Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Show off your Apple Watch
- Thread starter jsmith189
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I disagree. On some people the 38mm looks way too small, I don't think so in this pic. Just my 2 cents.
Well that did it for me, I'm sticking with my silver and white and buying a black band.
I like my white band and the black band and both look great on the silver sport.
Thanks for sharing
Hey everyone... Check out my Apple Watch unboxing video here.
https://youtu.be/AbDb8xJ3Ni0
It's the 48mm Apple Watch with Black Sport Band
48??!! I want one of those.
My 38mm Space Gray Sport just arrived yesterday!
Hey, I know that skyscraper! #atlanta
Tuck
Pleas keep your prehistoric opinions to yourself. 38mm is a discreet size for those who do not want a big smart watch look on their wrist. Saying it is for women is just plain dumb. Fashion is also an element but I guess that depends on what state you live in.
Wellllll, another vote here for the 42mm watch and the advice that you should definitely try these things on before purchasing one, if possible.
I got my 38mm SG sport today after posting countless times explaining my preference for smaller watches and how perfect the 38mm looked in pictures... but I was wrong.
I have 177mm wrists, 61mm width and it's not that the 38mm is necessarily too small. If it was the only size option, I'd still buy it. However, the only reason I didn't choose the 42mm is because it looked too big in pictures. As has been said 100 times in these forums, the pictures are very deceiving. A 1-dimensional image doesn't accurately reflect what these things look like as dynamic objects in a 3-dimensional world.
The pictures I've taken of the watch on my wrist look perfect, but when I see the same thing in reality, it's obvious the 42mm would have been a better choice.
Another way of putting it: the way the 38mm looks in images, probably better reflects the way the 42mm looks in reality.
I got my 38mm SG sport today after posting countless times explaining my preference for smaller watches and how perfect the 38mm looked in pictures... but I was wrong.
I have 177mm wrists, 61mm width and it's not that the 38mm is necessarily too small. If it was the only size option, I'd still buy it. However, the only reason I didn't choose the 42mm is because it looked too big in pictures. As has been said 100 times in these forums, the pictures are very deceiving. A 1-dimensional image doesn't accurately reflect what these things look like as dynamic objects in a 3-dimensional world.
The pictures I've taken of the watch on my wrist look perfect, but when I see the same thing in reality, it's obvious the 42mm would have been a better choice.
Another way of putting it: the way the 38mm looks in images, probably better reflects the way the 42mm looks in reality.
Last edited:
If you want to see a better representation of what it looks like in real life in a picture. Take a picture of yourself wearing it in a mirror about 1 metre away from the mirror. This will show you what it looks like from a distance of 2 metres, which is closer to how the world will see it. It will be far less distorted than pointing the camera directly at your wrist.
To me, how it looks on me from a fashion standpoint is more important than screen size or specs, and in my opinion the 38mm wins hands down for most people with wrists under 200mm.
The only people I've seen who pull off the 42mm well either have very thick wrists (over 200mm), are overweight, or very muscular in their forearm.
Last edited:
It looks very small on you, almost like a kiddie toy. I don't agree on anything you said, especially the last sentence. The fact that you said only fatties and body builders can wear the 42 is laughable. I think the 42 looks great on all guys regardless of weight or size.
You don't agree with anything I said? Even about taking a picture in the mirror to give a much more accurate representation of how it looks in real life? Because that's pretty much fact.
I never said only fatties and body builders can wear it. I said if your wrist is under 200mm or so, the 42mm looks oversized unless you're overweight or have very muscular forearms.
Saying the 42mm looks great on all guys is ridiculous. Some guys have wrists that are barely even 42mm wide; a 42mm watch would be absurd for them.
All these pics - does everyone really wear the watch right on their wrist where the joint is? I've never seen that on someone live and in person wearing a watch.
I can't stand it there, I can't use my hand with a watch right there. Mine sits just above, right behind the "wrist bones" that stick out on your arm, not in front of them.
Maybe that's why you think the 38 is the right size, because it is too far down your arm.
I can't stand it there, I can't use my hand with a watch right there. Mine sits just above, right behind the "wrist bones" that stick out on your arm, not in front of them.
Maybe that's why you think the 38 is the right size, because it is too far down your arm.
According to the golden ratio, a wrist of 68mm wide is ideal for a 42mm watch. Most wrists under 200mm around are less than 68mm wide.
It obviously all comes down to personal preference, and everyone should wear whatever size makes them happy, but there are certain fashion rules of thumb that have been around for years, and they don't suddenly become untrue with the advent of smartwatches.
I wear it in both places, but find it more comfortable on the wristbone 90% of the time. James Bond wears his watches on the wrist bone, if its good enough for him, its good enough for me. ;P
We're still trying to convince each other which size is "right"???
Here's a guide I've thoroughly researched and triple checked before publishing:
If you like the 38mm more than the 42mm, I'd recommend the 38mm.
Wait! There's more!
If you like the 42mm more than the 38mm, I'd recommend the 42mm for you.
I hope this helped.
----------
Dude, I appreciate most of what you've contributed (especially the "step back and look from 2m" advice), but the golden ratio is complete BS.
And I do mean complete BS.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio-designs-biggest-myth
Edit: I cannot believe I addressed someone on here as "dude" ... my deepest apologies.
Here's a guide I've thoroughly researched and triple checked before publishing:
If you like the 38mm more than the 42mm, I'd recommend the 38mm.
Wait! There's more!
If you like the 42mm more than the 38mm, I'd recommend the 42mm for you.
I hope this helped.
----------
Dude, I appreciate most of what you've contributed (especially the "step back and look from 2m" advice), but the golden ratio is complete BS.
And I do mean complete BS.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio-designs-biggest-myth
Edit: I cannot believe I addressed someone on here as "dude" ... my deepest apologies.
Last edited:
We're still trying to convince each other which size is "right"???
Here's a guide I've thoroughly researched and triple checked before publishing:
If you like the 38mm more than the 42mm, I'd recommend the 38mm.
Wait! There's more!
If you like the 42mm more than the 38mm, I'd recommend the 42mm for you.
I hope this helped.
----------
Dude, I appreciate most of what you've contributed (especially the "step back and look from 2m" advice), but the golden ratio is complete BS.
And I do mean complete BS.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio-designs-biggest-myth
"... and there's more... c'm 'ere"
Pretty much exactly what I said here:
But people keep asking for others opinions on what size to go with, so I give my input.
As for the golden ratio, that was a fascinating article, thanks for posting it. I still think there's merit to things having aesthetically appealing proportions, but yes, I suppose its all subjective.
Sorry to say this, but the "case diameter" how it is shown in the above picture actually corresponds to the width, not the height of the watch face on the Apple Watch. It's only 36.2mm wide.
I don't think this "rule" applies because we aren't talking circles here. And we all know you can't fit a circle into a square(rectangular) hole.
As to placement - I don't know how people bend their wrists with it right up against their hand. Of course, I wear it on my dominant arm, (left on left-handed) so maybe that has something to do with it for me.
Sorry to say this, but the "case diameter" how it is shown in the above picture actually corresponds to the width, not the height of the watch face on the Apple Watch. It's only 36.2mm wide.
I don't think this "rule" applies because we aren't talking circles here. And we all know you can't fit a circle into a square(rectangular) hole.
Yeah, it's not the best diagram. The intention was to refer to watch case diameter, which is how conventional watches are usually measured, not case width including the crown, but either way kinster's article argues that the golden ratio is irrelevant to design anyways. As a graphic designer that uses the golden ratio often, I'm not sure I'd discount it completely as it works, and is certainly used a lot in design, but the article makes a valid counter-argument as well.
I think wearing it on your dominant hand has a lot to do with it. When wearing it on my wristbone, I have at least 90% rotation without any discomfort. If it was on my dominant hand, I could see how losing that 10% would be an issue.
When I wear it further up my wrist, I find it irritates my skin a bit more and I get itchy under the band. I guess my skin is more sensitive further up.
Last edited:
Pretty much exactly what I said here:
But people keep asking for others opinions on what size to go with, so I give my input.
You're definitely not the worst offender, I prefer the 38mm myself, but the arguing and belittling over something that couldn't be more subjective is just... weird. I know, internet.
I loved that article because I saw it just days after going to a Da Vinci exhibit at an actual museum where they had a whole section about his use of the golden ratio, and it turns out he was unaware of it.
It can certainly be used as a starting point, like the "rule of thirds" for photography which isn't actually a rule, more of a guideline (I think that was mentioned in that article).
Taking this thread far afield of its topic now, but it's better than arguing. Maybe I'll post a picture of my new watch in a few hours to make up for it
The Apple Watch is measured by height, not width (as shown here). 42mm is the height.
By the way, my wrists are 55mm in width and 155mm circumference and the 42mm looks just fine. My wife laughed when I put on the 38mm and she, the Apple rep and myself all agreed the 42mm was the way to go.
My wrist sizes just under 6". I have tiny wrists, but feel the 42mm fits me just fine. Generally, I often wear 40-42mm watches. After trying a 38mm at the Apple Store, I'm very satisfied with the 42mm.
This must be your first watch ever, because you obviously don't know that the "golden rule" isn't science, it still varies from person to person until they try it on
your logic that only overweight and muscle bound people can wear a 42mm is laughable, do you even read what you're typing?