Usefulness Beats Beauty

The larger size is needed to read
the screen or touch the right icon.

Two decades ago I was gifted a nice European timepiece. It was expensive, an item that I would never buy for myself.

In 2016 it was put into storage in favor of the less costly Apple Watch. The Apple Watch had technological advantages: it had fitness apps; it could take phone calls and send text messages as long as the paired iPhone was nearby; and it kept time more precisely.

Over the years the Apple Watch Series 2 was swapped out for a Series 3 that a family member had retired, then a Series 7 with a plethora of health monitoring (e.g., blood oxygen content, sleep tracking, gait evenness) features.

Almost by necessity the Apple Watch has a large (45mm) diagonal size in order to read messages and to use the touchscreen. It's on the verge of being esthetically ugly by being too large, but since for me usefulness beats beauty, I'm not going back to the more elegant-looking wristwatch.

L to R: Tudor 31mm ($4,925); Bulova 32mm
($1,150); Timex 34mm ($199) - WSJ photo

Which is also why I won't be participating in the latest trend in men's fashion, tiny timepieces.

According to Nick Marino, senior vice president of content for watch site Hodinkee, plenty of other guys have lately been shrinking their wristwear. They’re often trading watches 41mm and above in diameter—long the norm—for versions under 39mm. Many are unisex or women’s models. Some are downright puny, like [Kareem] Rahma’s [15mm] Seiko or the 23mm Cartier Crash favored by stylish rapper Tyler, the Creator.

Since the early 2000s, “big, macho, attention-getting watches were the trend, but the pendulum is swinging back to [smaller] sizes,” said Mr. Marino. A small ticker, he said, is “a sign of confidence: You don’t need a giant billboard of wealth on your arm.”

I don't need a billboard of wealth on my arm, and I don't need to be driving one or living in one either. It makes for a happier life.