Reply With QuoteI don’t think they are undervalued, but realistic unlike some other models. I’ve been considering one instead of a non date sub.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
In the crazy world of sports steel Rolex prices, does anyone think the 36mm is undervalued? You can pick them up for barely 3 grand...
I don’t think they are undervalued, but realistic unlike some other models. I’ve been considering one instead of a non date sub.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Not really, they're pretty much the same as Oyster Perpetuals and old Air Kings, in function, size and price.
No more so than the Explorer II 16570...
Compared to the new model,like others,I prefer the Explorer I 36mm.
A good example at £3000? I'd have been interested.
Maybe it's not the "right" size for the market at present?
They look great in photos but I think they've been the "wrong" size for the market for the past two decades, which is why the 40mm sports models have been, and continue to be more sought after.Originally Posted by topcat666
£3k ... that would likely be head only.
I know not the cheapest but a long way beyond 3.
http://www.watchfinder.co.uk/Rolex/Explorer/watches
Prices are healthy. The size puts many off it.
I have the same opinion as a topcat.. Bad size. These days we’re in cages of size 40-50mm. Several decades ago We had 30-40mm.. i think we have many possibilities what wear. For me is the size 36 for woman..
Agree with all the replies and feel that the current market prices are not far away from value, although some of the NOS prices can be eye watering. Watch club have one at the moment for over £7k. Surprisingly no one has taken them up at that price.
Hard to beat a classic Explorer in the collection.
Few have sold for that sort of figure here fairly recently:
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...ghlight=114270
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...ht=Rolex+14270
Few that pop up on Ebay within a margin of that price. I would like to pick one up at some point as that size suits me better than the 39mm personally.
I'd love to get hold of a good 36mm Explorer for £3k. I think the two listed were the exceptions rather than the rule. They seem to be about £3.5-4.5k depending on condition and papers, etc.
Thanks for replies I must have done well I bought a full set on eBay a year ago for 2750
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I've gone back and forth on the Explorer and am on my fourth now. I've been through the original version of the 214270, a 114270 and 2 x latest version of the 214270.
I had a full set 114270 which was in well used condition and hadn't been serviced since 2009, although it was running with very little deviation. I sold that for a bit above £3k last year which is where I saw the bottom of the market for a full set at the time. They seem to only be going one way in value however. It does wear quite small (and certainly smaller than the current 36mm oyster perpetual due to the lugs) and I have a small wrist. For me I just couldn't live with the rattly bracelet & clasp. For not a great deal more I picked up a less than year old Explorer within the last few weeks which still has the balance of the 5 year warranty remaining, much better bracelet and clasp etc.
If there was a new 36mm Explorer I think I would go for that just because the smaller size suits me better.
I have no idea whether the 114270 is generally undervalued. What I do know is that it's classic proportions make it one of my favourite models in the professional range. A great all rounder.
Exactly.
They're not really undervalued compared to similar 36 mm Datejust variants, either.
It's a huge shame that Rolex couldn't upsize it from 36mm to 39mm without (just my opinion) ruining the really nice proportions of the 14270 and 114270. I don't care for the bigger size, but I REALLY don't care for the change in design language.
I think I've owned the first and still own the second of those! I think it's the ideal one watch although I've yet to convince myself one watch is enough.
I would go more vintage 36mm explorer, 39mm explorer or a modern oyster perpetual with the interesting colours. 36mm modern explorer is perfectly ok but a bit stuck in no mans land
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These days 36mm is a ladies watch.
No, it isn’t!
Well, that is how many people feel about small watches and that has an impact on the price.
I wonder if you’ll ever graduate to the part of the forum where we say what we think about people with small intellects.
I have a 36mm Royal Oak and it's the watch that gets me the most comments
I am convinced that there are shortcomings below the belt which are the reason for your comment.
20180209_131751.jpg
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
There’s no evidence to suggest this on a 36mm watch.
You could point out that the 39mm explorer cost more than the 36mm but that’s just because they are newer. Same with the 41mm DJ. In fact the most expensive explorers are the 34mm, four digit models!
Here we go again...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agreed, my wife currently sports a 36mm Turn-O-Graph. It looks far better on her than me.
Judging by what is clearly a matter that you devote some time thinking about and is therefore probably an issue for you, then my guess would be that you are not a prominent member of this forum. There are of course certain pills that can remedy this situation, but the results may be mediocre if there is not much there to work with in the first place...
Size is not everything, but to me 36mm or less is a ladies watch, unless there is something special about the design that makes the whole thing more masculine.
Isn't it almost bed-time for you? Sleep well, little prince.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Thanks, it is. You have a nice afternoon.
Will probably be dreaming of your less than prominent member.
No. It's perfectly acceptable for men with a small penis too.
Just kidding. It depends on personal taste and how thin you are.
I think that any size between 36mm - 40mm is fine. I just cannot see why people fuzz over it.
I am currently wearing a 39mm Explorer and the main difference between it and the 36mm model is more of the bling rather than the size.
Surely these are above 3 grand?
Idiotic nonsense.
F.T.F.A.
I think 36mm Explorer is a really nice size depending on wrist size I suppose. I love mine and it sits perfectly on my wrist.
IMG_2051.JPG
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Here is another shot...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems to be that even if one happens to have a wrist slim enough for a 36mm to look about right (me), the huge contrast with the 42mm models does make it feel like it's not quite 'proper'. Probably just masculinity warping what should otherwise be a more widely desired model.
36mm can look good no a man. It's more the feeling you have yourself if wearing mainly bigger watches. However I have to admit, that my wife wears a 36 mm Datejust. A 40mm Sub looks big on her, despite the fact that she is 179cm tall.
Posting Permissions
