HYT
Watch Case Sizes vs Lug-to-Lug — A Lesson from HYT’s H-Zero
With the wide range of offerings in case widths as well, one also establishes, by way of experience, a range within which a probable acceptable fit might occur. The importance of this is obvious; too small, and the watch has barely any presence, too big, and one runs the risk of looking like one is wearing a clock on the wrist.
Not helping the situation as well is the trend over the past decade or so of case sizes going up, often testing the limits of sanity at each new mark. Years ago, before the trend of large watches took hold, 36mm, the typical size of a men’s Rolex for decades, was considered large.
The choice of the diameter of a watch is a very personal thing. Most people come to a rough idea of the range of widths that they are comfortable with, tending to limit their choice of watches to these numbers that they already know.
Yet as most experienced watch collectors discover over time, the apparently self-evident truth of a number does not correlate to the actual experience of wearing the watch. Indeed, as some come to discover, the stated width of a watch case can in fact feel very different compared to other watch cases of the same width on the wrist.
The answer as I shall explain, lies in the flawed measurement that the watch industry in general has been using for a long time. A measurement that takes into account only one element of the total picture. It might actually, in fact, be important only to the extent of figuring out how big the dial might appear, seen within the confines of the case, but do nothing for predicting wearability.
The true measurement then to keep in mind, that far surpasses the traditional case width measurement we all know in usefulness, is a watch’s lug-to-lug distance.
The basic idea is this: A watch is typically flat on its underside, and the points with which the bracelet or strap curves down, marks the limit of the distance that a wrist can take in wearing a watch. It’s easy to imagine this as long as the one rule we stick to is that the lugs should not overhang above and below the diameter of the wrist. With this rule respected, all one really needs to know then is one’s personal lug-to-lug distance, and keep to that when choosing a watch. Of course, it helps if there is a kind of industry wide consensus on implementing this measurement in watch specifications, and hopefully this article will make it evident of how useful it can be.
What is clear from this point is that it’s not just the round of the case that matters but also how long the lugs are. On some watches, they can be very long, indeed, throwing off the one’s sense of its wearability when it finally comes onto the wrist. On some, like the HYT H-Zero, they are essentially nonexistent. In either case, if one were to rely on a case width as the only criteria to determine if a watch is suitable to wear, then potentially, it will limit the number of watches one can consider if one does not have a chance to try them on in person.
Let’s look at some examples now to illustrate these points.
We find here that due to the essentially lug-less design of the HYT H-Zero the watch measures 48.8mm (image 2), or the stated case diameter.
In image 3, we have the HYT H1 above and the HYT H-Zero below, showing just how much further apart the lug-to-lug distance is on the H1.
Here we see the difference in wearability on my wrist with the HYT H1 on left versus the HYT H-Zero (image 5), with the H1 having a visibly larger stance due to its lugs. Essentially, due to the unique lug-less design of the H-Zero, the rubber strap is attached directly to the round of the case making it wear much smaller than the H1. When you make a comparison of my wrist with the H-Zero, you’ll find that the strap actually turns down much quicker, and therefore, suits someone with a smaller wrist.
Here we find that despite the IWC and the Maurice Lacroix having the same stated case width of 42mm, you can see that the different lug lengths will cause the watches to wear very differently despite the same stated measurement (image 6).
It’s even more amazing here, where we find that despite the Lange 1 being 38.5mm in case width, it wears comparably with the Maurice Lacroix at 42mm, due to the lugs of the Lange 1 extending to almost the same measurement (image 7).
And how about this for a kicker? Here we have the HYT H-Zero versus the Lange 1, where we find the lug-to-lug distance being essentially the same (image 10). Therein lies the surprise. It basically means that if you are in the market for a HYT and you found the sizes of the previous collections to be too large, you can now be assured that so long as you can wear a Lange 1, you can wear an HYT H-Zero, which essentially means everyone can wear one since the Lange 1 can be often spotted on both men and women.
In that case, it gives potential buyers, who do not have the ability to see the watch in person a better judgment before committing, and it avoids situations where watches like the HYT H-Zero, the Corum Bubble (with the 52mm version being the best size for most men) or even the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso (with its rectangular shape offering a slightly different challenge) are struck off a consideration list.
Consider this then as my modest proposal for us all to adopt this as an industry standard.