Eddie's success with the Smiths Everest 36mm has no doubt been a factor in pushing Rolex to reissue the 36mm Explorer. Smiths leading the way once again!
https://fmtzimages.files.wordpress.c...4/img_0450.jpg
Printable View
Eddie's success with the Smiths Everest 36mm has no doubt been a factor in pushing Rolex to reissue the 36mm Explorer. Smiths leading the way once again!
https://fmtzimages.files.wordpress.c...4/img_0450.jpg
I know I’m in the minority on this forum but I prefer 39/41mm vs 36mm. I have a 8.5”/216mm wrist so it’s not a typical size (unfortunately I can only boast that about my wrists lol).
Ideally they should keep 2 sizes, but that’s not what they do with their sports models. 36mm is a great size for me but not so much for others with bigger wrists
It's time for the reward of the small wristed after years of oversized monstrosities that were too big for us 😂.
I'd like to add that 36mm is not just for small wrists. It's a decent size for perfectly average wrists. It's a size that has been on mens wrists for over 70 years. The trend to wear watches that are slightly too big is a relatively recent development, and I'm glad it's slowly coming to an end.
I also wondered if the popularity of the 36mm Everest played a part in their decision.
Eddie
I believe the Rolex will be closer to 37mm than 36.
Please tell us why you think so! I'd be interested to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by fogar
Had the same thought myself - and then immediately figured Rolex marketing would claim having done it first (like they did with summitting Everest)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fm.tz
It's not the first time Rolex takes their measurements quite lightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by SplitSecond
If you look at the proportions of the watch they are clearly different to the vintage versions, like a mixture between the 36 and 39mm. Doesn't look the same as the OP 36 either.
If the lug width is still 20mm I'm pretty sure the bezel will be really close to 37mm, which IMHO would make the watch perfect.
Only if they had went to the back of the catalogue and brought back that ref 1016 then we would be sure. Congrats Eddie on a much deserved cudo's on bringing back the 36mm size.Quote:
Originally Posted by swanbourne
I’ll try one of these 36mm Everest’s one day.
I’ve gone down from large divers to a 39mm, may soon be trying a 38mm, then when feeling brave enough I’ll take the plunge.
I’ve a 7.75” wrist but am getting there
Do it. You won’t look back! [emoji1]Quote:
Originally Posted by barbusg60
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Everest (actually mine's a Commando) is a bit bigger lug to lug compared to my other 36mm watches, so although it's a small-ish watch, it sits nicely on the wrist.
It's all about perspective of the watch on the wearer's wrist in my opinion. I bought a Commando and sold it the same day as it wore really small, tiny in fact and I only have 6.75" wrists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickC4555
This is on my 6.75" wrist.Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli
https://i.imgur.com/Unmutu3.jpg
The Smiths wears smaller than its case size suggests because of the dial design and crystal. The bracelet doesn't help either.Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli
I have a 7.3 ish (190mm) wrist. About 3 years ago, I 'got the AD call' and was lucky enough to pick up a Rolex Explorer 39mm (lumed 3,6,9). I really enjoyed it but, as time went by (and teased by those cool pics of Bryan Ferry and Ian Fleming wearing their 1016's), I realised that I at least needed to 'have a go' at trialling a 36mm pre-owned version on the basis that, if I didn't like it and had to sell it, I hopefully wouldn't lose money. Well, at the beginning of last year, I bought a mint 2010 114270, Z serial. I took to the 36mm size immediately and, after a while, thought about selling my 39mm version. My wife persuaded me that I'd be making a mistake and even though it was getting no wrist time, told me to keep it. Fast forward to this week's announcement of the new 36mm Explorers and the discontinuation of the 39mm. What was the first thing I did? - reached out for my 39! I have been wearing it for the last couple of days and am really enjoying it! Mind you, I have already 'registered my interest' for the new 36mm (on the basis that I'll have plenty of time to save for it!). I would then pass my 114270 on to my wife. She has small wrists, but often wears her 36mm Everest (usually when I'm wearing mine!) I think fogar is spot on with his size predictions. The new 36mm Explorer will be 'beefed up', and have a very different 'feel' to the 14270 / 114270. The new, modern bacelet will comprise all solid links, and a milled clasp with easylink. I've just checked the sizes of mine-
114270 35.7mm
214270 39.0mm
124270 ??????
Ultimately, once the dust settles (and with the exception of enthusiasts), I wonder who will buy this watch? I think the majority of men will want something bigger. The OP41 replaced the OP39 just last year, and the Sub and Sea-dwellers have all seen size increases. Women? I really think women will be more drawn to the OP36mm range (or the Bi-Metal Explorer!). In fact, it might just be the case that (along with the 116600 40mm ceramic Sea Dweller), this new Explorer has a very, very short production run.
My guess is the 124270 will have a 37.5mm case, right in the middle of the 36 and 39
I have to agree. 20cm / 8 1/4 wrist here which I assume is pretty average in the modern era. The small wristed out there have a near-infinity of vintage stuff to buy, tiny modern watches get on my wick quite frankly.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfury
It's what you're used to. 7.5" wrists here and 34-36mm is now my sweet spot. I can go 32mm or 38mm but 30mm feels too small and 40mm too big, although I do wear both. 10 years ago I was a 42mm man. But you get used to smaller watches and then they seem "right". Normal is what you make it.
Many vintage watches are 34-36mm; yes, men might have had smaller wrists back then but the trend through the '90s and '00s was for ever-bigger watches. That is now being reversed and "less is more" seems to be the order of the day.
Mind you lots of bling-merchants want the ostentatious displays of wealth and I suspect Rolex et al. are catering to women and the Far Eastern market with these offerings. Slightly daintier jewellery. But still basic horology wrapped up a fancy package with a recognisable name at a Veblen price. Give me an old watch any day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev-O
I didn't always have a 20cm wrist, that came about I think due to weight training in my martial arts days back in the 80s (in my 20s), but even then I used to get irritated with the poxy little watches on offer. I have a watch in the box, about 34mm, white dial, gold plated case, 'modern' design and typography, I got it as a freebie in my days as a motoring journalist, at one of the Audi Quattro launches, before I got interested in watches really .. I keep it for memory's sake, saw me through a lot life events ... but even then I used to hate seeing pixtures of myself with this tiny little button on a really long strap. It may have been 'normal' at the time but it actually looked ridiculous. To go about like that today would be nothing less than a weird affectation, like wearing a hat indoors or having a handlebar moustache.
There's no doubt that watches got out of hand - too many blingy 46mm monsters that look good on nobody - but it seems to me like things are settling down nicely to a sensible 39-41mm sort of average, the odd bigger diver, perfect for the average 7.5-8in wrist. I can't for the life of me imagine 34mm (or even 36mm) coming back as a normal size, except as a sort of mid-size for small or skinny people. Of course there may be some pent up demand among that group who have been starved of new watches for a while, but surely that will never be mainstream.
Definitely, the new explorer has the usual 36mm case size but with 19mm lug width. Disappointing...
This size thing is taste, not wrist-size, driven.
Wrists haven't got bigger in the UK since the 70s/80s, even 90s, when watches were still 'normal'. Muscled body-builders aside, 'wrist growth' in the last few decades is primarily a pie-eating issue linked to national obesity levels - and a strange source of (irrelevant) pride. ...the issue is taste; and what looks 'right' to the owner.
In terms of taste, much of the watch size growth, certainly the Rolex 'fattening and glittering' of the six digit models has been driven by the wants and tastes of their biggest markets which, I would suggest are Asia and the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brauner Hund
You must have very strange wrists if they have fat on them. I'd see a doctor if I were you.
Anyway I think my main point was that tiny watches on a normal sized person was naff back in the 80s and even more naff now. I was certainly conscious of it back then.
As for Rolex's latest efforts well you'll get no argument from me there.
🤔 did I say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by kk
I suspect it'll be thickened (and thereby, ruined) compared to older models.Quote:
Originally Posted by fogar
Wait for them to re-release The Commando. A historical and heritage piece. With an "appropriate" price to boot.
Looks better than the Explorer.
David v Goliath, always rooting for David/Eddie
I have 6.5" (16cm) wrists and I find that lug-to-lug is a better measure of fit (or overhang), since I'm more worried about length than girth (cue watch circle jerk porno)...Quote:
Originally Posted by NickC4555
The Baby Dreadnought is 41/45 (dial/l2l) and fits like a charm (even with 13mm height) whereas my Steinhart fleiger (42/50) is WAY too big for me (I'm trying to sell it but I don't have enough posts here to post for sale).
Taking a different angle, the flex on teh band also matters. My DOXA Sub 200 is 42/45,6 (14mm thick!) but it fits VERY well b/c the BoR bracelet just "drops off a cliff" and zooms around my wrist.
So yeah, YMMV ;)
ps/I have three 36mm PRS's and they're all great on wrist...