Size matters

Since I started adding vintage watches to my collection, I have started gravitating towards smaller watches. In the photo left to right are a Lecoultre from around 1940, a 1950 Lord Elgin, a 1950 Bulova Academy Award, for contrast in the middle a fairly new Orient Cosmo at 40mm, a Wittenauer circa 1960 that is 34mm and a 1960 Bulova at about 34.5.

I think I got a nudge in this direction when I bought a Hamilton Field Khaki hand wind about 3 years ago and fell in love with the size (38mm) and the daily ritual of winding my watch. Now I have a Nomos Club Campus that is 36mm and a Nomos Tetra that is 29mm square and both of those are hand winders as well.

I still wear and love my Orient Kamasu's for knocking around and my Cassio G-Shocks for the same purpose, but otherwise I am finding my larger watches less enjoyable to wear just because they feel so bulky.

Is anyone else finding themselves more attracted to smaller watches or am I just a Baby Boomer trying to recapture his youth?

Reply
·

It seems like the trend is towards smaller watches, if I think that mostly means 38-40mm. I’ve certainly got some smaller watches, mostly vintage.

·

👀👀 Just a JLC at the end there. 🔥🔥🔥🔥

·

Some of us are Generation Xer's trying to recapture someone else's youth. If I can read it without readers it is plenty large.

·

I'm in the camp of smaller is better. Started with a 1930s Hamilton Endicott, which at 28mm was too small I thought. But it grew (HAH!) on me faster than I thought was humanly possible. Since then, I got a 34mm Vulcain from the 1960s, a 33mm Omega tank from the 1970s and, in queue, is a LeCoultre military watch from the 1940s at 31mm. Like you, I still wear my 40mm and bigger watches on weekends and whatnot. But my daily office watches are far smaller than modern watches indeed.

·

Some of us don’t have hang-ups over our masculinity and happily wear 28mm 1940s sports watches with big wrists. The problem, if you think there is one, is in your head.