Yesterday, The New York Times published its Fall 2009 issue of its Style magazine, dedicated to Men's Fashion. There is an interesting article about the sizes of men's watches and how there is currently a trend toward downsizing. Here is the link to an online, interactive version of the article -- http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2009/09/13/style/t/index.html#pageName=13watchesw [If the interactive version doesn't work for you, here is a link to a scan of the article.]
The author uses the Heuer Carrera as a barometer / benchmark of the changing size of watches, and he makes several references to Carreras; unfortunately, there is no illustration of any Carrera, vintage or modern, large or small.
One controversial aspect of the article -- at least it is being debated on another popular forum -- is the author's suggestion that the watches a person wears should be in proportion to his (or her) wrist. Others believe that the watch need not be matched to the wrist, but to the person's overall body size; still others suggest that anybody can wear any watch, regardless of their size (or the size of their wrists). Here is the crucial passage from the article:
One thing is certain, though. Whether on the hunt for a modest beauty or its supersize cousin, a man should always take into account his wrist size. A smaller wrist like my own (170 millimeters around and 56 millimeters across) looks a bit foolish with a 42-millimeter mid-1980s Heuer Pilot but great with a 35-millimeter 1964 Heuer Carrera. Fittingly, that proportion, 56 to 35, is almost exactly the long-famed ‘‘golden mean’’ — the ratio rooted in the Fibonacci series that, as legend has it, typifies ideal balance and perfect harmony.
I will admit that this is the first time that I have heard the "golden mean" applied to the size of a watch. So what do we think: early Carreras and 2444's for the little guys; Monacos and Montreals for the big guys; or is it "any watch for anyone"?
Jeff
