Best Watches Reviews

Social Navigation

Lug-to-Lug Size and Why We Don’t Rely on It

Lug-to-Lug Size and Why We Don’t Rely on It


Since I started MONOCHROME in 2006, the data that brands revealed about their watches has improved fundamentally. Width and tallness are presently in basically every official statement, and so is the genuine development. However, recently, we are often gotten some information about the lug-to-lug size. Something that brands don’t communicate about and neither do we. Here’s why.

Over the previous decade, communication about watches has improved altogether. Distance across, tallness and legit data about the development are currently accessible. Until a couple of years prior, we were faced with too numerous ‘invented’ type names, while the development was often provided by ETA, Sellita or another outsider and hence embellished by the brand’s name on the rotor. In-house these days truly implies “in-house” – planned and produced by the brand’s own kin and machines. Restrictive methods planned in a joint effort with an outsider development producer (as the recently referenced names) and fabricated solely for the brand, and subsequently not accessible to other brands. The greater part of this has been ignited by a solid solicitation from collectors and watch fans, whether through online communications channels like gatherings or websites or in direct contact with the brands.

Lug-to-lug size

For some time now, we have been getting demands from our perusers to specify the lug-to-lug size. We don’t notice this because this data isn’t given by the brands and a critical piece of our inclusion is about new watches that we haven’t handled ourselves, or handled for a couple of moments as it were. Obviously, we could specify the lug-to-lug size for the watches that we get for our hands-on reviews, yet when we just notice this for the reviewed watches, the other watches that we cover on MONOCHROME won’t highlight this data and the accessible information or specs about the watches would be rather unbalanced.

Besides the rather uneven realities of the specialized determinations we report on each watch, I see another issue with the lug-to-lug size. And that is the state of the case! How a watch wears, or sits on the wrist, can’t generally be communicated in a couple of numbers. The state of the lugs and the state of the caseback assume a vital part! At the point when the caseback is projecting, even a watch with little lug-to-lug measurements will wear a lot bigger and sit uncomfortably high on the wrist. In any event, when the general tallness isn’t too thick, the state of the lugs is very important.


Since we see and handle such countless various watches, the best sign we can give about how a watch wears is to advise you… We will specify the wrist size of the editor and how the watch fits his (or her) wrist and how comfortable it is. Since it’s unrealistic to decide how a watch truly wears on the wrist with a couple of numbers, this is presumably the best assistance we can offer you.

As an outline, with the end goal for you to perceive what we mean and to understand the distinctions, here is a determination of watches we had in the office, with the lug-to-lug dimensions… But as you’ll see on photographs, even two watches with a similar lug-to-lug size don’t wear the equivalent AT ALL. Each watch has been photographed on Brice’s wrist, estimating 16.5cm (a rather little wrist).

  • Rolex Explorer – 36mm measurement – 43mm lug-to-lug
  • Omega Speedmaster Professional – 42mm distance across – 47mm lug-to-lug
  • TAG Heuer Monaco – 39mm distance across – 48mm lug-to-lug
  • Seiko Turtle – 45mm distance across – 46mm lug-to-lug
  • IWC Portugieser Chronograph Automatic – 40.9mm width – 49mm lug-to-lug
  • Brellum Duobox Chronograph – 43mm distance across – 51mm lug-to-lug
  • Aquadive Bathyscaphe – 43mm width – 50mm lug-to-lug
  • Hanhart Primus Bronze – 44mm measurement – lug-to-lug relies upon the wrist… (enunciated lugs) however it can be underneath 50mm

The 36mm Explorer is a little watch, and the lug-to-lug estimated at 43mm could affirm this. However, it feels any longer on the wrist. A genuine illustration of a watch that is rather enthusiastic about paper, the Omega Speedmaster Professional, with a 42mm measurement and a 47mm lug-to-lug. However, once on the wrist, the watch feels substantially more compact (and that’s something numbers can’t tell). The Tag Heuer Monaco is long on paper, with 48mm lug-to-lug, yet at the same time feels pretty compact because of the low connection of the tie and the level caseback. The Seiko Turtle is enormous, at 45mm in measurement. However, the lug-to-lug estimation, at 47mm is rather short. In actuality, it seems like the most compact of the part, because of a well-considered case. Despite being one of the “longest” watches here, at 49mm lug-to-lug, the level caseback of the Portugieser and its bended lugs make it entirely comfortable on most wrists. The Brellum has the longest lug-to-lug estimation here, at 51mm. It is huge, however the bended lugs help to cause it to feel a bit better. This Aquadive is a major square of steel and once on the wrist, it is big… Even greater than its 50mm lug-to-lug size would recommend. A few brands attempted to discover arrangements, as Hanhart and its enunciated lugs. All things considered, it should make the lug-to-lug more compact… Still, the stature of the case and the position of the lugs make it uncomfortable on a more modest wrist.

UPDATE: I’m an extended get-away at this moment and limited in the watches that I can photograph to delineate what I mean. However, with my son’s crocodile ruler, I figured out how to quantify the lug-to-lug size of the watches I have with me.

The lug-to-lug size of the Vertex M100B is 49mm, both Seamasters are 48mm and the Porsche-Design Monobloc… well, with a formed tie it’s quite hard to precisely decide the lug-to-lug size.

Here are wrist shots of every one of the four watches, and I think this gives more qualitative data for somebody keen on purchasing this watch than the real lug-to-lug size… if it’s conceivable to gauge that correctly by any stretch of the imagination, as with the Monobloc.

Shape of the lugs, length of the lugs, point of the lugs, material of lash/wristband, state of the tie/arm band and obviously the state of the caseback, all assume a particularly significant part in how a watch fits on the wrist.

Since I’m holiday I don’t approach a Calatrava and a Monaco, to photograph, so here’s my best endeavor to show that lug-to-lug size just says so little…

We make an honest effort disclosing to you how it fits on our wrist when we will attempt it or have it in for audit. This combined with the wrist size of the individual who took the wrist shot, says quite a lot more about how the watch is on the wrist.

I do concur that lug-to-lug size can be useful, particularly for individuals with more modest wrists. It can help decide if a watch (or rather the lugs) would stand out our not. Our wrist shot and portrayal are, IMHO, more qualitative, and therefore I adhere to the point that we don’t depend on the basic lug-to-lug size. At the point when watch brands begin communicating on lug-to-lug size, we will happily incorporate this. Be that as it may, kindly, don’t depend on this estimation, as to decide if a watch would fit pleasantly or not.