The Case for Dial Size as a Standard Spec
"Does this watch look too big / small on me?" It's the ubiquitous query attached to wrist shots across the internet.
First, let's discount the fact that, up close, phone cameras distort sizing, turning your 36mm watch into a 40 on your wrist, thus nullifying your question. Moreover, I'd like to postulate that case size, while important, isn't the determining factor when it comes to how a watch wears.
Let's talk dial size.
In the same way lug-to-lug has become a common spec to indicate how a watch will wear, I believe dial size is more important for deciding if a watch is the right size for you. Every time I read a review on a small-ish watch, the qualifier often appears "but the larger dial makes the watch wear bigger than its ##mm case size would suggest."
So why then are we not talking about dial size to begin with?
Below are four watches from my collection. A 40mm Vostok, a 38mm Raketa, a 38mm Halios, and a 36mm Rolex.
Here are their dial sizes (best measurements accounting for crystal). Vostok 31mm, Raketa 35mm, Halios 31mm, Rolex 30.5mm.
Clearly the bezel-dial ratios impact wearability. Despite the Vostok being largest at 40mm, the 38mm Raketa "wears" bigger.
And while the Rolex is smallest at 36mm, having a dial size nearly identical to the 38mm Halios (plus a dial-matching bezel) improves its wearability.
And then look at the Raketa and Halios -- two 38mm watches with differing dials that impact wearability.
Now I know there are other factors such as a light vs dark dials, chapter rings and rehaut, and marker size/layout, but I think dial size is a helpful objective spec that can, alongside case size, really help people determine how a watch will wear on their wrist size.
I, for one, would find it a useful spec in pressers and reviews.
Casual collector falling steadily down the rabbit hole. Fan of interesting dials and watches I can tell stories about.
great explanation, I'm also trying to tell this to anyone that asks. But anyways, size matters 😛
Like you already mentioned, there are so many different factors that affect wearability, both physically on the wrist, as well as visually. In some ways, I feel the more measurements we could be provided in editorial reviews would only lead to more buyer’s analysis paralysis and ultimately, wouldn’t translate into us having any better sense of wearability until we strapped it to our wrist.
However, I think you’ve also illustrated that shots of a watch in relation to other references can help more than a slew of measurements. If reviewers included a shot of a watch in relation to a few other commonly owned watches, that would be a much quicker way to evaluate visual wearability. I’d also add that it’d be great if publications also adopted a standard of providing wristshots with a couple of different reference wrist sizes as well (I know, everyone’s wrist shape is different too, but it would at least give a ballpark visual reference). Anyways, just my long winded $0.25.
I always think about this when people talk about integrated bracelet watches having a functional lug to lug larger than the actual L-L. Your eye sees the actual end of the case, so unless the first link literally stickers out past your wrist, it doesn’t matter what that first link does.
Similarly, my eye focuses on the dial much more than the case, and as you’ve pointed out that is more important in how the watch looks on the wrist.
Like you already mentioned, there are so many different factors that affect wearability, both physically on the wrist, as well as visually. In some ways, I feel the more measurements we could be provided in editorial reviews would only lead to more buyer’s analysis paralysis and ultimately, wouldn’t translate into us having any better sense of wearability until we strapped it to our wrist.
However, I think you’ve also illustrated that shots of a watch in relation to other references can help more than a slew of measurements. If reviewers included a shot of a watch in relation to a few other commonly owned watches, that would be a much quicker way to evaluate visual wearability. I’d also add that it’d be great if publications also adopted a standard of providing wristshots with a couple of different reference wrist sizes as well (I know, everyone’s wrist shape is different too, but it would at least give a ballpark visual reference). Anyways, just my long winded $0.25.
This raises another really interesting question. What are the commonly owned / experienced watches that would be good to measure against?
Editorially, it might be sticky to photograph different brands side by side when reviewing one watch specifically, as there’s a risk of implied brand elevation or diminishing, even if the intent is objective. Text is probably ok or staying within the brand but a different model. A separate series of spec and wearability articles would be cool though!
This raises another really interesting question. What are the commonly owned / experienced watches that would be good to measure against?
Editorially, it might be sticky to photograph different brands side by side when reviewing one watch specifically, as there’s a risk of implied brand elevation or diminishing, even if the intent is objective. Text is probably ok or staying within the brand but a different model. A separate series of spec and wearability articles would be cool though!
Yea i was thinking about that after I responded, as I agree that it might be a tricky situation to maintain the perception of impartiality. Tho if there was a good approach to perhaps model after would be a site like DPreview (cameras)…each watch goes through a standard review process and over time, that would build up a pretty extensive library that any site visitor could use to compare different watches. The reference photos would just need to be shot in the same way and environment to maintain comparability.
This plus weight, thickness of the actual case without the crystal, case design to hide or show the thickness more, lug curvature, and just trying it on in person matters way more than just a spec sheet. Everyone's wrist and preferences are different. Not every piece will work for everyone and value for dollar isn't the only important thing. The piece has to sit how you want it to, feel comfortable and speak to you.
This plus weight, thickness of the actual case without the crystal, case design to hide or show the thickness more, lug curvature, and just trying it on in person matters way more than just a spec sheet. Everyone's wrist and preferences are different. Not every piece will work for everyone and value for dollar isn't the only important thing. The piece has to sit how you want it to, feel comfortable and speak to you.
I feel like the "is this too big" conversation never asks about thickness. I was surprised and how turned off I was on the heritage Black Bays and original Pelagos when I tried them on and discovered the slab thickness -- not just in terms of height, but aesthetics as well.
I feel like the "is this too big" conversation never asks about thickness. I was surprised and how turned off I was on the heritage Black Bays and original Pelagos when I tried them on and discovered the slab thickness -- not just in terms of height, but aesthetics as well.
Exactly, thickness can be hidden sometimes but those Tudors do nothing but make it look thicker .
Very insightful opinion and nice collection of pieces
Very insightful opinion and nice collection of pieces
Thank you!