Originally Posted by Cuttingboard
What do you consider 42mm? 42 is as large as I wear and only during a casual environment. I have a couple vintage Omegas that are 36mm that I normally wear to work.
I consider it large.
Sure it's relative, but 40mm watches as medium are a culture schock comparable to "chinos are semi-formal".
It may be based in reality, but just doesn't feel true.
Originally Posted by rnguy001
It's one thing to make a judgement about a person's taste in clothes or watches and at best generalize it to their style. Given as that's subjective anyways, all you're really doing is looking at other dudes the way catty women look each other over. Yeah, you're THAT guy. If that floats your boat then go nuts.
This is not about judging others, it's about first impressions. I beleive the real importance of learning style is the ability to control that first impression, to use your looks to communicate something.
If a certain object (like a 40mm+ watch on an average or smaller-than-average wrist) potentially communicates insecurity, boorishness or insophistication, then I think there is little evil in saying this out loud.
Sure, you can use items like oversize watches as part of a whole to make a positive statement, but that requires knowing all the undersides of each part, and balancing them correctly. And let's be honest, most people don't do it right.
Today's average man dresses and accessorizes like a self-conscious (and inexperienced) teenager. Huge watches fit perfectly into that trend.
That's all we were saying.
And even if you argue that big watches are too ubiquitious to communicate anything, the I say that on the flip side, small watches are far from "done", on the contrary, they DO communicate style and sophistication, and are thus superior. Edited by DJosef - 12/21/12 at 6:46am