this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Watches
0 readers
1 users here now
A community for watch & horology discussion.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have a 7 inch wrist and I’m wearing an Hamilton LL Bean field watch and I’m pretty sure it’s 33mm
https://preview.redd.it/6ifad9kqobzb1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c98f3c9f827641ac5f702c88db4b75d6f21fa1e7
Why do you quote your wrist size in inches if you understand millimetres and the size of the watch in mm?
How do you relate the 2? I see this often on the sub
Because comparing circumference to diameter size generally doesn't translate well regardless of unit. And also because watchmakers don't give specs in imperial units. We do the same thing in England and we already use a mix of metric and imperial.
That’s an interesting observation. For whatever reason as a Canadian I measure longer distance in metric (kms), mid-level measurements such as height width depth of an object Imperially (feet and inches (perhaps due to the fact that most trades still default to this), and specific micro measurements in metric, think anything under 10 cm, probably due to my schooling. Liquid volumes are definitely all default measured in metric (litres, etc), while weight defaults to imperial for big stuff (people, heavy objects), and metric (grams) for smaller stuff (measuring for cooking, hot tub chemicals, etc. If you can provide me with some kind of explanation I’ll take it. Would definitely be easier to default to one system!