Yes. There should be more awareness about the differences in the community. However, a lot of watch buying is based on appearance/fashion only. Natural patinas are often quite predictable: the edges will wear and they'll take on the most common tarnished tone of the metal.

Still, watches are commoditized these days so enjoy what you like.

I understand your sentiments and believe that the watch industry has done a terrible job of explaining what to expect from bronze and in guiding people about possible/probable patinas. So, even if you hate bronze I'll write about patinas for general interest. 

A patina is corrosion. It can either be controlled, natural, rapid, or slow. 

Common watch bronze (CuSn8; copper and tin) naturally and quickly turns brown, green, or sometimes red. One can easily produce a stable dark brown end state with chemicals, and also coat the finish to preserve whatever it looks like "now." At that point green or red spots or other changes may never appear, and a bronze watch will be about as stable as a typical non-hard-use watch. (Yes, use a G-Shock or stainless steel for true hazardous duty and salt water if you don't want further changes or eventual failure.) 

In my opinion, the watch industry has done a terrible disservice by promoting bright bronze new watches rather than end-state bronze watches. Buyers expect their often expensive purchases to retain the look they paid for, but CuSn8 bronze doesn't easily stay bright, yellow, or "gold" on its own. 

Other metal patinas: Aluminum bronze stays much more fresh and yellow over time (e.g., Tudor bronze watches). 

Silver (the metal) turns dark gray. The portion of non-gold in a gold watch will make it slightly orange or dull, for example rose gold uses copper to push the color in the red direction. Black tinted watches are "pre-tarnished" with chemicals or coated with materials for a dark color. Aluminum can be anodized (oxidized) into all sorts of stable and little changing colors (which can also looks like common keychain bottle openers and artificial). 

Stainless steel has a high percentage of chromium, which reduces corrosion or patina. However, stain-less does not mean stain-free. It'll stain and pit with enough abuse. It'll turn red with some finishing chemicals too.

In sum, understand what you are buying, the look you want, and how to get there.

Fortunately my greatest disappointments were some cheap Chinese watches. This happened a while ago, and before there were many established Chinese brands in the US. 

The watches looked great in the photos and so I gave them a chance. Unfortunately, the dials didn't align with the hour markers, they fogged up, the bracelets had sharp edges, and the subdials and buttons didn't function. As fashion items or Halloween dress up they'd be fine. As watches they were a total waste of money and nothing I'd ever wear. I demand more information about a brand when buying now. 

When you say "handle it" do you mean getting to first base, second base, or third base?

IMO, yes it's too big. My rule of thumb is that the band/bracelet must curve out slightly rather than hang straight down or be undercut. Your strap appears to hang straight down. Lug length is key, and some large watches do fit better than others. 

Worse than the diameter, your watch seems rather thick too. Thick watches tend to smash into things and also get stuck under cuffs with long sleeved shirts or jackets. For anything close to that relative size I prefer slimmer watches. My G-Shock is way too thick for long sleeves.

I've tried it under long sleeves when comparing sizes, testing new watches, or trying new bands. The biggest problem is that I smash the dominant-hand watch into a lot of stuff. The risk of damage is extremely high versus off-hand wearing. 

The answer to all of your questions is "yes." It depends on how the whole thing comes together. This can follow from spidery old-style dials to super busy dials, or low contrast, or or or. 

I own this one, but it's not legible in a hurry:

While I don't own anything like this, this genre is expressly and sarcastically anti-legible: