Over the last 12 months, I’ve been looking for a sporty/dressy watch to add to my small collection.
I’m aiming to add some variety to my predominantly diver heavy collection and have been looking for something with either a white or silver dial.
I’ve looked at a number of options, all very different in their own right.
- Grand Seiko’s (various)
- Zenith El Primero 1969 (38mm)
- Rolex Datejusts 36/41mm
- Rolex Oyster Perpetual 36/39mm
- Rolex Milgaus
- Omega Constellation Globemaster
In arriving at my shortlist, I initially tried to steer clear of Rolex, but I eventually narrowed it down to a Datejust or OP.
As luck would have it, a friend of mine has a two-month old OP 39 which he handed me today to try out for a few days, so, I have an OP 39mm (blue dial) in my possession for a week or so.
My preconceived impressions having read and watched various reviews were:
Perceived advantages/merits:
- It’s a Rolex - perceived quality and reliability
- Relatively attainable for a Rolex (Local AD quoted me 6-12 months for white dial) rhodium/ blue dial may be longer.
- Mainly brushed finish, goes under the radar - Oyster bracelet with no PCL’s
- Easily worn under shirt cuff
- Reasonable level of value retention (I think)
Perceived disadvantages:
- It’s another Rolex!
- Considered by some to be a basic no-frills model of the Rolex range - not very exciting??
So, having worn it for a couple of hours, my initial impressions are that the OP 39 is the perfect size for my 7.25 inch wrist, it’s slim, its light and a watch that can easily double as a dress or casual sports watch.
It’s nicely finished but not in the same league as a GS, however, due to the extensive use of brushing on the case and bracelet, it doesn’t have the bling of a Datejust, or a Zaratsu finished GS.
On balance I prefer a brushed more understated finish.
The blue dial has a beautiful blue sun burst finish. It has small lime green on the hour markers that I’m not sure I’m too enamoured with.
At most angles, the dial appears to be black which is a minus for me.
Overall, I think I prefer the 36mm dial with Arabic numerals.
The adjustment of the bracelet seems to be very basic. There doesn’t appear to be any form of micro-adjust on the clasp at all. The only adjustment appears to be to add or remove a link but I might be incorrect on that.
It’s clearly a quality piece, but at the moment it’s not wowing me and I’m wondering where £4-5k can be better spent elsewhere. I’ll post some photos and further impressions in a day or two.
Hi Klunk , nice review, you are correct there is no micro adjustment on the clasp. My wife has a 31mm op with a grape dial. It is a lovely watch and a 36/39 are on my radar for future purchase. The trouble is with a 4.5k budget there are some beautiful watches out there.
Explorer 1.
Originally Posted by boring_sandwich
Black dial - I've a boxful of black dialled watches -otherwise I'd love one.
If they released a white dialled Explorer, I'd be first in line.
I've heard that you can can buy the easy-link extension from a friendly AD with a parts dept. A friend wanted to borrow my Explorer 1 to order one but the AD would order it for him if he could produce an Explorer with the easy-link missing and I wasn't willing to remove it or loan out the watch. That could be an option?
There are micro adjust holes. They’re hidden in the clasp. You need a spring bar tool or a pair of those Bergeon tweezers that according to the price; must be made of unicorn foreskins or something.
That’s useful - thanks
Stolen from the Rolex forums.
I bought a second hand OP36 with blue arabic dial last year, having owned a 116200 Datejust in the past I expected the OP36 to fit nicely but try as I might I couldn’t get a comfortable fit. The clasp has 3 adjustment positions but I couldn’t get the watch to fit as I wished. The Datejust had the easilink clasp which gave an extra 5mm, that effectively gave scope for fine- tuning the fit using the 3 positions, it gave 2 sets of adjustments. The OP36 doesn’t have this and I realised why I was struggling.
The solution was to buy a half- link from the ceramic Sub! I picked up on this from an internet post on the subject, paid £ 30 to get the half- link, and the watch now fits perfectly. At one point I was on the verge of selling because I was so disappointed with the way the watch fitted.
This is what frustrates me with Rolex, why don’t they produce the clasp with 5 positions, not 3? There’s no reason why this can’t be done. Or why not supply the easilink? Its as if someone isn’t thinking.
These watches are the wrong side of £4K, these issues should be sorted.
One thing I do like us the recessed Rolex logo on the clasp, it doesn’t pick up damage and it makes the clasp easier to refinish.
With the brushed bracelet and understated styling the OP36 and 39 are the best watches in the Rolex range IMO, the Datejust range was spoiled by the polished lug tops and centre links on the Oyster bracelet. The polished lug tops are a real bugbear, particularly on the bimetal versions, there are just too many different finishes and colours going on. This was never a problem on pre- 2006 5 digit versions, my 1986 bimetal Datejust looks far nicer than the latest version.
Yes I see it now thanksStolen from the Rolex forums.
Sometimes it feels as if the thought process is, ‘How can we make this watch slightly worse so we can have an entry level model that doesn’t take sales from the next one up in the range?’ The solution is to pay extra for the Explorer, but they discontinued the 36mm and the 39mm feels a touch oversized for some of us, as does the OP39. It’s a pity as they join the long list of almost perfect watches from various brands, but for an easilink, or else a mm or two of width, or on some other models it’s thickness, polished centre links (thinking DJ36 or Omega AT here), a misplaced date window, a deliberately ‘entry level’ dial, the list goes on and on. It’s almost as if there’s a law of nature that there has to be something wrong with a watch that could so easily be perfect.
I’m stunned that it could be hard to find a good fit with an OP36, you’d think that was one thing you wouldn’t have to worry about with a Rolex. A clasp with easy and effective micro adjustment is an essential selling point for the brand, otherwise you could have a seamless bracelet.
To be fair to Rolex, I hadn’t seen the range of adjustment inside the clasp that Jimbob pointed out.
The holes look like they are approx 5mm spaced apart, so I suspect that if I moved it out to to the next one it would be a little loose as the bracelet fit at the moment is almost perfect but not quite. It probably needs to be about 2-3mm looser.
As it’s not my watch, I’m not going to mess with it, but it begs the question if Rolex have gone to the expense of developing glidelocks and easylinks etc. for Subs, Explorers et al, then why can’t they fit something similar to the OP
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think 4 to 5mm apart is correct, I measured this but can’t remember exactly what I found. Why didn’t they provide 5 holes at a distance of 2.5-3 mm?............madness! I like the idea of having blind holes, it looks neater, but why the hell don’t they provide finer adjustment?
For exactly the reason suggested by Itsguy above.
It’s to differentiate the models & pricing I suspect.
Of course they could, and maybe should, fit a handy Glidelock clasp to everything (discounting the negatives of greater clasp length/bulk for sake of the argument), but then it removes something extra that they can promote about their more expensive models if they don’t have Glidelock & Easylink clasps to talk about.
Their watches all use similar movements, cases, bracelets & crowns, if in different sizes, so they need some differentiating factor for marketing and to justify prices.
It’s frustrating, but I can see why Rolex and plenty of other brands, watches or orherwise, do it. Think about the eye-watering cost to add in extras to a new car.
The one that has always greatly amused me is the Date Submariner - the price to have a Date function, compared to an 114060 that is otherwise identical, apart from some date bits & a cyclops, is nuts. You could buy an entire watch from a respectable brand for the cost differential between ‘No Date’ & ‘Date’.
The short answer is the same reason as to why a dog licks its b*lls - because they can.
I’m not criticising Rolex for it - it’s just business, product structure & marketing. Play the game or don’t, spend the money or move on, but it’s not worth getting excitable about (that’s not aimed at you, by the way, but watch geeks in general).
I agree, but I can see two possible explanations. The first is that they need to create a range of price points, with things that differentiate them. This is irritating, as it often means the entry level models seem almost deliberately hobbled, when it would be so easy to add something small and cheap like an easilink - but they don’t, so there’s a reason to spend more on an Explorer.
Another example of this would be Omega’s Aqua Terra Quartz, where they replaced the applied indices dial with a printed one, so they actually invested time in making the watch worse, so it would clearly be entry level and not take sales from the autos. Maybe they were saving costs here too though. The last Genta style IWC Ingenieur also had a touch of this, with deliberately simple dials, as they were the cheapest in the range and needed to look that way - which is a pity as they were nicer than the more expensive ones otherwise. Even GS aren’t immune - the 9F range gets as much love as the rest of the range in most respects, but the dials on the standard models are quite plain, for them.
The second explanation would be that it’s not as cheap as you’d think to add an easilink or upgrade to a glidelock. Let’s say you have a machine that churns out normal clasps. For the next model up, a few years later you invent easilinks and make a machine that makes those, and then later you design glidelock clasps and make a machine to make those. Each of these machines is an investment, and if you decide that now everything will have glidelocks, you need to buy more of those machines, while scrapping the perfectly good machines that made the lesser clasps, which aren’t at their end of life. So it seems like a £10 part to add a easilink, but there are only so many a year you can make without retooling. Maybe the economics don’t quite work that way, I don’t work with manufacturing so I’m just guessing, perhaps someone who has more experience in production can tell me if that’s how things really work.
Last edited by Itsguy; 26th June 2020 at 10:51.
I think you’re being too kind to Rolex, as far as I know the easilink can be fitted to an OP clasp but Rolex will only supply parts as replacements if they were originally specified. I got around my problems by using a half- link from the 116610, bought second- hand, but it shouldn’t be necessary to do this, at this price point every potential customer should be able to get a satisfactory fit unless the watch is too big for their wrist.
Rolex have history for poor- fitting bracelets, Years ago I owned a 34mm Air King from the late 90s, on my 6.75” wrist the watch was fine but the 6 side of the bracelet was always a tad too long to get the clasp sitting where I wanted it, same applied to Explorer 1 owned later. Contrast this with the Seiko 5 I bought overseas for £35 in 2002, a similar size and style that fits perfectly.
Sorry, I don’t agree with the ‘entry level’ bit, not at these prices. The OP clasp could be made with 5 or even 6 adjustment positions closer together and that would please everyone, its so simple.....but as ever Rolex know better.
The OP 36 is the only Rolex model from recent years that I’d consider owning, the Explorer went too big and the Datejusts are spoiled with polished centre links and lugs. It’s ‘entry level’ or nothing for me.
Agreed, I’m sure the adjustment holes are closer together on my older Rolexes.
I’ve personally had no problem with getting a good fit on any of their watches before.
In my experience that’s been enough to get a good fit.
I have slim square bony wrists, I generally need to adjust a watch to within 1/8 " to get it right. 3mm is typical of the adjustment spacing on clasps on older style bracelets, that works OK. Rolex have chosen to cleverly hide the holes on this design, but not provided enough of them! A schoolboy error on a watch that's sells for more than £4K.
They brag about easylinks and glidelocks etc, why not just get the simple bits right!
Bone-headed Swiss attitude, they're never wrong. Omega have committed some similar howlers in the past, the 1610/930 bracelet on the 2254.50 SMP is a classic, it needs two half-links to get full adjustment but they only supplied one.
It isn`t rocket science to get these things right.
OP39, probably my least favourite watch from the Rolex range. I’d rather a datejust or an omega aquaterra.
My white dial OP 39 has hardly been off my wrist since I bought it from this forum. I think it’s a fantastic watch!
Interesting, just noticed that the white dial has applied markers on all of the hours, whereas the blue dial doesn’t. Are all of the hour markers lumed?My white dial OP 39 has hardly been off my wrist since I bought it from this forum. I think it’s a fantastic watch!
Looks like a really elegant thing
They are:
*excuse the quick shot!
Great photo, not sure how legible the hands are from that photo but it certainly makes me want to go out and try one.
To differentiate between the OP and the other models, Rolex chose not to have a model name. I like the OP and the white dial looks really good but lacks identity in my opinion.
Granted I cannot think of a suitable model name and perhaps Rolex struggled also. Let’s leave model name and it will save money on dial printing they said.
To me that’s a good thing. The last thing any Rolex needs is more text on the dial, you need a bookmark to get to through reading some of them.
You should try a Datejust 41. Plenty of options regarding dials, bezels etc. New movement with 70hr reserve. And don’t believe what people say about the size until you try one on. They’re great watches.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
The Rolex OP 39 is in some ways the most 'Rolex' of the current Rolex range above 36mm (alongside the SD4000). What I mean is the case proportions and bracelet interplay with said case maintain the design grammar of the classic Rolexes. It feels like a proper Rolex in some ways more than a Sub ceramic does with the bloated case/lugs. It is a great choice as a do all watch for all occasions without feeling particularly special or unique. It's one of the best 'one size fits all' watches out there
The more I wear it, I have to agree.
I wasn’t that impressed when I first began to wear it but the proportions and way it wears are just right.
I’m seriously considering ordering one with a white dial.
Probably the most underrated in the range IMO. Understated and solid and as has been said, great proportions.
Have you considered the Grand Seiko SBGV221? It has less mirror polishing than most GS and feels (relatively) understated. The dimensions are similar to the OP but it's a touch slimmer. Comfort is absolutely exceptional in terms of how it sits on the wrist but there is no adjustable clasp.
I had one side by side in an AD with the white dialled OP 39mm, a model I do really like and was considering at one point. To my eye, the GS absolutely left it in the dust - the difference was quite startling. Movement-wise, having a 9F would add more interest and variation to the collection too. And the cost is less than GBP2K.
Spot on. It’s the original essence of Rolex, albeit in slightly oversized form. What it lacks in ‘interesting’ features, it more than makes up for in understated, calm simplicity. Add a date, and it would embarrass all the oversized DJs. Only the new style DJ36 is as close to the original spirit, but sadly that has polished centre links. It’s just a pity for me that it’s 39mm instead of 38mm, but if your wrists are large enough, it could be the only watch you need.
Do like the look of the white/Blue 39 mm version, it's a quintessential Rolex without the shouting. Giving some thought to getting one for my 50th next year.
As promised some photos
I had considered a 36mm OP or DJ, but think the 39 mm OP might be the best option.
I’ve tried to capture the sunburst finish of the dial, but it’s a grey day today and needs some direct sunlight to show it off
The case wears very well on my relatively flat wrist.
Finally, size comparison with my 14060M
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by klunk; 28th June 2020 at 14:18.
Interesting that only the Black and White dials have the lumed applied markers (except 12). Possibly because the other dial options have the spot of colour next to the markers?
I have a black 39mm - it’s the only watch I’ve bought and never worn. Just find it too big .
I had insurance payout for a Milguass and asked for this and a JLC reverso and our the difference .
They were introduced later, they (arguably) improved them.
Yes I think it's an improvement
Maybe you just don’t get it?
OP 36 is my favourite because I like smaller watches, that’s why I own one, I think you have to own one of these watches to grasp the appeal......but that applies to any watch including the Datejust and Aqua Terra.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
