NYT article on trend toward smaller men’s watches

[DocHorton]

Poor guy is probably wearing 26mm ladies DJ because that's all the AD would sell him. That was simply part of his "bundle" to try to move up the list to get a mens watch. Clearly was not a VIP.

[Cru Jones]

I always let others tell me what watches I should like….

[996marty]

I think we all get influenced by Rolex depending on what they bring out next

[Moondoggy]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Wear what you want, fashion trends be damned.
dP

The day I follow or be followed is the day I have stopped thinking.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

I don’t think men are going to be wearing 31mm Rolex because it was never a thing, and it’s not about to become a thing. I don’t think this article is talking about men wearing watches made for women.

The watch I was issued in the Army way back when was around 28mm. Pilots watches were bigger, around 34mm.

Yes, a one inch watch was absolutely a mens watch. Ladies watches tended to be built into their jewelry and were so tiny that they were marginally useless.

The modern wrist clocks didn’t become commonplace until the ‘70’s (my Timex was 36mm).

[1William]

The article is more talk about the same subject. Fashion trends come and go and repeat themselves. The men's clothing industry has done this and continues to do this. Pleated pants, non-pleated pants, high waist, low waist, Hollywood waist, cuffs, no cuffs, you get the idea. I have been in the watch game for more than thirty years and while I remember when we had large watches and that was the fad it was never discussed to the level of the smaller watch trend going on now. There is an army of posters that continually beat the drum on watch size based on diameter and they have transitioned to watch thickness now. There are no right answers only opinions and preferences. Mine are to wear items that are proportional to my size and look like they fit, to me. That is what I like and own, watches from 38mm to 51mm.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Blansky

But there is a distinction between people buying fashion, and people who are into horology. Obviously some crossover but ….. But basically, I just find these articles to be mostly filler and fluff pieces.

Agreed.

Let's be honest here.... It has been very easy pickings for UNcreative manufactures to just make the exact same timepiece and just change to a Tiffany blue dial. Nothing else is better, nothing else improved, it's just a dial change and some lost their minds and paid crazy sums for just a mainstream brand that changed dial color.

Of course it's easy profits and paid publicity for the company, a proverbial 'low hanging fruit' of marketing, and took zero creative effort or any real added costs. Just a dial, or a strap color change is all it takes.

[dtwer]

It's all about functionality; whatever size that serves its purpose is the right size. To me, the aging eyesight dictates that I need as big of a watch as I can comfortably wear on my wrist, lol.

The fashion trend is nothing more than a narrative fabricated by the fashion industry to sell consumers more sh*t they don't need; there is hardly any rhyme or reason between one trend and another. To the rational minds, the narrative should hold no sway: a mechanical watch that serves its functional purpose today will still serve the same purpose 7 years from now.

[Boopie]

I have a number of my great uncle’s sporty watches from the 1940s and 1950s, and those weren’t 26mm. The 29-31mm women’s watches have worked well for me. My mother in law’s 26mm 1970s gold President looks great on my wrist as jewelry but is almost too small to read as a day watch. I have a couple of watches from my grandmother that are basically the size of my pinkie tip, and are unusable as timepieces. Perhaps as a housewife in the 1940s and 1950s she didn’t need to look at her watch as much. Kids back then got themselves to and from school themselves.

My sons are both big and former football players. One has a more slender physique and could get away with wearing a 36mm watch, although he doesn’t have any desire to wear a 36mm watch. The other one definitely needs a 40mm or bigger. Younger guys are still so used to looking at their phone for the time, that I think a wristwatch will need to be legible.

[miamiclay]

Originally Posted by Blansky

I just find these articles to be mostly filler and fluff pieces.

Absolutely, this piece couldn’t be any fluffier if it were printed on a marshmallow!

OTOH it is the New York Times, where any watch content/coverage is fairly uncommon. I figured our members would be interested just to see what the Times is saying (especially where I can provide everyone access to it beyond the paywall).

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by miamiclay

Absolutely, this piece couldn’t be any fluffier if it were printed on a marshmallow!

OTOH it is the New York Times, where any watch content/coverage is fairly uncommon. I figured our members would be interested just to see what the Times is saying (especially where I can provide link access beyond the paywall).

Not knocking your posting at all. Especially after all the stuff that I post.

I remember working at a newspaper a lifetime ago and there was the hard news, the local news and then the stuff that came in already written up that was basically recipes, "fashion" and filler to fill in the gaps in the pages.

[m j b]

Why do we care what small men wear?



Oh. Never mind.

[East Bay Rider]

The article was fashion news aimed at flamboyant people who spend too much time looking at themselves in mirrors and thinking about how much time other people spend looking at them. Strike a pose, Zoolander.
I don't know much about fashion but I believe tool watches won't be miniaturized for use by men who use tool watches.

[offrdmania]

26-31mm on my 7.5 wrist, I dont think so

[Speedbird-1]

Light in the Loafer.....is that a new fashion brand?