closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Which Rolex Explorer 14270 or 114270 or 214270???

  1. #1
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    1,457

    Which Rolex Explorer 14270 or 114270 or 214270???

    Really interested in purchasing one of these Role Explorer models. I do like the ideal of the 39mm case 214270 model and i love the ranges clean lines.

    Which do you have and how does it wear???

    Rolex Explorer 214270.


    Rolex Explorer 112470.


    Rolex Explorer 14270.

  2. #2
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,773
    214270 for me, although it doesnt seem to have been worn for a good few months, better wear it for a day or it meets the "6 months and your out" rule that I've just given myself.




  3. #3
    Currently own a 214270 and 5500 Explorer.

    ALL of them are awesome, the Explorer is one of my favorite watches in any guise.

    However, the 214270 edges it for me, better bracelet and clasp (with micro extension), better movement (silky smooth when manually winding), super accurate and decent power reserve. The 214270 being a little larger than the 14270/114270 is easier to read and really comfortable to wear.

  4. #4
    Master reggie747's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    The Mersey Riviera
    Posts
    4,343
    Not much help here because I don't own either but based on your pics I think I'd be plumping for the 14270 I think...

  5. #5
    Master OliverCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    South West London
    Posts
    1,731
    The problem with the 39mm to my eye, is the fact Rolex kept the same hand set mean they (especially the minute hand) are to short for the design… I'm also not a fan of the white gold arabics. I can't really understand why none of the versions have lume fills - why give it the look but not the function?

    Taking the criticisms aside, I do love the Explorer!

  6. #6
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Chester and Merseyside, UK
    Posts
    3,275
    Not much to separate the 14270 and 114270 perhaps, but the 214270 needs a couple of caveats in my book :

    1. The glass on the 214270 cannot be replaced by half as many watch-makers as those on the earlier models can. This may result in a trip to your local AD and therefrom "it'll-need-a-service-at-the-same-time-or-we-can't-touch-it" world.

    2. The hands are a little oddly proportioned for such a big dial as the 214270 has.

    Not a massively loved model, the base Explorer, these days, which is a shame. It's classic looks and pedigree mean it should win better attention.

    Haywood

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by OliverCD View Post
    The problem with the 39mm to my eye, is the fact Rolex kept the same hand set mean they (especially the minute hand) are to short for the design… I'm also not a fan of the white gold arabics. I can't really understand why none of the versions have lume fills - why give it the look but not the function?

    Taking the criticisms aside, I do love the Explorer!
    You and many folk think the hands are too small, fair enough. In 6 months of wearing mine, I've genuinely not thought that once - and I've stared at them for hours at a time. ;0
    The indices don't need to have lume, as you have the triangle at 12 for orientation in the dark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton View Post
    Not much to separate the 14270 and 114270 perhaps, but the 214270 needs a couple of caveats in my book :

    1. The glass on the 214270 cannot be replaced by half as many watch-makers as those on the earlier models can. This may result in a trip to your local AD and therefrom "it'll-need-a-service-at-the-same-time-or-we-can't-touch-it" world.
    2. The hands are a little oddly proportioned for such a big dial as the 214270 has.

    Not a massively loved model, the base Explorer, these days, which is a shame. It's classic looks and pedigree mean it should win better attention.

    Haywood
    1. That is interesting to know, thanks for the information. While there's no date window for shattered crystal to migrate through to the movement, I suppose an impact strong enough to shatter the sapphire would sensibly prompt a service.

    2. I respectfully disagree.

    For the OP - I can only say that since having a 214270, both my Sub and Speedy have been languishing in the safe. The Sub came out last week and in comparison the dial is pokey, the edges of the case are sharper, the bracelet feels rather insubstantial and the case sits high on the wrist. The Explorer is the most comfortable watch I have worn, with the easy-link expander coming in useful when your wrist expands in heat. It's small but has a large dial. It's more than waterproof enough for most needs. It's understated and not at all obvious. The lume's good and my time keeping is at +2 per day. The bracelet can be easily touched up with a garryflex if you fancy some DIY and the polished bezel, so far has not suffered anything serious.

    I do get that some find the up-scaling from 36mm to 39mm not to their tastes but if you do like the new aesthetics and can splash the cash, I'm sure you'll enjoy wearing it.

    I should also perhaps add that I tried a wide range of Explorer substitutes before deciding to purchase the 214270: a couple of cheapies off e-bay, an Alpha (too small at 36mm) Eddies' PRS-25 (excellent value - but too big for me and I didn't like the 9105 rotor noise) and MKII Vantage - didn't like the dial and the one I had was slightly modded.

    Less is more could be a useful motto for the Explorer.

    Cheers

    David

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by OliverCD View Post
    The problem with the 39mm to my eye, is the fact Rolex kept the same hand set mean they (especially the minute hand) are to short for the design
    Never really bothered me but appears to bother a lot of people, not all hands on the watch need to touch the markers ... in fact it's the overhanging hands of the last generation of 1016 that bother me more.

  9. #9
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    1,090
    I recently faced this challenge and opted for the 114270.

    The below may help.

    As far as I can tell the 114270 and 14270 look identical so the latter offered an updated movement and bracelet.

    For me the 214270 was too big for my wrists; but if you do have big wrists this may sit better.

    I concur that the 214270 needs bigger hands, but it's not like you cant accurately tell the time with them.

    I felt also the 36mm was more in line with the classic Explorer; I don't know why they dropped the text EXPLORER to the bottom of the 214270; I think this also changes the balance of the dial.

    Anyway; all are nice; I think case size is the biggest issue and that depends on how fat you are ;-)


  10. #10
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    17,012
    36mm 114270 is the best of the bunch; better proportioned than the 39mm model, almost has the look of an integrated bracelet on the wrist.

    Whenever Rolex try scaling the 36mm models up something doesn`t quite work. As for the hands, they do look a bit short on the current model.

    !5 years ago everyone was happy with the size of the 114270.......nowadays everyone's wrists have grown!

    Paul

  11. #11
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Herts
    Posts
    262
    214270 I love - Wore a friend of mine's last weekend & was most impressed. Didn't want to give it back!

  12. #12
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    End of the world
    Posts
    2,825
    214270 for me also. The hands thing I've never noticed.

    The older models too small for my taste, 39mm is perfect

  13. #13
    Master AIDM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somerset.
    Posts
    2,132
    Blog Entries
    22
    No contest for me, unsurprisingly... Of course it is all down to personal taste, tried 36mm, too small for my taste.

    Have worn my 214270 almost exclusively for 2yrs - sold practically everything else!




    I wrote a review back when I first received it, I think I am still in the honeymoon period!!

    http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...nd-impressions

    My advice Marty - TRY the 36mm and 39mm before committing!

    Rob

  14. #14
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Coot View Post
    What strap is that?

  15. #15
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by AIDM View Post
    No contest for me, unsurprisingly... Of course it is all down to personal taste, tried 36mm, too small for my taste.

    Have worn my 214270 almost exclusively for 2yrs - sold practically everything else!




    I wrote a review back when I first received it, I think I am still in the honeymoon period!!

    http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...nd-impressions

    My advice Marty - TRY the 36mm and 39mm before committing!

    Rob
    Thanks for the advice Rob.

  16. #16
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    South manchester, uk
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Montello View Post
    I recently faced this challenge and opted for the 114270.

    The below may help.

    As far as I can tell the 114270 and 14270 look identical so the latter offered an updated movement and bracelet.

    For me the 214270 was too big for my wrists; but if you do have big wrists this may sit better.

    I concur that the 214270 needs bigger hands, but it's not like you cant accurately tell the time with them.

    I felt also the 36mm was more in line with the classic Explorer; I don't know why they dropped the text EXPLORER to the bottom of the 214270; I think this also changes the balance of the dial.

    Anyway; all are nice; I think case size is the biggest issue and that depends on how fat you are ;-)

    1016 for me. Looks the nicest of the bunch. Dont think 39mm suits this one.

  17. #17
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Coming Straight Outer Trumpton
    Posts
    6,747
    I think this is often over looked......




    ;)

  18. #18
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by pearlwhite67 View Post
    1016 for me. Looks the nicest of the bunch. Dont think 39mm suits this one.
    I think if your are going vintage then the 1016 is the only option.

    What I don't understand is why they fetch such high prices, having been in production for 26 years you would have thought they would be quite common.

  19. #19
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    11
    I'd worn a 1966 Seamaster for almost a year before finally settling on the 214270. Expected the jump from 34mm Omega to 39mm to be too big but surprisingly the 114270 looked too small on my wrist. That, coupled with the updated movement, bracelet and clap it was an easy choice. Not to mention there was only about £500 of a difference between brand new 39mm and pre-owned 36mm. Great watch. Never leaves my wrist. The watch for all occasions!

  20. #20
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    England and Spain
    Posts
    2,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Martylaa View Post
    Really interested in purchasing one of these Role Explorer models. I do like the ideal of the 39mm case 214270 model and i love the ranges clean lines.

    Which do you have and how does it wear???

    Rolex Explorer 214270.


    Rolex Explorer 112470.


    Rolex Explorer 14270.
    Hi

    I own three Rolex watches, a 39mm Explorer, a 16610 Sub and a 1981 Freccione Explorer 2.

    My favourite without a doubt is the 39mm Explorer.

    It is superbly constructed and the bracelet is really good. It is totally below the radar and no one notices it which is how I like it.

    You can wear it with a dinner jacker or with jeans and T shirt, it really is the universal watch.

    To be frank, if you have an Explorer, you do not really need any other watch.

    As to whether you should buy a 36mm or 39mm version, just go for the one you like the best, they are all good.

    Regards

    Mick

  21. #21
    Master
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    By the TOLL Road
    Posts
    3,009
    Blog Entries
    1
    I love my 39mm Explorer its by far the most comfortable I have ever bought, its understated but very classy.






  22. #22
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by hilly10 View Post
    I love my 39mm Explorer its by far the most comfortable I have ever bought, its understated but very classy.





    I keep coming back to this thread, the more i look at that new Explorer the more i think the SubC is going to be replaced by one of these, much more my taste than the Sub (must be my age). Rolex Explorer on Steel during the day and the Omega Railmaster on Leather for dressy up nights out...
    Love the way the numbers on the dial look like liquid metal, very classy...
    Hmmm...
    Last edited by Martylaa; 8th April 2015 at 15:53.

  23. #23
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    1,090
    This article is quite helpful ...

    http://www.vintagehour.com/explorer-...ic-connection/

  24. #24
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Montello View Post
    Never seen that one, quite a good read thank you.

  25. #25
    Master kaiserphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    London-Islington
    Posts
    4,434
    I vote 114270 coz thats the one i have.

  26. #26
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by kaiserphoenix View Post
    I vote 114270 coz thats the one i have.
    Any wrist shots???

  27. #27
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    57
    I have recently acquired the 214270 and love it. Rarely leaves my wrist. I wear watches 24/7 and find the shorter hour hand much easier to read in the dark. My eyesight is terrible I hasten to add.

  28. #28
    Master Xantiagib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    2,377
    The 39mm looks great on a nato or leather - the 36mm looks best stock with the bracelet

    I think any collection would need one of each!

  29. #29
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    3,797
    The Explorer has attracted me more and more the last few years, but I've never purchased one as 36mm was too small for my wrist.

    That changed with the release of the 39mm version, which in my mind kind of rebooted the Explorer ready for the current trend for larger watches, accepting that 39mm still isn't a large watch by others standards.

    I don't think the hands look too short at all, and hope to purchase one at some point in the near future.

  30. #30
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    west midlands
    Posts
    1,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Tooks View Post
    The Explorer has attracted me more and more the last few years, but I've never purchased one as 36mm was too small for my wrist.

    That changed with the release of the 39mm version, which in my mind kind of rebooted the Explorer ready for the current trend for larger watches, accepting that 39mm still isn't a large watch by others standards.

    I don't think the hands look too short at all, and hope to purchase one at some point in the near future.
    Agreed, also next on my shopping list.
    Can't see the problem with the minute hands on the 212470.

    A little shorter than its two predecessors - yes, but similar length as those on 1016 as far as I can see.

  31. #31
    Master DB9yeti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    8,259
    I have an incoming 114270. Quite looking forward to it, it'll be my second one, the first was my fist Rolex many years ago.

    I a wearing much smaller watches these days and think it'll be nice to go back to such a classically proportioned watch.

  32. #32
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    832
    I went for the 114270 since I prefer the size and the proportions. Not just the hands, but the lugs/bracelet width to the case. The new one has increased the case size while keeping the lugs/bracelet at 20mm, which I'm not a fan of in comparison to the 36mm case and 20mm lugs/bracelet.

    Last edited by Rano85; 4th May 2015 at 10:25.

  33. #33
    Craftsman welshlad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    York
    Posts
    278
    I got a 39mm 214270 a year ago and absolutely love it. It's such a versatile watch, very classy, yet understated. :thumbup:

  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by welshlad View Post
    I got a 39mm 214270 a year ago and absolutely love it. It's such a versatile watch, very classy, yet understated. :thumbup:
    Couldn't agree more. The perfect watch, now the perfect size!


  35. #35
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    58
    I'm currently saving for a 39mm at the moment but I will no doubt try a 36mm on if possible before i make a purchase

  36. #36
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Riyadh, KSA
    Posts
    5,423
    114270 for me. Better bracelet than the 14270 with SEL and I hear a very very slightly improved movement, also tritium on many 14270 will start being dimmer now. Proportions just perfect, sounds small at 36mm but does wear very well indeed. Tried on the 39mm and it looked good but still preferred the 114270, wasn't a fan of the polished 3,6,9, felt the thin white inlay on the 114270 added a to the look.

    Good luck - none of these will disappoint I'm sure. We expect to see pictures when you get one :-).

  37. #37
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    battle
    Posts
    17
    I like the 36mm and the 34mm Air king they look so much better on my wrist IMO

    Sent from my Harrier Tab from EE using Tapatalk

  38. #38
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    602
    No substitute for trying them on tbh. 36mm is too small for me and the latest 39mm transformed the watch for me when I tried it. Top of my current (constantly changing) wish list.

  39. #39
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    535
    Hope to seek out a lovely 114270 one day. Absolute classic Rolex.

  40. #40
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Glasgow, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    Posts
    693
    Blog Entries
    1
    Get one that is the correct size. 36mm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •