The Power of a Bezel (or better: Power of not having a bezel)
I'm quite surprised how this similarly dimensioned watches look completely different in size. The Junghans looks noticeable bigger because there isn't any Bezel. Easy observation at first glance.
But does it really look bigger?
On the second look the tudor doesn't look very small either hence it has a much longer lug-to-lug and with a bracelet, it looks more like "one pice of metal" in contrast to the short lug-to-lug of the Junghans with a high contrast leather strap.
What do you guys think? Which one looks smaller, which one looks bigger? Or do you even care as long as you like the look of your watch on your wrist?
7 comments
Sort by
Michi
Fellow watch collector enjoying watches once at a time ⌚⏳
Germany
Member since
Last active: 6 hrs ago
The Junghans clearly has more dial area. The lack of bezel, decoration and excess steel leave it looking naked. The minimalist aesthetic removes any taste of opulence.
The Tudor, while having less dial area, is more about presentation. The fluted bezel catches and reflects light, the case stands thick and bold and proud. To me, it’s like an animal that fluffs up when challenged giving an appearance of dominance. You’re in charge and you want to make that known.
The Junghans definitely looks bigger than the Tudor (dial size plays a huge role).
The Junghans looks bigger for sure. Most of mine have no bezel, I just don't like the wasted millimetres around the face, that extra metal doesn't achieve anything for me, it's never decorative in my eyes.
This is one of those optical illusions isn’t it. I’m guessing both are the same, and the Junghans looks bigger due to the thin bezel
The domed crystal sure makes it look bigger
These are within .5mm of each other. Color, dial complexity, and bezel design all definitely play a part in size perception.