Always liked the Explorer look.
But the Everest in 40 with about 50mm lug to lug whas not possible for my little wrist.
My MKII Vantage with it 38.5 mm is perfect for me.
And suddently came the Everest in 36 and two Steinhart (only by Gnomon) in 39mm that will perfectly fit my wrist.
Any advice? Does anyone earn both and can make a comparison?
Last edited by Kronoss; 10th February 2019 at 22:17.
I've always tended to go for larger watches, generally 40-42mm. My G Shock shown on last Friday's thread is a massive 50mm.
I already owned the 40mm Everest but liked the 36mm so purchased one. I preferred it to the 40mm version and promptly sold it to my brother.
The 36mm Everest is so good and feels 'right' on all types of strap it has become my most worn watch... absolutely perfect.
I keep looking at my watch collection wondering if I'll ever wear them again it's that good.
If you have a MKII Vantage, I had one, I think you have all the watch you need, to be honest. That is unless you specifically want a smaller Explorer type watch, where the new 36mm Everest would be worth a try. Owning and enjoying a 42mm Steinhart, I would say the quality of the MKII is better. I only sold mine because mine had a red tipped second hand, which I didn't like and there's no need for a date on an "Explorer."Originally Posted by Kronoss
Last edited by dkpw; 10th February 2019 at 14:54.
I don't have both, only the Everest 36mm, but IMHO this has a much nicer side profile compared to the flatter lugs of the Steinharts.
F.T.F.A.
I bought the Explorer but never wore it as it was too small for my taste, but a lovely watch. If only they had done one in 42mm.
If you need a new home for that Vintage Red
Own both 42mm in the OVM and O1V. The O1V seems to wear “larger” than the OVM and noticed that the 39mm Explorer seems to appear larger in pictures. Either of the Steinharts you will not be disappointed, both very versatile with straps as well in my opinion. I have small wrists but still prefer the 42mm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ive got the Explorer 39 and it's a great watch all round. I have just under 7" wrists. I have been swimming and snorkeling with it and it works fine. The bezel is a bit stiff but it's slowly loosening up.
I popped it on the Jubilee and it's even better.
Thanks all for the answers.
Saddly I don't own a MKII Vantage, I made a mistake. I have a Hawkinge.If you have a MKII Vantage, I had one, I think you have all the watch you need, to be honest. That is unless you specifically want a smaller Explorer type watch, where the new 36mm Everest would be worth a try. Owning and enjoying a 42mm Steinhart, I would say the quality of the MKII is better. I only sold mine because mine had a red tipped second hand, which I didn't like and there's no need for a date on an "Explorer."
If I had a Vantage I think I won't be looking for something else. His 39mm would be perfect for me.
The only complain I could have with a Vantage is that is has a date. But if I could find one...
The baddest on the Hawkinge is that the bottom is a bit bulky.
Understand that the bottom line is under the lug holes line. So it sits more "up the wrist" than "on the wrist".
My Eterna Kontiki or my Tudor Ranger, much bigger where better on that point and then more comfortable.
How is it with the Everest and Steinhart?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
