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 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.

Excellent presentation, Mark! I very much enjoyed watching and it gave me a lot to think about.

Excellent research Mark 👏

Excellent presentation and very interesting study.

Great discussion, thanks Mark and HSNY

Can’t wait to watch this - It seems like this will be an interesting topic! Thank you.

Great show guys, I love my Rolex OP

I have a 6.5 inch wrist, that’s pretty small. My preferred watch size is 36-38mm

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 :)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

does it make sense to size a watch in the same way we size a shoe after taking a foot measurement?

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.

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.

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

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.

I've heard some discussion correlating the size of movement with the quality of performance

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.

Nice discussion. Mark, do you think you’re responses were skewed by your clients who are likely to be more into wearing dress watches?

at a glance, for the average watch wearer, is it really all that obvious what the difference is between 37 and 38 mm?

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.

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.

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

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.

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!