Reply With QuoteThat's not a wrist shot, it's a lower arm shot!
Thought this would be useful - following on the shots of the BB 36 - here are a couple shots of my new release Explorer 39 - on my nearly 7" wrists.
I am finding this one is pushing out the others for wrist time at the moment. Such a great size and feel to wear! M
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 17th August 2016 at 22:41.
That's not a wrist shot, it's a lower arm shot!
A wrist shot, from a reasonable distance, with wrist measurement noted? I salute you, sir.
Given that my AD *still* hasn't got this in for me, and I know some others on here are in the same boat, perhaps you could could post a few more pics in this vein....
Well - I took the pic in a mirror and reversed the picture (the only edit done) - to give a decent representation of how it looks on wrist - in context.Originally Posted by beechcustom
I always wear my watches as low down the wrist as possible, past the wrist bone. I just tried wearing my Exp36 above the wrist bone like yours is situated in the pictures and it looks very odd. Like wearing trousers that are too short for you.
May I refer you to 'Review' section - where I've done a review of the watch. Here are some further pics though
lume shot:
Typical iPhone 'wrist shot' note the perspective from close-up wide-angle view distorts the apparent size
Size comparison to my 16660 Seadweller (40mm)
I can't stand 'below the bone' for me - I find it very uncomfortable - I think it all depends on physiology - and of course personal preference! (I refuse to say 'each to his own').
.....
Last edited by VDG; 18th August 2016 at 07:41.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
It's a cracking watch, above or below the bone, enjoy!
Fair play. I genuinely didn't realise wearing a watch above the bone was a thing. To be fair, I've often wondered how people wearing large crown / guard watches don't cut themselves to bits on them. Obviously 'above the bone' is the answer :-)
Are smaller watches going to be the new TZUK forum ' flavour of the month'?
Nice👍👍
I think they always have been mate
Took this pic back in 2012
I like watches of all sizes - I think we all do.
The wear my watches like the OP. Below the wrist bone is too uncomfortable, which is probably due to having very bony wrists.
Mark Williams on IPhone Taptalk
You're not actually suggesting that 39mm is 'small' are you?
I am. But I have 8" wrists and stand 6'5" tall, so <40mm looks like a child's watch.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I have to admit to being more and more taken by the Explorer. As for the 'above or below' the bone, my watch naturally gravitates to a position similar to the OP's where it feels far more comfortable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nonsense. Even Tony Soprano rocked a 36mm Day Date! :-)
There are reasons why many ADs and I myself recommend that watches are worn above the ulnar styloid. This link refers : http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...hlight=Styloid
Haywood
I was in London yesterday, and went in to four AD's to have a look at one in the flesh. None had any stock.
All seemed to say they'd had one in, and it was sold. I was told in WoS that they had a waiting list of 25 people. He stated not only the new Explorer, but the stock of Submariner's was thin on the ground as well.
He put this down to an impeding Rolex 10% price increase in September, after which time he was sure that stock levels would surpringly be more freely available.
If I put my watch below the Boney Ulnar Mound I can't then actually flex my wrist, or move my thumb properly - there isn't even enough space for the watch to sit straight.
And that's with a sub-40mm watch. So to the left of the bone it has to go
which is 1/2" narrower anyway
Last edited by Der Amf; 18th August 2016 at 08:47.
The watch diameter doesn't have to fill your whole wrist you know, that's just a recent trend coming from the oversized clown watches of recent years. Unfortunately this 'fashion' is here to stay by the looks of it.
Interesting, missed that thread. I have always worn my watches above, and had wondered why people "moaned" about crown bruising.
But how are you supposed to casually show off your wealth and great taste? The old wrist flick to get it back to it sitting on your hand like a bracelet, some seem to think it is, rather than wrist after its slipped half way down your arm is the accepted etiquette to flash your bling without looking like a prat.
Is it not? It's seems to be amongst the hipsters who wear watches 'ironically'
I sometimes need to bend my wrist of a day, so I have to wear mine like the OP too.
In fact, I've never seen a watch worn below the wrist bone.
I knew a guy who had spent so much of this life in the gym that the size of his arm muscles precluded wearing his watch upstream - they simply had to go right down by the hand, where fortunately he had enough space for his watch
^^ A problem I won't ever have; I have problems getting bracelets sized small enough
It depends on the size and shape of your ulna bone doesn't it? Mine is so small that it's not possible to wear a watch above it, it just slips down over the top, and then it's too loose at my wrist, so I just size my bracelets to wear my watches right at the bottom of my wrist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have now tightened the clasp on my 114270 and my watch now sits snugly 'on' the wrist bone. The bracelet is taught, the watch isn't flapping about (or moving at all in fact) and I have no reduction of movement in my hands or wrist. Importantly, it doesn't look awkward like having trousers that are too short for you! The watch is close enough to the start of the hand for my liking.
Is the 'on-the-bone' third option an acceptable one?
EDIT: Pics added for clarity
Last edited by beechcustom; 18th August 2016 at 10:03.
We are all made differently (you freak) and provided the watch is above the articulated part of your wrist (so as to avoide the massive torque that can be applied to the bracelet ends and the rub-mark that a crown can make on the back of your hand) then I would say this is fine.
Anyone can of course wear their watch where they want, but the "low" position will in most cases bring more problems after prolonged or hard wear.
Haywood
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 18th August 2016 at 19:48.
uh I love the lume!
have rolex reintroduced luminous numbers then? I had a look at a few other explorers and the numbers were just painted white but had no lume, which totally sucked for me...
anyway, I give credit to rolex for the beautiful tapered down bracelet. It's classy and extremely wearable.
don't like the size of the watch, but that's just me.
Yes - fully luminous now - but a little difficult to get the new-new model at the moment. Only introduced in Basel this year. Hopefully in a few months after Rolex have slapped on a 10% increase they may 'suddenly' appear in shops - that's the rumours anyway!.
I find the Explorer "1" the nicest Rolex for my taste, having given up on divers and Subs in particular. As for wearing it above or below - I am an "above" wearer because that is the only way it's comfortable.
Maybe when supplies are more plentiful I may sell every other watch and just settle on one Explorer.
Smaller watches? That explorer is too big. Should be 36mm.
Rarely has a Rolex grown on me like the Explorer 1. Good value for money in the range, and non flashy. Classic.
ive got 6.75in wrists and I feel anything less than 40mm is too small!
Is your employer 'the circus'? :-)
I've tried it with a skinny 6.5" wrist (and the 39mm 114300) and found it slightly too big. It's not unwearably large with a slim wrist, just a touch 'Check out my giant new Rolex'. Most annoying as I can see it's a good size for most people. On the plus side vintage watches and classic 36mm Rolex fit well and 40mm Explorers still (just) work due to the bezel and smaller dial keeping everything in proportion. For me I really wish they'd stopped at 38mm but that's life!
On the wrist bone issue, my understanding is that Rolex recommend above the wrist bone and not too loose either, in order to avoid unnecessary strain and eventual stretch to the bracelet - Jubilee wearers in particular, take note.
Last edited by Itsguy; 19th August 2016 at 16:34.
Indeed, that's also why a properly-fitted bracelet will last longer than one worn too low and loose.
In a watchmaker's words:
"These bracelets are designed to last generations, and if you keep them clean and wear them tight, they will. If you don’t, you will significantly cut their life span."
via: http://watchmakingblog.com/2008/05/0...lasts-forever/
Thanks for that and thanks to Haywood also for his typically useful advice :-)
Picked up one of these this afternoon. I'd previously owned the 'T-Rex' version and offloaded it as soon as the updated model was announced. Think it's going to be a keeper!
IMG_0835.jpg
This new Explorer is looking better & better IMHO. Very clean & well proportioned.
Damn right. The previous iteration was a near miss and this one hits the bullseye. The only cloud on the horizon is that I'm now feeling a mite tempted to buy a sibling 114270 for some 36mm goodness and mess around with NATOs and leather straps (my excuse for ignoring my dislike of tuna can stamped clasps). It never ends!
Posting Permissions
