How to get Naked - a 2 step Guide

No pushback....but you bring up an interesting point. I think there is a difference in how many of us collect watches. Some collect vintage models but never actually wear them. I even met a collector one time who did not even wear a watch. He collected all kinds of watches but never wore any of them.
MF has an unbelievable PW collection but I seriously doubt he has any of them in his jacket pockets.
On the other hand I only collect watches I intend to wear. If I find myself not wearing a watch I will sell it. And so that is the rub for me on the the smaller watches. I like a big watch anyway, and always have. So, no matter how much I appreciate the history of the pieces I know I won't wear them and therefore I won't collect them. This is not meant to denigrate anyone's choices.
For example, I think that Tony's quest to acquire all of the Mark 11 watches issued to the RAF,BOAC etc is really cool. I understand his compassion for these pieces even though I would not be able to wear such small watches.
Anyway, I think Mark's point was that after wearing a relatively large watch for a week it is difficult to wear the smaller watches.
I think we can all appreciate the other Forum members collections even if we would not actually wear the watches collected.

Alan, agreed and well said.

Kevin

Mark, I must admit that I accessed this thread with some dread. I imagined it X-rated. :-) Much to my relief, it is about the relative weight of watches and their effect on the user. A non-issue, with all due respect.
I wear all my vintage (even the ref 325s), new (CFI and CFDV), and even the IWC pocket watches, according to the occasion, but never for so long as to create an habituation memory for weight or shape.

Alan, I do wear my Mark 11s, mainly during pilot reunions, or when I go into the wild blue yonder. One must look the part. :-)
BTW Alan, the big/heavy watch fad will soon be over, in reality it should already have ended, and it is inevitable that watches will return to an elegant size and weight, smilar to what happend to the width of ties and lapels.

I agree that the overly big watch fad will end, but I seriously doubt that we will return to 34 mm watches any time soon. 38-42 sounds just about right.

I am not so sure. If the way the pendulum swings on the widths of ties/lapels is a good measure, we will soon see 35mm diameter wristwatches.
I agree, however, that wristwatches with 38/40mm diameter are, in most cases, the most proportionate.

If wearing big makes people get used to, it works the other way too, the smaller you wear the more big cases will look unbearable.

I wear all my vintage even while driving my scooter (everyday), I do everything with them except swimming, I keep them away from water just because if some water would enter the case, I couldn't go to the AD and ask for another dial or part, damaged by the water (that's a reason why I like vintage so much, can't buy anytime, need to search, keep, preserve).

I think small is better than big, thin better than thick, light better than heavy.

The exception proves the rule, ref. 1832 is fat and thick and big but I love my fat monster, hopelessly!

So, I quote Alan's comment, there's room for anybody's taste and every opinion has to be respected.

Antonio says it so correctly - quote "...never for so long as to create an habituation memory for weight or shape."

And therein lies the answer!

WEAR THEM - WEAR THEM ALL - AND WEAR THEM REGULARLY

Alan, agreed and well said.

Kevin

Hello again all,

Great comments on such a interesting topic. After reading some more input, allow me to throw out a few more thoughts.

Trends come and go. Watches, clothing, cars, furniture, color palets,they all have a cycle or manufacturers would not survive. It's all about the Marketing ! No doubt that the "BIG" diameters will shift downward to a more historical average eventually. Alan, I think you are spot on that 38-42mm will become the new normal. That is why my feelings about the MARKS should be retained in the 38-39 but no more than 40mm range. This particular watch is iconic with a rich history. Yes, it has been altered in design over the years, but as the watch trend turns, this too will return to more of it's root design and too will the diameter change with the times. I think weight is less an issue about feeling naked. For example a Port Handwound @ 44mm and 10mm thick can feel lighter than a 42mm /15mm thickness. Size I think is the focus here.

My hope is that when the tide does turn and IWC's offerings are more in that 38-42 range, those who have so many beautiful BP's won't sell them off because they are not considered the norm size for the time. After all, if you enjoy large watches and feel comfortable wearing them....DO IT. It's all good !!

OK ...that's it for now, but I might chime in again because this is such a interesting topic with so many viewpoints on what the future holds for watch trends.

Enjoying the weekend,

Andy

There is another factor to consider. IWC specifically advertises its wares as "engineered for men". Another sister brand, Panerai, markets itself in a similar way. I am not saying women do not own these brands, but if they do, they are a very small percentage.
I think it is highly unlikely that either of these two firms will be reducing the size of the majority of their collections anytime soon. The whole Big Pilot experience is based on an iconic watch which was 55mm in the 1940's. (Yes I know it was meant to be worn on the outside of a Pilot's jacket.) Similarly, Panerai began making money and real consumer watches in the 1990's. The entire line is based on a minimum size of 42mm or larger. It's success is unrivaled.
So yes, the average size might shrink back over the next ten years but I don't expect these two brands to be the small watch leaders. I expect to be happily wearing my pilots and PAM's with pride many, many years from now. And not feeling naked at all.

I'm the last who can complain, since ref. 5441 kicked off the big size season but I don't see this strong relationship between big cases and IWC history.

I won't mention ref. 5251 because we all know the way and how it was conceived, I'd rather mention in the same time, IWC had reached the primacy for the thinnest perpetual calendar and it was 36mm diameter.

IWC jumped in the big size and vintage trends within the last years, it was formerly reknown for reliability, exceptional craftsmanship, in terms of value for money, engineering.

I agree aesthetic is important (although big doesn't necessarily mean more beautiful) but I think shape should follow function first.

Ref 3717 hosts the same movement of its successor, I think IWC designers did a great job keeping the balance of the dial so well in the new watch, its proportions are still agreeable.

I'd prefer to see more R&D to make great calibres (fairly polished for their price), ergonomic cases and, if big, with some technical reasons, being always the aim, to keep cases thin and light.