TheWraith
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,951
- Reaction score
- 1,119
Pretty sure the fact that it's too big is making it look too big
+1
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Pretty sure the fact that it's too big is making it look too big
Pretty sure the fact that it's too big is making it look too big
That doesn't surprise me, unfortunately. Parnis gets a lot of love here, but your story is one I have read often enough on various watch fora that I have never really wanted to buy one.
No, I wouldn't guess it was >40mm from that picture. And it's not too big for your wrist, clearly.
Since I'm poor and only own an Omega, I figure I better have the right one!
I disagree, Edgar. Yours looks fine, his doesn't (size wise). I don't think there's any such distortion on either photos. Not for me anyway.
Even if it's the quartz variety, Omega is NOT a poor man's watch! How many more times must I say this in this thread?!?!
Neither do I care. I own a quartz Omega Seamaster myself. It's my favourite watch, in fact. But, even tongue in cheek, it's not a poor man's watch.
I hate to press the subject, but there is absolutely distortion in both photographs. That's simply the nature of the camera. At wide angles objects closer to the camera appear larger than they actually are. The severity of this distortion is directly proportional to the focal length. This is clear from the photos in the link I sent you.