Reply With Quote
214270
If you could buy 1 of these 2 models , which would be the 1
Either the older 14270 5 digit reference or the newer 214270 , I can’t really see much difference although Rolex connoisseurs will say different
Other than the obvious 36mm vs 39mm difference am I missing something ?
14270 above
214270
14270 for me, classic. I have a WTB up for one so hope to fill a spot in the watch box soon.
Depends on the size of your wrists, your view on 5 digit brackets and if the easy-link is of value to you.
Personally I would (and did) have the 39mm with the lumed 369 numerals but I have wrists the size of Zangief so the 36mm was never an option.
Aren’t there two versions of the 214270 - are you referring to the latter?
The updated lumed 214270 all day for me.
Nah. Who wants fat hands?
First version of the 39mm all the way. Rarer and with all the benefits of the upgraded movement, case and bracelet.
However they are all great!Originally Posted by Ivan Drago
David
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
MK1 39mm has tiny hands. Way too short.
14270, I like the way the tritium dial will age along with you!
The Explorer looks so much better in 36mm. The 39mm is the death of a classic imo.
I picked up a lovely 14270 a few months back, so I might be biased 🙂
114270 for me. Better movement than the 14270 plus SEL, superluminova.
39mm doesn’t look right on my 7.5” wrist.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
There is also a 114270 , are you referring to this model ?
Nope, two models or the current 39mm. MK1 and MK2. Main difference is longer hands which suit the 39mm size better than the 369 numbers are lumed and not solid white gold.
I just hope (dream more like) for the next Explorer to be reversed back to 36mm. Latest movement, bracelet, clasp etc., but on a classic 36mm case.
If that's the dream what you think of the blue dial OP36 wit 369 dial? Explorer in all but name.
No crown at 12 thanks.
Is it true that the mark 1 had shorter hands because they used leftover stock hands used on the 36mm cases ?
Yes. The same way they used the 3 6 9s from the MK1 on that horrid Air King.
The 214270, current iteration, is pretty perfect. Great movement, shock protection, bracelet, end links clasp.
It’s insufficiently praised for the lumed 3,6,9, which offer a tremendous aesthetic and legibility gain over earlier x14270s.
Fora being fora, there’s an awful lot of herd mentality online in favour of the 36mm. I’d say ignore it (and me!) and make up your own mind.
The 39 is still the Crown’s smallest men’s professional model and has beautifully tapered case. Never looks too big, never too small. Never looks like it’s trying too hard.
214270 all the way 👍👍👍
Another 214270 vote here. Love mine (the longer hands, the bigger case, better lume), not at all big on my 6.75" wrist.
This is a debate Ive been having with myself for a while too. Never would have considered the 14270 had it not been for buying one of Eddies 36mm Smiths Everests. I love the size of it. But, I think it has come down to the fact I’d rather buy a better quality watch, with a better movement, and have a warranty card with my name on it.
Either way, you can’t go wrong 👍🏻
36 into 34 probably doesn't go.
Try and find a good 14270, it's a lovely watch. In fact, you've spurred me on to give mine a bit of wrist time.
I hardly ever mention it, but I have the 214270. Each to their own, but I'd guess that many 36mm advocates would be fine with the 39mm Explorer after a day or two of wearing it.
Unless they are smaller wrist men, of course.
I’m fairly slim wristed, but would take the 36mm by a mile. I don’t the size or proportions of the 39mm.
Having said that, when comparing the 14270 and Exp II 16570 together, my money went on the Exp II, I think for shear visual interest, with the added benefit of a useful complication
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by helidoc; 13th January 2020 at 10:12.
Also the Rolex logo is too big on the 214270 dial
36mm version for me, its the perfect size imo.
First version of the 214270. I don’t find the ‘shorter’ hands an issue at all and the gold numerals make the dial a bit less noisy than the mk2. But as others have said, they’re all good
I have tried on both the 36mm 114270 & the 39mm 214270 mk2 and to be honest, on my 7.25 inch wrist the 36mm 114270 model suited and looked much better, in fact looked perfect.
I currently have both 114270 and 214270. I bought the 214270 to replace the 36, that was a few months ago and I still have it. There's just something absolutely right about the 36 that IMO the 39 misses. Don't get me wrong, the 39 is technically a better watch these days, upgraded movement, bracelet and clasp that are miles better than the older hollow link versions but.....
Can't put my finger on it, there's just something not right about the 39, maybe it's the thicker bezel and the fact that the crown is too small on the bigger case for me. The crown and logo also seem to be too big. The case proportions are very well done and avoid the maxi-case thickness that affects the other sports models. For me though, the Explorer dial in that case doesn't work anywhere near as well as the 36.
I think if you start to research the history and absorb the info available, the only conclusion I came to was that the Explorer has always been 36 (ignoring the 34mm Explorer 5500) and I believe that fact matters to a lot of people.
It’s been 39mm for approximately 17% of the model’s history to date. I don’t see watches as necessarily static.
214270 for me. Better size IMO.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
That’s lovely. As a “mkii” owner, I’ve always maintained that the handset argument is a bit daft, both versions work. There’s greater differentiation from the arabics, and you make a good case for the filled gold. I still enjoy the lume though :)
First version of the 214270. I don’t find the ‘shorter’ hands an issue at all and the gold numerals make the dial a bit less noisy than the mk2. But as others have said, they’re all good
Last edited by JGJG; 13th January 2020 at 20:04.
I had the 214270, I always think that 36mm watches on my wrist are just too small. I would have one again but even at 39mm I always felt that it was borderline.
14270. It's the size the dial was designed to and looks better balanced. It's probably the nicest dial ever. Also, they don't make them anymore and smaller watches are coming back into fashion.
214270 for me as well
I can now reveal the answer: If you said 214270 you're right! Well done. If you said anything else, you get second place! Well done for participating.
I agree absolutely but I'll hazard a guess that the upsize to 39 was to accommodate a more 'fashionable' narrative which for me throws out the balance of the dial and I can't see them going back on it anytime soon. 214270 is a brilliant watch, just doesn't work for me.
Bollocks!I can now reveal the answer: If you said 214270 you're right! Well done. If you said anything else, you get second place! Well done for participating.
And MK2 is my current only watch :)
14270 for me, but I'm biased.
I really hope they will reintroduce updated 36mm. Best watch design ever!
214270 in either iteration. When searching for mine I looked for a MK II, but an opportunity arose for a great deal on a MK I that had just come back from a Rolex service.
I’m very much enjoying it and the niggles of short hands, lack of lume etc that many quote are not an issue in day to day life. In fact, the solid numerals add some good interest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by boris9; 14th January 2020 at 07:42.
I sold the 214270 I had sometime ago due to wearing larger than its 39mm would suggest, It also has a very large flat bezel which looked out of proportion.
Personally I would go with a 114270 if it were my money.
OP, if you think the ‘only’ difference is a few mm, you need to look at a 36mm and a 39mm Rolex side by side. 3mm may not sound like much, but in watch terms, it’s like 3 miles. The effect is completely different.
I’m not going to say which is ‘better’, as that will depend on your wrist, and in fact your overall height and build too, and your personal style. I will say though that for some people, a 39mm Oyster case will be on the large side and wear quite flat, not exactly following the curvature of the wrist. For people in that category a 39mm professional model can work ok due to the tool bezel, but the 39mm Explorer may feel fractionally oversized when viewed from closer up. It’s a pity they don’t offer a choice, and personally I wish that if they wanted to make it larger, they’d stopped at 38mm - and I’m far from alone in that.
However anyone saying one or the other is perfect is talking about their own wrist, not the watch. No one tries to claim one particular size of trousers is the right size, but for some reason with watches, it happens all the time!
Couldn’t agree more with this, a 40mm 5 digit Sub wears appreciably smaller as the bezel squeezes the overall dial size down.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This was my experience also (and thats all we can really talk about as it's so subjective). I have a couple of Maxi case watches at 40mm and they felt so much smaller that the 39mm of the Explorer. If you can I would really advise trying both on and seeing which fits most comfortably.
I have 6.75" wrists and ended up moving it on as the fit just wasn't there (for me).
Good luck with whatever you decided :)
On paper the 214270 MkII would be my choice, however on the wrist you might be surprised by the charm of the 114270. Try them on back to back and you'll quickly know the answer.
36mm version works far better as a design, and it’s big enough for most people. Those with really large wrists will prefer the 39mm, that’s understandable, but for me the Explorer and similar Oyster models lose something on scale-up.
I owned a 36mm for 9 years, my only niggle was the length of the bracelet on the 6 side, which was always slightly longer than I wanted. If the link adjoining the clasp had been 3mm smaller, like the Sub 16610, the fit would’ve been perfect. This is a Rolex failing, I find the Oyster bracelets never seem comfortable on my square 6.75” wrists unless the 6 side is short and the clasp has fine adjustment.
Another niggle that applies to most Rolex models is the flat crystal, which always seems to look smeared. If it had some curvature this would be less noticeable, and a curved crystal would give the watches a warmer look.
Having handled the latest a PRS 25 recently I can’t help thinking the Explorer is grossly overpriced, I paid £1750 for a 5 yr old freshly serviced 114270 in early 2009 and I was OK with that, but at current prices I was happy to let it go in late 2018 for market value. It was a nice one, but the cash I got for it was nicer.
36mm looks always better even 34mm..
The chicken wrist.
I've always found this scenario far-fetched as original surplus 36mm explorer handsets would have been made with green lume instead of modern blue chromalight. Unless I'm mistaken, the 214270 MK1 have blue lume. It was just a lazy design choice to not scale up the hands for a larger case IMO.
I meant the 3 6 9 indices on the AK. They are the same white gold ones from 214270 MK1
Posting Permissions
