Hey there watch people! I love the look of the Hamilton Khaki but it’s a bit past my current budget. Saw this Timex Expedition Field Post Mechanical go on a great sale and pounced, given the similarities; Mechanical movement, sapphire crystal, etc. only problem is I’m used to >40mm cases (regularly sport a Duro/ g-shock square), and so the 38mm of this one feels SMALL on my 7” wrist. Honest opinions since I’m still inside the return window; Is this comically small at a glance, or is it just me?

    • themanebeat@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      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

      • Hobbez87@alien.topOPBEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        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!

      • MojitoBurrito-AE@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        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.