Pater asks for help resolving what may be a generational dispute. You may have noticed the trend toward giant watch faces--these Stuhrlings, for example. I bought one on overstock.com a while back and found that the diameter of the face was almost as large as the width of my (rather elfin*) wrist. Each individual link was larger than my thumbnail. I have commented on the giant gap between my wrist and French cuffs before, but the Stuhrling plus my wrist meant my sleeve could barely cover any part of the watch face.
Styles come and go in watches as in everything--how else could we move product without building things to break down in a year or two?--but the median size, adjusted for time, appears to be much smaller and thinner than at present. 40mm is quite rather big. We may well be living in the wristwatch equivalent of 1980s shoulder pads or 1970s lapels.
Pater has a bigger bone structure than I do, so a large watch-face might look more correctly proportional on him, whereas a watch that would look normal on me might look comically small on him.
Anyway, blah blah, how about practical advice?
1. Go to the store to pick one out. This is the only way to get proportion right.
2. If you can't be bothered, timeless styles are better. Obviously, we can't all solve the problem by throwing money at it, so how about a Timex Weekender for wearing with odd jackets and an Invicta Pro Diver for suits?
3. You've decided to ignore my advice. Congratulations--you're smarter than you look! May I convince you to go with something simple like this (42mm diameter...! must you?) rather than a mess of complications like this?
*Legolas, not Keebler.