Got hands-on with a 645 today

Thanks for the heads up. I may have to swing by my local REI on the way home today. :-)

It's funny how trends change. Even against the VA3 and 645 which in the GPS/sports watch world are "small" watches and the F5S is considered to be the "women's" version the Timex Explorer that I wore for years is much smaller but nobody would've ever called it a "girls" watch.

I'm a tall thin guy and really like the size of the VA3 for my build especially as an all day watch. I'm really looking forward to the 645 shipping, but I agree that the depth to diameter ratio of it probably does make it look smaller in diameter compared to the VA3 than it really is.

R_Tellis - I agree, the VA3 has very good dimensions, including lugs and strap. A very balanced look that is probably even on the plus side when compared to watches of the past. To me 39-40mm watches are perfect and should still be the norm. Big watches have their place, but the F5 looks like a G-Shock or hockey puck equivalent on my wrist. The F5s looks great, but sits high (due to case back) and lugs damn near stick straight out horizontally beyond my wrist bones.

When I put the 645 on my wrist, it's diameter fit inside the edges of my wrist bones. The small lugs made the strap/band more pronounced, thus making the case of the watch feel small on my wrist. The 645 also sat very tall and to your point the depth to diameter ratio is a little disproportional so it makes it feel even smaller.

While I'm sure it will be "ok", I was really hoping for a VA3 with more buttons or just a smaller F935. Instead we have an updated FR630 that has all the excess plastic removed leaving a case that visually looks and feels smaller than the VA3. Very odd....

Initially I was tempted by the F5S but the lugs put me off and they probably would've extended the fully width of my wrist as well.

I hadn't noticed the lugs on the 645 until you posted those pictures. It'll be interesting to see how that affects the fit and feel of the watch on the wrist, as well as getting bands on and off. I change bands on my VA3 a couple of times a week and it took me a few times before I figured out how to hold the strap relative to the case of the watch it make it easy to get the band on.

I had the VA3 and a couple of people said it looked a little feminine (size and thin watchband), so the 645 is out of the question for me. What stands out to me in your photos is the body design. In your pic #3 I noticed how rounded the bottom of the watch is on the 645. It kind of reminds me of a curling stone sitting on ice. That shape and the lack of the watch extending where the band connects makes me wonder if there's going to be issues with the watch moving around. Especially if someone is sweating. I already foresee the post about battery life. It looks like there may be a bit about sporadic HR readings too if this is the case.

I stopped by the REI by my office. They didn't have the 645 sample out on display. Plus all the sample watches were strapped in and didn't seem to be removable. I was going to put on the VA3 just to see how the size looked on my wrist. I guess when the 645 does come out I can ask if they can let me put it on.

I already had a VA3 (gifted to a friend), and was looking at the FR645. Lucky for me my local REI had the dummy unit on the Garmin display. Yep, too small. I went with a FR935 for daily wear and when I don't need maps. fenix 5X for backpacking and unfamiliar areas.

The VA3 at 43.4 mm and the FR645 at 42.5 are still large watches by any standard. That's significantly bigger than a Rolex Sub, which nobody would call small. Very few people can pull of a watch bigger than 42mm.

JRMiler - 2.5.mm is not really significant when referring to the diameter of a watch face. It's all in the dimensions of the whole watch - face, bezel, lugs, case back, thickness of the case. Look at a Rolex Sub from the 60's/70's compared to current day. Both are 40mm, but a modern Sub has a much larger visual presence than it's predecessor.

Strap a 645 on your wrist and you will understand. The 645 has very small lugs with a curved case back and a beveled edge bezel. It also sits very tall, so all those factors combined make it appear visually smaller. And that is what is odd to me, why make the 645 the smallest in the product lineup (VA3 --> 635 --> 935).

The VA3 at 43.4 mm and the FR645 at 42.5 are still large watches by any standard. That's significantly bigger than a Rolex Sub, which nobody would call small. Very few people can pull of a watch bigger than 42mm.

By any standard? Who settings these standards and where can I find them posted for future reference?