Great presentation! Mark is very well spoken and presents his material with data to back his findings. I wonder if people's perception of their wrist size skewed to small is simply because the "hocky-puck" watches actually make most wrists actually look small. Thanks again to the HSofNY for making this available to us.
Thanks for watching! I think for people who perceive their wrists to be small, I believe this is the case. i.e. the market has a lot of very big watches making you think your wrist is very small via the substitution effect.
I’ll agree Bruce, and add that your Hockey puck analogy has certainly skewed the public perception of what a “normal” sized watch is. All from a trend in the early 2000’s and it’s a shame. 36-38 should be large enough for anyone or certainly 40 for any others who feel it isn’t. But, nowadays so many think it looks great to wear a biscuit on their wrist and look fantastic.
I'm a 6'4" 180 lb dude with 6.3" wrists. I still wear a 35mm dress Seiko watch I bought 20 years ago. The case is 6,5mm thick and does not block the cuff of my shirt. The watch and its bracelet weigh only 30g and I am happy with that because I can't stand to feel the weight or the bulk of a "timepiece" on my wrist.
What an excellent study! The success of the Tudor Black Bay 58 really bears this out. I really feel like wrist *width* and "lug to lug" are more useful components of watch sizing than diameter. My wrist is 7.75", and 42 mm is my sweet spot...because my wrist is wide. I could probably get away with 38mm if it spanned my wrist better.
Very interesting perspectives. I enjoy the lecture and the HODINKEE podcast too 👌 I definitely think that smaller watches are a watch person concern. A concern that I share too. But when I look at people’s wrists I see a lot of “big” watches for man and women. These fashion watches seems to often be larger on average. I strongly think that if watch manufacturers including “mall watches” and “fashion watches” were to produce smaller watches people would buy them as they are. The watch industry is obviously lacking consumer perspective and their conservative business models prevents them to change. Also, I believe that dial size is an often overlooked “spec” . For example I know that I tend to like watches with dial around 26 to 32mm dial. This translates to watches from 34 to 45mm diameters. On my 7” wrist I wear watches from 34mm vintage Seamaster to 42mm Sinn.
Maybe watch companies need to offer more watches in 37mm, since that's a very uncommon diameter. Rolex seems to already be getting in on that with say, the Yachtmaster. You'd also have to look at lug-to-lug width preferences.
37mm would be great and it is oddly a rarity from most brands. The only one that springs to mind is Naoya Hida's line and the Rolex Yachtmaster as you mentioned. Greater awareness of lug to lug would be really helpful, too. I have bought 38mm watches that are unsuitable for myself because the lug to lug is too long. It is a shame a lot of brands don't publish a lug to lug measurement. I did provide a field in the survey for people for lug to lug preference but it wasn't used enough to be significant.
Thanks Mark! Nuanced and on point as always. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the fact that Rolex is still flying the 36mm flag is a big part of the reason why I still have warm feelings towards the brand. I wonder why the whole retro mega-trend hasn't caught on in the watch industry in terms of sizing: Offering a line of watches in a classic size should automatically provide an air of historic heft and gravitas to any brand. That's why many Longines retro designs don't quite work: they won't scale up nicely and come across as shallow and a-historic for that reason.
I agree with you, I think Rolex still having 36mm available is probably valuable to them both in terms of sales and brand equity. Downsizing watches now might be hard though, most modern movements that have been developed for existing product lines are bigger than their predecessors to better fill the case and dial. To fit a modern movement in a smaller case is often not possible. I do wish Longines would release some of those heritage models in smaller sizes, they really are lovely. I actually just picked up a 32mm Logines re-issue!
@@markchodotcom Mark, Thanks for your hard effort to provide such a good findings. For me I fall into the small wrist size with 6.5 inches, and my watches range from only around 30mm to 40mm in sizes. Right, I really like somthing around 37 to 38mm watches, but since my vintage watches come from 1920s to 1960 era, and most of them is just around 33mm to 36mm, I still love it. I respect historical evloution of watches sizes and like watchmaker makes watch based on the caliber size, rather than unnecessary oversized the watch cases due to fashion reason.
@@markchodotcom Absoultely, but in late 1970s and 1980s, when I just start to work, I usally wear a watches with size between 33mm to 35mm case size and it is quite normally for man to wear this size upto 36mm at that time. Aslo I also live in HK
style and function: if you attend a formal event, you wear a dress watch; if you go diving you wear a scuba suit and diver's watch, if you're wearing workout clothes in the gym, you wear a sports watch.
Excellent presentation. I find the question around primary and secondary watches a little unfruitful: to me it reads more like the preferences people would make for a secondary watch might be a reflection of market realities - in other words: "What am I willing to buy, given what the market has to offer?" Whereas for a primary watch, people are stating their preference, for the secondary watch people are expressing their acceptance of a wider range of constraints.
That is an interesting reading of what Primary and Secondary means and good food for thought. In terms of my own collecting and the observation of most of my customers, traditionally it has been: a primary watch that I wear most of the week to work and a secondary watch that I wear on the weekends out of work. Up until Covid hit, most people spent most of their week at their workplace and the rest outside of it. They have fairly defined wardrobes and requirements in each context. Since Covid the rules of what is and is not a workplace as well as what watches you might wear the most has changed a lot!
I can both relate on doing acadamic research for grad school and trying to find a watch with a 43 mm lug to lug (max) that is not a dress watch. Kudos to you. Great job!
Well, much as I wish I had 1,800 clients who were so interested in my study that they would answer this survey, chances are they only account for maybe a few hundred responses at most. I would say the sample is mostly watch enthusiasts with some also being tailored clothing or classic men's style enthusiasts. The slide on "Favourite Brands" is probably the most telling of the audience. TAG, Breitling and Hublot are nowhere in sight despite their obviously very large commercial footprint in the marketplace.
I would also add that I think the results of the survey are still of commercial importance because if they managed find this survey and answered it fully, they are likely to be the sort of person who is interested in watches and willing to spend their money on a watch that for many of them does not actually exist in the market.
@@markchodotcom understood and thanks for the responses. Incidentally, you have a fan of your lecture on watchuseek.com and they are asking a similar question about case size. Definitely 40 mm and under is the preferred size. Still a limited sampling though
Not exactly. Some movements are small anyway and they make a huge case and dial for it. Others can stick to 36-38 and they decide to make the case bulky and goes beyond 41. Most watches are not Speedmaster that goes to space, so they don't really need that 42mm think case to withstand the shock. They should keep them slim and light.
I would be curious to know if the same respondents perceived their bodies and heads to be small, average, or large, as watch size to body/head size could figure into things as well, but simply aren’t considered.
This video makes me feel seen. I was surprised to find out my wrist is a pretty average size. Though because my taste is for moderately sized watches, I struggle to find any modern offerings. Case diameter is the main reason I only own vintage watches. I wasn't able to participate in the survey, so here are some useless stats. Wrist size: 6.299 inches / 16 cm Current diameter range: 34mm - 35mm Maximum diameter range: 33mm - 36.3mm (not including rectangular watches) Maximum lug to lug: 43.5mm Maximum thickness: 13.5mm
VC just came out with a small wrist-friendly watch 1921 36.5mm in White Gold. Of course, the Rose gold version was released a few years back. It is funny that it instantly caught my attention because I know if I purchase that I can get the tech and robustness of modern manufacturing, and the vintage vibe from the watch. Watch trends today tends to get huge and over the top as if they want people to know what the fuck the wearers are up to. I don't like that, neither do other people as far as I am concerned. I agree with the fact that most people move to vintage watches because of the size. They are perfect, not heavy, and don't get in the way.
A quick google search seems to reveal that the average male wrist size is 7.25 inches, so perhaps the population of your survey somehow skews towards those with smaller wrists.
1. Did not expect behavioral economics lesson. Kudos. 2. Did you control for gender? A woman with an average female wrist might think that her wrist is small relative to 'average' since average includes men. This would explain the apparent contradiction between nearly half of your subjects indicating they have small wrists and the bell curve around measured wrist size. 3. Very interesting talk. Appreciate it immensely! 4. 38 40
Thanks for watching! I removed all female respondents from the data. Out of the nearly 1900 results, I only had 11 so it wasn't a useful amount of information anyways.
The PAM thing is what did it for sure and to me it’s so 2006 now. Large pieces look silly and not many can wear them well at all, but it seems we are stuck with these 40+ designs on some of our favorites. Fortunately some makes are making smaller choices and this is fantastic. I think it’s really interesting, and fantastic that Rolex took the Explorer back to 36. It should never have been blown up as it’s perfect at 36. Id like to see this survey continue, but you need a broader age range and knowledge from us who aren’t IG gawkers, but seasoned collectors and enthusiasts.
To be frank, you don't sell all customers the same size suit because you don't have to tool up capital and develop new movement/dial/hand/date window design relationships to fit each customer's different size. You can tailor these things in a labor intensive way on the fly ($) or make a bespoke suit ($$$$). Watch companies obviously cannot even do it on the fly and in a capital intensive sector, a "piece unique" is going to be...($$$$$$$$). It would be like ordering a custom saddle vs. say an exotic car in a custom color. In the former case, no problem. In the latter, they can do it, and might, but they will not make it easy or cheap because custom options gum up the works! Further, the watch companies have clearly figured this all out and it's evident in one of your graphs (16:47). If a watch company can make a 39mm watch that is at the lower end of the sweet spot for large wristed people but sufficiently "masculine" that it will still sell well in that sphere, is bang in the middle of the preferences of mid-wristed people (that gives you over 50% of customers), and still brings in a bunch of customers with small wrists who will still buy a 39mm at the outside edge of their preferences (ideally the lugs are short!), then their watch industry statisticians have done a great job. If they went for only producing the 36mm or even 37mm, then they capture the small and perhaps a few of the medium wristed folks, but have clearly decided that they will not capture hardly any of the large wristed buyers (often for weird gender biased reasons in spite of history being full of "manly" men wearing small watches). This whole discussion is why Rolex is having amazing success. For example. they make the new OP in 28, 31, 34, 36, and 41mm. Rolex can, for somewhat obvious reasons manage this...partially because I suspect the raw case stampings (and the capital making them) are used across the rolex lines in very high volume and partially because they are obviously a huge dominant and independent player (not subject to a corporate overlord) and can afford to do (and do!) as they please in a way that even Omega cannot...much less a smaller brand.
Your graphs are wrong:it is always (vertical axis) VS (horizontal axis). Also, give us some time to digest the information instead of going forward so fast!
One overlooked aspect of this is the qualitative or aesthetic variable. You may typically wear a 38mm watch but find that the 41mm simply looks better as may be the case of an Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra for example.
Great presentation! Mark is very well spoken and presents his material with data to back his findings. I wonder if people's perception of their wrist size skewed to small is simply because the "hocky-puck" watches actually make most wrists actually look small. Thanks again to the HSofNY for making this available to us.
Thanks for watching! I think for people who perceive their wrists to be small, I believe this is the case. i.e. the market has a lot of very big watches making you think your wrist is very small via the substitution effect.
I’ll agree Bruce, and add that your Hockey puck analogy has certainly skewed the public perception of what a “normal” sized watch is. All from a trend in the early 2000’s and it’s a shame. 36-38 should be large enough for anyone or certainly 40 for any others who feel it isn’t. But, nowadays so many think it looks great to wear a biscuit on their wrist and look fantastic.
I'm a 6'4" 180 lb dude with 6.3" wrists. I still wear a 35mm dress Seiko watch I bought 20 years ago. The case is 6,5mm thick and does not block the cuff of my shirt. The watch and its bracelet weigh only 30g and I am happy with that because I can't stand to feel the weight or the bulk of a "timepiece" on my wrist.
Great discussion, thanks Mark and HSNY
Thanks for watching!
I have a 6.5 inch wrist, that’s pretty small. My preferred watch size is 36-38mm
Can’t wait to watch this - It seems like this will be an interesting topic! Thank you.
Hope you found it interesting!
Excellent presentation and very interesting study.
Excellent research Mark 👏
Great Video - but there should be a rule that if you're doing a watch video, it's good form to actually wear a watch :)
Good point! I actually purposely didn't wear a watch, I didn't want people to think I was biased towards a particular size.
What an excellent study! The success of the Tudor Black Bay 58 really bears this out.
I really feel like wrist *width* and "lug to lug" are more useful components of watch sizing than diameter. My wrist is 7.75", and 42 mm is my sweet spot...because my wrist is wide. I could probably get away with 38mm if it spanned my wrist better.
Agreed, lug to lug can make the difference. I love a 38mm case, but if the lug to lug is over 45mm, it won’t fit me that well
Very interesting perspectives. I enjoy the lecture and the HODINKEE podcast too 👌
I definitely think that smaller watches are a watch person concern. A concern that I share too.
But when I look at people’s wrists I see a lot of “big” watches for man and women. These fashion watches seems to often be larger on average.
I strongly think that if watch manufacturers including “mall watches” and “fashion watches” were to produce smaller watches people would buy them as they are.
The watch industry is obviously lacking consumer perspective and their conservative business models prevents them to change.
Also, I believe that dial size is an often overlooked “spec” . For example I know that I tend to like watches with dial around 26 to 32mm dial. This translates to watches from 34 to 45mm diameters. On my 7” wrist I wear watches from 34mm vintage Seamaster to 42mm Sinn.
Excellent presentation, Mark! I very much enjoyed watching and it gave me a lot to think about.
Maybe watch companies need to offer more watches in 37mm, since that's a very uncommon diameter. Rolex seems to already be getting in on that with say, the Yachtmaster.
You'd also have to look at lug-to-lug width preferences.
37mm would be great and it is oddly a rarity from most brands. The only one that springs to mind is Naoya Hida's line and the Rolex Yachtmaster as you mentioned. Greater awareness of lug to lug would be really helpful, too. I have bought 38mm watches that are unsuitable for myself because the lug to lug is too long. It is a shame a lot of brands don't publish a lug to lug measurement. I did provide a field in the survey for people for lug to lug preference but it wasn't used enough to be significant.
Thanks Mark! Nuanced and on point as always. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the fact that Rolex is still flying the 36mm flag is a big part of the reason why I still have warm feelings towards the brand. I wonder why the whole retro mega-trend hasn't caught on in the watch industry in terms of sizing: Offering a line of watches in a classic size should automatically provide an air of historic heft and gravitas to any brand. That's why many Longines retro designs don't quite work: they won't scale up nicely and come across as shallow and a-historic for that reason.
I agree with you, I think Rolex still having 36mm available is probably valuable to them both in terms of sales and brand equity. Downsizing watches now might be hard though, most modern movements that have been developed for existing product lines are bigger than their predecessors to better fill the case and dial. To fit a modern movement in a smaller case is often not possible. I do wish Longines would release some of those heritage models in smaller sizes, they really are lovely. I actually just picked up a 32mm Logines re-issue!
@@markchodotcom Mark, Thanks for your hard effort to provide such a good findings. For me I fall into the small wrist size with 6.5 inches, and my watches range from only around 30mm to 40mm in sizes. Right, I really like somthing around 37 to 38mm watches, but since my vintage watches come from 1920s to 1960 era, and most of them is just around 33mm to 36mm, I still love it. I respect historical evloution of watches sizes and like watchmaker makes watch based on the caliber size, rather than unnecessary oversized the watch cases due to fashion reason.
@@fromwatcheswithlove8717 Thanks for the kind comment. It sounds like your preferences match up with the survey results!
@@markchodotcom Absoultely, but in late 1970s and 1980s, when I just start to work, I usally wear a watches with size between 33mm to 35mm case size and it is quite normally for man to wear this size upto 36mm at that time. Aslo I also live in HK
style and function: if you attend a formal event, you wear a dress watch; if you go diving you wear a scuba suit and diver's watch, if you're wearing workout clothes in the gym, you wear a sports watch.
does it make sense to size a watch in the same way we size a shoe after taking a foot measurement?
Great show guys, I love my Rolex OP
I would gladly pay less for a woman's high end watch, since 33 - 34 mm is just right for my silver screen days preference.
Ditto--
Excellent presentation. I find the question around primary and secondary watches a little unfruitful: to me it reads more like the preferences people would make for a secondary watch might be a reflection of market realities - in other words: "What am I willing to buy, given what the market has to offer?" Whereas for a primary watch, people are stating their preference, for the secondary watch people are expressing their acceptance of a wider range of constraints.
That is an interesting reading of what Primary and Secondary means and good food for thought. In terms of my own collecting and the observation of most of my customers, traditionally it has been: a primary watch that I wear most of the week to work and a secondary watch that I wear on the weekends out of work. Up until Covid hit, most people spent most of their week at their workplace and the rest outside of it. They have fairly defined wardrobes and requirements in each context. Since Covid the rules of what is and is not a workplace as well as what watches you might wear the most has changed a lot!
I can both relate on doing acadamic research for grad school and trying to find a watch with a 43 mm lug to lug (max) that is not a dress watch.
Kudos to you. Great job!
34mm OP?
Nice discussion. Mark, do you think you’re responses were skewed by your clients who are likely to be more into wearing dress watches?
Well, much as I wish I had 1,800 clients who were so interested in my study that they would answer this survey, chances are they only account for maybe a few hundred responses at most. I would say the sample is mostly watch enthusiasts with some also being tailored clothing or classic men's style enthusiasts. The slide on "Favourite Brands" is probably the most telling of the audience. TAG, Breitling and Hublot are nowhere in sight despite their obviously very large commercial footprint in the marketplace.
I would also add that I think the results of the survey are still of commercial importance because if they managed find this survey and answered it fully, they are likely to be the sort of person who is interested in watches and willing to spend their money on a watch that for many of them does not actually exist in the market.
@@markchodotcom understood and thanks for the responses. Incidentally, you have a fan of your lecture on watchuseek.com and they are asking a similar question about case size. Definitely 40 mm and under is the preferred size. Still a limited sampling though
I've heard some discussion correlating the size of movement with the quality of performance
Not exactly. Some movements are small anyway and they make a huge case and dial for it. Others can stick to 36-38 and they decide to make the case bulky and goes beyond 41. Most watches are not Speedmaster that goes to space, so they don't really need that 42mm think case to withstand the shock. They should keep them slim and light.
I would be curious to know if the same respondents perceived their bodies and heads to be small, average, or large, as watch size to body/head size could figure into things as well, but simply aren’t considered.
This video makes me feel seen. I was surprised to find out my wrist is a pretty average size. Though because my taste is for moderately sized watches, I struggle to find any modern offerings. Case diameter is the main reason I only own vintage watches. I wasn't able to participate in the survey, so here are some useless stats.
Wrist size: 6.299 inches / 16 cm
Current diameter range: 34mm - 35mm
Maximum diameter range: 33mm - 36.3mm (not including rectangular watches)
Maximum lug to lug: 43.5mm
Maximum thickness: 13.5mm
VC just came out with a small wrist-friendly watch 1921 36.5mm in White Gold. Of course, the Rose gold version was released a few years back. It is funny that it instantly caught my attention because I know if I purchase that I can get the tech and robustness of modern manufacturing, and the vintage vibe from the watch. Watch trends today tends to get huge and over the top as if they want people to know what the fuck the wearers are up to. I don't like that, neither do other people as far as I am concerned.
I agree with the fact that most people move to vintage watches because of the size. They are perfect, not heavy, and don't get in the way.
And you can even find chronographs in 35-37mm. There's no reason they can't still do it today.
@@tbprofile1295 Mostly because of water resistance ratings. I don't really care because I am not soaking it into a bath tub anyway.
A quick google search seems to reveal that the average male wrist size is 7.25 inches, so perhaps the population of your survey somehow skews towards those with smaller wrists.
To me even before the results I wondered to what whether the customer base of The Armoury skews in a particular direction
at a glance, for the average watch wearer, is it really all that obvious what the difference is between 37 and 38 mm?
1. Did not expect behavioral economics lesson. Kudos.
2. Did you control for gender? A woman with an average female wrist might think that her wrist is small relative to 'average' since average includes men. This would explain the apparent contradiction between nearly half of your subjects indicating they have small wrists and the bell curve around measured wrist size.
3. Very interesting talk. Appreciate it immensely!
4. 38 40
Thanks for watching!
I removed all female respondents from the data. Out of the nearly 1900 results, I only had 11 so it wasn't a useful amount of information anyways.
The PAM thing is what did it for sure and to me it’s so 2006 now. Large pieces look silly and not many can wear them well at all, but it seems we are stuck with these 40+ designs on some of our favorites. Fortunately some makes are making smaller choices and this is fantastic. I think it’s really interesting, and fantastic that Rolex took the Explorer back to 36. It should never have been blown up as it’s perfect at 36. Id like to see this survey continue, but you need a broader age range and knowledge from us who aren’t IG gawkers, but seasoned collectors and enthusiasts.
I kinda feel PAMs has to be big as well as a Tank has to be small 💁🏼♂️
To be frank, you don't sell all customers the same size suit because you don't have to tool up capital and develop new movement/dial/hand/date window design relationships to fit each customer's different size. You can tailor these things in a labor intensive way on the fly ($) or make a bespoke suit ($$$$). Watch companies obviously cannot even do it on the fly and in a capital intensive sector, a "piece unique" is going to be...($$$$$$$$). It would be like ordering a custom saddle vs. say an exotic car in a custom color. In the former case, no problem. In the latter, they can do it, and might, but they will not make it easy or cheap because custom options gum up the works! Further, the watch companies have clearly figured this all out and it's evident in one of your graphs (16:47). If a watch company can make a 39mm watch that is at the lower end of the sweet spot for large wristed people but sufficiently "masculine" that it will still sell well in that sphere, is bang in the middle of the preferences of mid-wristed people (that gives you over 50% of customers), and still brings in a bunch of customers with small wrists who will still buy a 39mm at the outside edge of their preferences (ideally the lugs are short!), then their watch industry statisticians have done a great job. If they went for only producing the 36mm or even 37mm, then they capture the small and perhaps a few of the medium wristed folks, but have clearly decided that they will not capture hardly any of the large wristed buyers (often for weird gender biased reasons in spite of history being full of "manly" men wearing small watches). This whole discussion is why Rolex is having amazing success. For example. they make the new OP in 28, 31, 34, 36, and 41mm. Rolex can, for somewhat obvious reasons manage this...partially because I suspect the raw case stampings (and the capital making them) are used across the rolex lines in very high volume and partially because they are obviously a huge dominant and independent player (not subject to a corporate overlord) and can afford to do (and do!) as they please in a way that even Omega cannot...much less a smaller brand.
Your graphs are wrong:it is always (vertical axis) VS (horizontal axis). Also, give us some time to digest the information instead of going forward so fast!
One overlooked aspect of this is the qualitative or aesthetic variable. You may typically wear a 38mm watch but find that the 41mm simply looks better as may be the case of an Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra for example.