MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Discuss Christopher Ward watches
Post Reply
Fmluna
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 8:46 am

MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Fmluna » Sat May 18, 2019 12:44 pm

Hi dear members,

I am about to buy a Trident Pro 600 MKIII but I have doubts about size. Should i go for the 42mm with a 18'5mm wrist (aprox. 7,2 inches) or would a 40mm a better option?

As a reference my two largest watches are a Samurai lug to lug 48 and a Citizen with lug to lug 52.

Thanks for your help!! :wave:

Frank
IMG_20190518_094433.jpg
IMG_20190518_074854.jpg

User avatar
Thegreyman
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 8850
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 3:45 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Edinburgh

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Thegreyman » Sat May 18, 2019 12:55 pm

Welcome to the forum Frank.

Possibly an obvious response, however if you are based in the UK or EU (therefore avoiding the thorny issues of customs charges and returns) I'd suggest buying both and then returning the one you least like under CW's 60/60 guarantee.
Patrick

C7 Hornet COSC LE, C60 FLE Scooter Blue, C60 Trident mk2.5 White/Red, C65 Ombre COSC LE, W11(wife)

Some others + a few on the way

User avatar
Essex Paul
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:07 pm
CW-watches: 2

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Essex Paul » Sat May 18, 2019 2:40 pm

I’d say 40mm, perfect size. But, that’s my choice of course. I’m not a fan of “big” watches and they look pretty big on you. Again that’s only my view of course
All mine are 40mm and 40.5mm.
Not too small, not too big.
As suggested get both and return other. It’s the only way. OR if you can get to CW towers even better.
Good luck and of course welcome to the forum. :thumbup:
C1 Grand Malvern Power Reserve
C65 Trident Diver Blue

User avatar
Amor Vincit Omnia
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 21205
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:34 pm
CW-watches: 7
LE-six: Yes
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Amor Vincit Omnia » Sat May 18, 2019 6:12 pm

Fmluna wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 12:44 pm
Should i go for the 42mm with a 18'5mm wrist
No! You should not be wearing a watch at all until you are at least 11 years old. :lol:

Seriously, you could probably wear either one but looking at your watchess on the wrist I suspect that 40 mm would suit you very well.
Steve
The half minute which we daily devote to the winding-up of our watches is an exertion of labour almost insensible; yet, by the aid of a few wheels, its effect is spread over the whole twenty-four hours.
Charles Babbage


@Avo238

User avatar
H0rati0
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:49 am
CW-watches: 3
Location: Bayern

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by H0rati0 » Sat May 18, 2019 6:34 pm

I would say you can wear either, so ask yourself do you want the bigger, chunkier look, or more middle of the road? Another angle would be that you already have a pair of "big" watches, so perhaps time for something different?

As already pointed out, 60/60 is there to answer those questions :D
"There is no beginning to enlightenment and no end to training" - Dogen Zenji (1200-1253)

0uatiOW
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:46 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by 0uatiOW » Sat May 18, 2019 8:47 pm

It’s very subjective. Do you like them big? It looks like you do.

By way of comparison, I have smaller wrists than you (17.5 cm) and I can wear a the Mk2 C60 in 43mm but it’s at my limit. I used to think 40mm was my sweet spot but actually I would now say 41mm (yes, I know it’s only 1mm).

So - if you like them big, I would say 42mm would sit easily on your wrist.

As others have said, the 60/60 guarantee is your safety net, so you can try one or both for size and return if no good.
My name is 0uatiOW, but before you ask, no I don’t.

User avatar
strapline
Senior
Senior
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue May 07, 2019 3:00 pm

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by strapline » Sat May 18, 2019 9:18 pm

Hey Frank,

It's that ol' size question again. How big is too big; how small is too small? The answer is of course subjective. Neither is no one measurement the determiner: it's the marriage of L2L, depth, diameter, strap width, crown size, etc. And what a lot of people fail to recognise is the wrist is the juncture between hand and forearm, so you have to look at whether you have small or big hands, likewise with the forearms. This matters less if you wear shirts all the while, but if you're a casual/t-shirt kinda guy, then your arms are exposed more. Looking at your two photos I'd say you could comfortably pull off either.
I'm a tool watch kinda guy; bezels and pushers for me. I used to dive, I used to climb mountains. I spend too much time looking at watches.

Fmluna
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 8:46 am

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Fmluna » Sun May 19, 2019 7:36 am

Thank you all!!

Yes, I know it is a recurrent topic. Sorry for that! Actually I wanted to know if the difference between the two sizes is really noticiable on the wrist. Since I perceive the MKIII as a more 'dressy' diver than chunky Seikos (which anyways I love) I was considering a smaller size. For that purpose I normally wear a Orient Ray II though it has in my opinion a quite small presence on the wrist (smaller than the specs might suggest) .

Cheers :clap:

Commisar
Junior
Junior
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 3:24 am

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Commisar » Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:12 pm

Fmluna wrote:Thank you all!!

Yes, I know it is a recurrent topic. Sorry for that! Actually I wanted to know if the difference between the two sizes is really noticiable on the wrist. Since I perceive the MKIII as a more 'dressy' diver than chunky Seikos (which anyways I love) I was considering a smaller size. For that purpose I normally wear a Orient Ray II though it has in my opinion a quite small presence on the wrist (smaller than the specs might suggest) .

Cheers :clap:
The 40mm Trident is ALMOST the exact same dimensionally as the Mako 2/Ray 2 apart from the overall diameter. It has better lume and better indices/hands.

If you really want a big chunky diver, Seiko has you covered.

The 40mm Trident is also extremely close to a Rolex Submariner in terms of dimensions, and I don't ever remember anyone saying that a Submariner was "too small".

Also remember that the bigger the watch, the heavier it'll be unless it's titanium or another super-alloy or exotic material.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk


Gripper
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:38 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Bristol

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Gripper » Fri Dec 27, 2019 1:51 am

I have exactly the same size wrist as you and having tried both 40mm & 42mm I'd say the 40mm is a better fit for me personally. The 42 was noticeably larger.

User avatar
Markornot
Senior Expert
Senior Expert
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:08 am
CW-watches: 5
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Markornot » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:20 am

The 40 has a 20mm lug width and the 42 a 22mm lug width if that would be of any consideration for you. I prefer the wider strap width so it would be the 42 for me.
Mark
CW - C8 Flyer, C6 JHMk3, C7 Corsa Rosso LE, C3 Chronograph, C8 Reg | TAG Heuer F1 | Orient - Black Raven II, Bambino, Star Seeker GMT, Galant, Monarch | Seagull - Grn Military, Moon Phase | Tissot - Visodate | Steinhart - NavA Pilot MW, NavB Vintage

Bounce
Senior Expert
Senior Expert
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:29 pm
CW-watches: 1
Location: Maidstone, Kent.

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Bounce » Fri Dec 27, 2019 1:16 pm

I think looking at the watches you normally wear the 42mm version will suit you just fine.
As has already been suggested order both & then decide.
Rolex Submariner date.
Omega Speedmaster Professional.
Tudor Pepsi GMT.
Tag Heuer Aquaracer 500m Auto
Seiko Kinetic Diver
C60 Trident Vintage.

User avatar
Thegreyman
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 8850
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 3:45 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Edinburgh

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Thegreyman » Fri Dec 27, 2019 1:18 pm

It's been said a few times on other threads but my experience, and others have also stated the same view, is that the Trident mk3 42mm wears well and not particularly large for a watch with a headline 42mm diameter.
Patrick

C7 Hornet COSC LE, C60 FLE Scooter Blue, C60 Trident mk2.5 White/Red, C65 Ombre COSC LE, W11(wife)

Some others + a few on the way

User avatar
H0rati0
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:49 am
CW-watches: 3
Location: Bayern

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by H0rati0 » Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:25 pm

Guys, somehow this thread came back from the dead but the OP is long gone.
"There is no beginning to enlightenment and no end to training" - Dogen Zenji (1200-1253)

User avatar
Bahnstormer_vRS
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 22234
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:06 pm
CW-watches: 29
LE-two: 1
LE-three: 1
LE-foura: 1
LE-fourb: 1
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Re: MKIII 40 vs. 42mm

Post by Bahnstormer_vRS » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:03 pm

H0rati0 wrote:
Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:25 pm
Guys, somehow this thread came back from the dead but the OP is long gone.
Guess we answered @Fmluna's query back in May (as he has not logged into the forum since) but nevertheless the thread has proved useful and the cudgels have been taken up by @Commisar.

Guy
C4|C4&W7 BBMF|C5 BOB LE|C6|C7 MkI 47AD|C7 MkII Harrier|C8 MkI|C8 Reg MkII
C8 M2.04 LE|C8 UTC|C9 FLE|C9 Me109 SPC LE|C20 FLE|C40 Speedhawk|C60 K'fisher|C60 FLE x2
C60 Apex|C60 Chrono P'type|C65 Khaki|C65 S'hurst|C65 GMT|C70 x3|C90 PR|C600|C1000

Post Reply