I don't care what the fad is, or isn't... large watches fit and feel right on me. 47mm M cobalts would be wonderful! (even better with single color blue lume) That said I do think the 50-55mm+ are just stupid unless you're built like Stallone, and I don't care for super thick watches. I dive, but not to 2000m.
I only like something smaller when I'm in a suit. Even then 40-42mm would be my preference, I just want it nice and thin to fit under the cuff.
You can consider the older M Auto series as they wear smaller in person.
Joined
·
2,277 Posts
In talking with Charles Laevens, Omega National Training and Sales Manager, last Saturday at our Atlanta Omega Boutique GTG, he said that Omega feels that the 40-42mm case size is the classic size for a watch. He further said the he feels the trend to larger watches is losing steam. I completely agree. I find that for my 7.5" wrist the 40-42mm case is the perfect size. A 44mm case is the largest that I feel comfortable wearing. I'm so glad that L-T has the 300M series as the 40mm size is very nice. I hope L-T will continue to offer smaller watches. Here is a pic of Charles giving a wonderful presentation to our group. Cheers, Bill P.
Thanks for the Omega shots and discussion; yes 40 mm would be a great start for an LT classic style a la the M series or perhaps a new dial to tempt the LT fans. Of course even a 39 mm if it has a thin bezel looks much larger. eg. Stowa's or Archimede Flieger 39 etc. How about it Chris/Bes? LT used to offer a 39 ish I think back when.
Joined
·
330 Posts
I think it all comes down to, "how many can we sell"? I'm sure LT keeps abreast of trends, so there's a reason they don't offer 39mms. I imagine it costs as much to produce a smaller version of an existing watch as it does to offer a whole new design. You're going to have people on both sides of this fence, but they have to make what sells and; though the pendulum of watch size MAY be swinging the other way, it doesn't appear to be there yet.
Joined
·
114 Posts
It's also important to note that at least with the 300Ms, LT's 40mm size wears a lot closer to 42mm. That size is just about perfect for me.
I just think it is funny when I look at my vintage Tudor that was a normal sized watch in the early 1960s and it looks like a toy next to my B16. Some of this is just changing trends, but if anyone tries to tell me that a 36mm Patek Calatrava can't look masculine because of its size, we will respectfully have to agree to disagree.
I just think it is funny when I look at my vintage Tudor that was a normal sized watch in the early 1960s and it looks like a toy next to my B16. Some of this is just changing trends, but if anyone tries to tell me that a 36mm Patek Calatrava can't look masculine because of its size, we will respectfully have to agree to disagree.
Joined
·
532 Posts
But...I don't think as watch collectors we want our wives or girlfriends wearing larger watches than we do, as long the "boyfriend" watch is in style and they are are wearing them, we need to match them.
I am wearing my M57 today and I look at it I realize I can't go bigger than this, but I don't really want to go smaller either.
I am wearing my M57 today and I look at it I realize I can't go bigger than this, but I don't really want to go smaller either.
I ordered the 40mm cobalt. My masculinity is not threatened by my girlfriend wearing a bigger watch than me :wink:
Joined
·
21 Posts
I think style and size are directly related to dress/casual whereas larger watches are more casual and smaller watches are more dressy. We all need both. The more dressy 44mm watches can be viewed as "crossover" until you try to button a dress shirt over it. I have seen brands try to do both dressy and casual and it can cause a watering down effect of what made them unique/great to begin with.
David
David
Joined
·
263 Posts
Lol. At my old workplace, a female colleague wore a distastefully large 55mm TW Steel, would it really be sensible to match/beat it?
Btw, I can see how the trend towards larger cars/trucks in the USA started, women own SUVs and their boyfriends/husbands don't want to feel emasculated and thus get even larger behemoths.
The watch in your avatar must be about 65mm.
Joined
·
2,321 Posts
I tried on my doctor's 36 mm Calatrava. It looked like I was wearing a little boy's wrist watch. My wrists are just shy of 8" and his were obviously much smaller. The watch looked great on him. I think anything smaller than about 39 mm would be out for me. In the past, products were designed around one size fits all. I think going forward there will always be a wide range of watch sizes to fit all types of tastes and wrist sizes.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
