**** Is the term men's watch or ladies watch - An outdated concept ****

[tribe125]

According to Andy McNabb, ex-SAS soldier and writer, the SAS favoured Baby-Gs.

Or at least, he put one on the wrist of his lead SAS character.

[is that my watch]

According to Andy McNabb, ex-SAS soldier and writer, the SAS favoured Baby-Gs.

Or at least, he put one on the wrist of his lead SAS character.

well they fit comfortable on mine I did not notice that much difference from say a g-9000 or a dw6900 or dw 6600

[FuzzyB]

I believe I may have gone on a rant or two about this topic and how shortsighted companies are in the continued use of such labels.

Particularly egregious are the use of such labels when the only difference between two watches is size. Why should a 36mm watch be labeled a ladies' watch and a 40mm watch be labeled a mens' watch when the specs and design are otherwise the same?

There are much better ways of marketing a watch by describing the relationship between wrist size and watch size. A silhouette of a watch on various sized wrists would be much more helpful than a gender label ever would.

[Col Angus]

I believe I may have gone on a rant or two about this topic and how shortsighted companies are in the continued use of such labels.

Particularly egregious are the use of such labels when the only difference between two watches is size. Why should a 36mm watch be labeled a ladies' watch and a 40mm watch be labeled a mens' watch when the specs and design are otherwise the same?

There are much better ways of marketing a watch by describing the relationship between wrist size and watch size. A silhouette of a watch on various sized wrists would be much more helpful than a gender label ever would.

Companies use different terms: midsize, reduced, unisex...to label their watches without (unisex excluding) using gender to identify. Marketing watches based upon wrist:watch ratio gets into the too technical area that would turn off everyday consumers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[skywatch]

Nomos seems pretty smart about this. They call their watches unisex, and most of them are under 40mm anyway. I know a woman with a 33mm Orion and her husband has a 36mm Club. On Nomos' website they simply have a page for "smaller watches" which is very smart.

My wife is funny on this topic. I have given her several of my smaller vintage watches to wear, and she still thinks they are too big for her or look like "men's watches" - she prefers the teeny tiny vintage sizes like 24mm. On a whim I bought a quirky '70s era men's Enicar that looked totally cool (in a disco era sort of way) with 36mm volcano shape, and gave it to her to wear. She doesn't wear it, but she modeled it for me here:

[FSM71]

Binary gender is such a controversial topic, I want to steer clear, but having said that: Since watches are also a form of expression, surely it shouldn't matter and one should wear what one likes.

I always found it interesting that the original Rado scratch proof watches, marketed under the Diastar name in another era, were sold as 'Large' or 'Small' not by gender. Later, when watch sizes increased, they simply added a third size, the 'Rado Original XL'

So supposedly the 'Large', at 35mm, could always have gone either way, but was the only 'man's' size (whatever that is) that was available. My 50th anniversary reissue (at 35mm) has been mistaken on occasion for a 'ladies' watch, but that may have more to do with the size of my skinny wrists than the size of the watch. I am hoping it is mostly to do with the design though... Meanwhile, I sold a 38mm 'XL' to a petite female member of staff here and she loves it!

If you search for 'men's' watches on the Rolex site in 'mid-sized' they include 36mm DJs with flowers on the dial in the search results. And why not? Even if it isn't my cup of tea.

I think it's grossly unfair that complications aren't as accessible for women as they are for men, but perhaps the demand isn't there. I wear watches that are subjectively too big for me because the designs/complications I want aren't commonly available in my price range under 38mm in diameter. But even I realise there is a limit. At a certain point it goes from faintly ridiculous to impractical.

I wonder if there are many women wanting certain complications, movements or styles (or guys who don't want to wear wrist hubcaps) who feel the same?

[Strela167]

The smallest I've had , over recent years, looked silly, far too small, yet 32mm (from memory) which was a 'norm' in the past



even if that pic. does look fine, it wasn't

[Raza]

No, I don't think so.

There have been a few principles that have been taken as given in style for a few decades now. One thing I've noticed is that basically everything is unisex unless it's designed specifically for women. Of course, that's not entirely true--clothes cut for a man may not look quite right on woman's body since they're shaped differently, but no one is going to look at Ruby Rose in a suit that was tailored for her and think "Why is she wearing mens' clothing?", certainly not after John Wick 2.

I think what we're seeing is a move away from size being the key differentiator between a man's watch and a woman's watch. I can wear a 40mm Sub or a 42mm Speedmaster, and so can Charlize Theron or Stana Katic--that doesn't make those watches any less inherently "masculine", nor does it make them entirely inappropriate on a woman's wrist. On the other hand there are watches that are inherently feminine, which would look out of place on a man's wrist.


You'd have to pay me--quite a bit--to wear that.


If you offered me a million dollars conditioned upon wearing that watch, I would turn it down.

Now, why are hearts and flowers and diamonds and pink considered inherently feminine? Well, that's a more deeply ingrained societal thing, which probably needs a psychologist or an anthropologist to truly figure it out. One of the universal truths I've found is that if you ask why enough times on the same line of thinking, the eventual answer is something like "I don't know", "it just is", or "it feels like it".

[Raza]

I believe I may have gone on a rant or two about this topic and how shortsighted companies are in the continued use of such labels.

Particularly egregious are the use of such labels when the only difference between two watches is size. Why should a 36mm watch be labeled a ladies' watch and a 40mm watch be labeled a mens' watch when the specs and design are otherwise the same?

There are much better ways of marketing a watch by describing the relationship between wrist size and watch size. A silhouette of a watch on various sized wrists would be much more helpful than a gender label ever would.

I agree that the label isn't particularly helpful. Take my mother's watches. She has three. 34mm, 35mm, and 38mm. One is woman's watch, one is a men's, and one I've seen listed as both men's and unisex, but for sake of the discussion, let's stick with unisex. They may not line up how you'd think. The 34mm watch is the woman's--but it's also a two tone (which women can pull off better than men), with an MOP dial and diamond markers, which are generally more feminine characteristics. The man's watch is 35mm. All steel, all the way around, and it looked so ridiculous on me when I went to try it on, I don't even think I snapped a photo. The 38mm is the one that I've seen as both unisex and men's. A bit small on me, but I've worn watches that are only 1-2mm bigger.

So you're right. As a size distinction, it's not helpful at all, but if they made her 34mm watch in 42mm, it would still be viewed as a woman's watch because it has those other characteristics.

[tribe125]

Victorinox disappointed a few people by making a smaller Inox and designating it a ladies watch.