502218 vs 502307 on 6.5" wrist

I own IWC's PPC 502218 and love the features, design & look, but I'm wondering if the newer 44.2mm 502307 would be even better on my wrist. I must thank Shing for sharing pics of his 5023, for that’s all I’ve had to go on so far. I do have small wrists at 6.5" circumference and I’m concerned that 44.2mm may be too big.

Here’s a couple recent pictures of me wearing my 502218:

So, what’s the better size of my wrist, the 42.3mm 502218, or the 44.2mm 502307? I’ve come to the conclusion that I prefer 502218 when viewed straight on, as seen in my top picture. 502307 looks better to me when viewed from an angle, or at least I think it does, but I won’t know for certain until I see it on my wrist. If Shing was to chime in with his wrist size, that would help me gauge my decision somewhat.

Does anyone know if the overall length with the lugs has increased with the newer model 5023? From the pictures, it seems that the lugs have stayed the same and the case diameter increased. That’s because the space between the straps and the case appears to have shrunk and the lugs do seem shorter on the newer version.

Also, any advice on ordering straps? I'm on the next to last notch with the current supplied straps that 502218 came with. Should I order one size smaller or two sizes smaller? I'm not even sure if two sizes smaller is an option but I'm thinking one size smaller would do the trick, or at least that's my guess. And can I order the exact same strap color/design but in a smaller size and if so, is there a list for model #s so I don't confuse the dealer when I place my order?

Hi Shawn - I purchased my first IWC this summer, the 502213 rose gold PPC, and I had the same size discussion with myself as you are having - and to be honest I am still not completely finished with it :-)

I ended up with the 42,3mm 5022 because that is the one I saw and fell in love with. My two major reasons for doing so were, one - when I first laid my eyes on it I really liked the fact that the dial goes all the way to the edge, in other words the bezel is very "thin" when looked at straight on; and two - it has a light brown strap as opposed to the dark brown for the 5023 (yes, I do know straps can easily be changed).

Now, why do I still wonder about the 44,2mm 5023?? Because I do like a larger watch. On the other hand, getting the 5023 will affect my first point above because they both use the same 51613 calibre movement and the dial size is the same, it is only the bezel and case that is slightly larger.

My wrist is 17mm or 6,7", about the same as yours - and whenever I wear the PPC I must say it looks perfect. But, I know I will not be able to fully put my mind at ease until I can actually try on a 5023 at an AD and see for myself which one I really think is best.

I have a 17 cm wrist myself, and 44 mm watches are no problem for me. My yellow gold Portuguese Perpetual Calendar is the "big one". If anything, the height influences the comfort the most. The height/width ratio favours the big one, making it look a bit more elegant. But already owning the "small one", and having an even smaller wrist than mine, I would stay put, and enjoy the watch that I have. The loss of money that you incur when swapping may be better used for another nice watch.

As for the strap: first of all, I really like the dark brown strap on the white gold ardoise dialed watch, it is a superb chic combination. I have the normal one, on the last hole: all my watches are on the last hole. Although the deployant clasp does not sit in the middle of my wrist, the whole watch wears comfortable enough, but I guess the XS strap would be better for me. You having a smaller wrist I guess that option to be even better.

Just thinking about it: is it possible to order the XS strap right away when buying the new watch, without the up-price of an extra strap? Does this depend on the relation you have with your AD, or is there an IWC policy on this?

Kind regards,
Paul

Hi Shawn, greetings from HK. Would love to visit Memphis one of these days.

We have basically the same-sized wrists: mine is about 6.6" to 6.7", depending on the weather and how much gym time I put in, lol. I sometimes believe that the slightly larger size of my hands and longer fingers may mitigate the watches appearing "too large" on my wrist, but in all honesty 'large' 44 to 46mm watches have never bothered me, and I feel for 6.5" wrists they are fine. Looking at your pics, I believe you can definitely pull off a 502307.

Also, for me if I love the watch I love the watch. And... experience has taught me comments coming from people that 44mm watches are too large for them (some even with 7.2" wrist sizes) come mainly from those who have not entered that wrist-terrain yet. I observe them buying their first 44mm piece, and thereafter large watches are large no more.

I pulled the trigger on the 44.2mm rather than the 42.3 mm for the same reason as Skule - 5023 was available in Hong Kong whereas 5022 was not. Here is a "naked" wrist shot of mine. In formal wear, I feel this issue becomes even less.

Still, here are some pics for your consideration, measurements available where possible.

Lug to lug measures about 52.5 mm

And outer lug clocks in at about 27.5 mm

The 5001 Port Auto is also 42.3 mm in diameter, so this is them side by side. I feel its a negligible difference, with the thicker bezel on the 5032 reflecting the larger size most significantly.

re strap size, to my knowledge IWC supplies only XS, Standard, and XL lengths. I use the XS, the second smallest hole.

Are u contemplating purchasing a 502307 ? If so, I must say u really love ardoise ! How about this one instead ? ::)) just my 2 cents and having some fun, lol.

Hope this helps.

btw Skule yes u are right about the 1333 metres diving depth in the other post. I got that wrong and thanks for the correction. Thankfully engineers abound in this forum !

Hi Paul,

My own experience has been this: Boutiques will have the size u want on hand, and give that to you at no extra cost. They may also throw in a different colour strap of your desired size even. Good ADs will give the strap size you want without kicking up a fuss - but usually I would have to wait. Not so great ADs just want to sell you what they have first, and recommend you go to the boutique to buy whatever else you need. sigh.

Shing - thanks so much for those 1+1 Portuguese pictures. The difference between the 42,3 and the 44,2 does not seem very significant when looking at them side by side. And you have helped me put my "wonderin mind" to rest - I will keep the 5022 as I don't think the small change in size is worth the extra money I would have to lay down.
I'll rather invest that in my next IWC purchase :-)

PS! When will you reveal your sportswatch purchase?? I am guessing it is an Ingenieur Chronograph.

Thanks a ton! These prompt replies have been extremely helpful. Special thanks to Shing for those measurements and fresh pictures.

Apparently the lug to lug length is a tad longer with the 5023, but only by 0.9 mm, that is 51.59 mm vs 52.5 mm. That’s still a tough call on which is ideal. There are merits/preferences for either one but 5023 has the potential of being a step backwards if it is indeed too large physically, as in I don’t want the wall clock look on my wrist.

For example, I definitely don’t want my PPC looking like this on my wrist, where the dial alone is larger than the wrist:

@ Shing: While our wrists are similar circumferences, yours appears to have a flatter and perhaps wider surface for the watch to rest on. My wrist is more accurately a 6.6” circumference and I do my forearm and wrist workouts religiously but that doesn’t seem to increase the size any, at least not permanently (that pump wears off unfortunately). I suppose it’s the same with our ankles. You can build your calves (gastrocnemius) to the point of absurdity, but if you want cankles, one must adhere to a strict diet of beer and donuts.

Anyways, I’m leaning towards the 502307. While I like your platinum PPC, my favorite is the WG, then the RG, then platinum. Black strap is too dressy and would get less wear with me.

@ Shawn: Shawn, pleasure is mine :) Thanks for involving me in this interesting discourse - I think there's a fair bit of enigma in the 5022 vs. 5023 debate in that people still continue to wonder, and I think this post of yours certainly helps clear some of the fog. Interesting wrist-size analysis & comments too !

@ Skule: the reveal is coming ! sorry, rather swamped.