Reply With QuoteI didn't think it wore that small TBH. I have just under 8" wrists. Wore a bit bigger than the Smith's Navigator for example.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I'm wearing my 2019 39mm Explorer today - ideal on my smaller-than-average 6.75" wrists. I am surprised at the clamouring over the smaller 36mm.
I didn't think it wore that small TBH. I have just under 8" wrists. Wore a bit bigger than the Smith's Navigator for example.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
It’s looks perfectly fine on your wrist.Originally Posted by ryanb741
I didn't think it wore that small TBH. I have just under 8" wrists. Wore a bit bigger than the Smith's Navigator for example.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I thought so. I'm pleased it went to a member here - I'm actually just off to have a quick congrats pint with him now as he came down to Kingston to pick it up today and is staying overnight in town
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Great news. Hopefully see some better shots on the incoming thread. I’m on zelist for a standard one.
Haven’t looked back to check but I thought he kept changing which side the new one was on, so spent more time trying to guess which was which.
Felt like he was talking himself into the new one, but hey, we’ve all been there!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
There are quite a variety of different wrist sizes. Correspondingly, there are a variety of different bracelet sizes. Yet it appears to be a source of endless fascination. Rolex know what sells, and my guess would be around 38-40. But there is a large female market, and that will be 36-34 . My partner has a 34 0P and it looks excellent on a normal size woman. Apparently, it’s a big, lucrative, market.
With fashion, there will be a constant fluctuation. I wear 42mm and it seems normal, just what you are used to.
Like clothes fashions. there is no steady answer.
My father bought a 28mm watch (Mondia) in 1942 and wore it every day until he died in 1971. After years of shortages and rationing it was considered unbecoming to flash your wealth about so watches were small and slim. The 39mm Explorer that I am currently wearing would have been considered a spivs watch, the sort of bloke you just could not trust.
But fashions do change and the one thing that would cause the value of modern Rolex to sink is a return to small watches. We have to be honest, although Rolex are a brilliant watch, there is a touch of loudness about them due to their size and bling.
personally i wear 34-42, but agree that 38-40 is probably the sweet spot for men at this point, which makes it baffling that they discontinued all the 39mm OPs as well as the explorer.
All the Rolex I’ve owned were ‘dented inwards around the central post’. I think it’s on purpose.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Many have a sink hole effect most visible on glossy dials.
The first time I saw it, I thought it was the sign of a fake, but the opposite is true. It's a feature.
Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk
Interesting, it's not present on my 16610 or my 214270 and it's not something I've seen before, hence my mentioning it.
David
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
Nice comparison vs BLNR
This still from the video in the first post is interesting (new model on the left, 14270 on the right). Personally I think the proportions of the new one look good, including the tapering of the bracelet. The dial and bezel feel bolder and look almost larger. What’s surprising though is the 35.3mm width, which is always going to feel a bit dainty these days. If they had exactly these proportions but scaled it up slightly, even just enough for a 20mm bracelet at the lugs, it would be perfect. I found the previous model slightly too large at 39mm, but to go down to 35.3mm is mystifying - and that’s coming from someone with slim wrists who’ll happily wear a 36mm vintage DJ or Oysterquartz. I can only assume it has something to do with tooling for certain standard sizes of dials, hands or other parts.
Dial looks bigger due to larger 3 6 9 I think.
I think the larger numbers and indices make the dial looks smaller, but the tapered bracelet makes the head appear larger ...
I think the proportions are a nice improvement but agree it looks a bit on the small side.
Hold off a few years and it'll be bumped up to 37mm for the goldilocks version (hopefully).
That is it.
"The whole purpose of mechanical watches is to be impertinent." ~ Lionel a Marca, CEO of Breguet
Looks tiny in comparison and the GMT isn’t even that big of a watch.Nice comparison vs BLNR
i still prefer the 39mm. 36mm is a tad too small for my wrists
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not for everyone, but what watch is?
The divisiveness of the size will be helpful for availability for those who they do suit.
214270 was wrong in almost everything!
Actually, I can’t think of a single positivity about it. And I tried really hard to like it - 3 times in fact. £1000 loss each.
Surely you can agree that just because it wasn't right for you, doesn't mean it was 'wrong in every way'. You get that lots of people do like it, do own it, do wear it and do enjoy it, right?
Quite. I agree.Surely you can agree that just because it wasn't right for you, doesn't mean it was 'wrong in every way'. You get that lots of people do like it, do own it, do wear it and do enjoy it, right?
I think it’s definitely got an element of marketing for females to wear sports models who can’t carry off a sub, hence the two tone added.
I think so too. Over the past few years Rolex have increased the size of most Professional men's watches including the Explorer II, Yachtmaster, Oyster Perpetual, DateJust, SeaDweller and Submariner. Yet the Explorer has reduced in size. My view is that it's aimed at women, with the larger ExpII aimed at men, but in this gender neutral era the brand lets the customer decide which size they prefer. I'll doubt we'll see Roger Fed wearing this model on the next advert in the Times magazine.
Making a mistake happens to us all.
Making the same mistake twice is either careless or daft.
Making the the same mistake three times is unbelievable and that is a very polite way of putting it.
I am currently wearing my 39mm Explorer and I find it a brilliant watch, the true epitome of Rolex.
Completely agree with this. A quite deliberate strategy IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like that two tone, I wish they did that 39mm in two tone. It would be perfect one watch collection.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
You should have kept all three, now it is discontinued prices are only going one way!
Couldn’t care less! You either like it or not. Residuals doesn’t make a watch more appealing. To me at least!
Ah well I love my 214270 so I have the best of both worlds
But why buy it three times if you did not like it in the first place?
Really wanted an Explorer… And finally they made one again in 2021 :)
The right decision to go back to a gloss dial. The SD43 & 214270 lose a little something with their matte dials. Just don't feel like the finished article. Vintage matte dials work with the old cases and bezels, ceramic bezels need gloss dials.
So if you "really wanted" an Explorer, why sell it three times? It doesn't make sense.
Thinking about it, an Explorer in exactly the right size might just be the most appealing watch in the entire Rolex collection. That’s a situation they might want to avoid given that it’s the entry level sports offering. Lucky for anyone that fits the previous or new model, but for the rest of us it feels like they’re trying extremely hard to avoid making one that’s perfect.
Like I said, it is a proper Explorer I am after. Not 214270
You said earlier :-
"214270 was wrong in almost everything! Actually, I can’t think of a single positivity about it. And I tried really hard to like it - 3 times in fact. £1000 loss each."
That sentence states that you bought 3 x 214270s and lost a £1000 each time.
You can of course think and say what you like, but your continued assertion that the 214270 is not a "proper" Explorer is quite frankly tiresome.
I don't enjoy saying this, but I happen to agree with Mick P; buying a watch you clearly didn't like, three times, is just strange. It would seem that whatever compulsion drove you to that has found its antithesis, causing an over the top reaction by denigrating it.
Anyway, have a nice Sunday and I hope you enjoy your watches.
Give it a rest Mick
ah interesting, i didn't realise they went back to gloss. personally i found the older 36mm too blingy with the gloss dial and white gold arabics, the reason i like the 39mm is matte dial and lumed numerals.
Had to double check that the new iteration definitely does have a gloss dial after reading your post. When I compare both gloss and matte dials side by side on their sports watches the gloss dials always win me over, all down to preference of course but they just feel like more of a high end product.
+1
By all means don't like a watch and voice an opinion, but claiming it's not an Explorer (wtf?) and there's not a single good thing about it etc, despite buying it 3 times over, is frankly a tad bizarre IMO.
I owned three of them yes.
First was from 2012 and I had it as an only watch (I don’t do collection) for about two years. Didn’t really like it, but there was nothing else to like better perhaps. Sold to Watchfinder in 2014 and bought GS Quartz!
Then in 2018 I was again between “only watches” I decided to try the updated dial, bigger hands and 3 6 9 worked better for me, but too much dial still. Sold it within a month.
The last one was 2019 for about two months.
Maybe daft I agree.
However why do you think Rolex decided to reverse Explorer case back to its classic size?
And I’ve been saying this for a while :)
I was on my third 214270 at the time as well.
On this, are these both the same dial size? What’s the lug to lug? Looks to me like the one on the right has more lug either side of the dial (so is it that the dial is smaller on that one, or that lug to lug is larger, or just the angle of the shot)? I actually prefer the look of the one on the right a bit more - the one on the left looks a bit too squared off.This still from the video in the first post is interesting (new model on the left, 14270 on the right). Personally I think the proportions of the new one look good, including the tapering of the bracelet. The dial and bezel feel bolder and look almost larger. What’s surprising though is the 35.3mm width, which is always going to feel a bit dainty these days. If they had exactly these proportions but scaled it up slightly, even just enough for a 20mm bracelet at the lugs, it would be perfect. I found the previous model slightly too large at 39mm, but to go down to 35.3mm is mystifying - and that’s coming from someone with slim wrists who’ll happily wear a 36mm vintage DJ or Oysterquartz. I can only assume it has something to do with tooling for certain standard sizes of dials, hands or other parts.
Not questioning that you've owned 3. It's just a bizarre to claim there is literally nothing good about a watch that you've evidently gone and spent thousands of your own money on three times over. Either you're a bit mad (unlikely), or you're exaggerating your statements about the watch (likely). That aside, what you have is an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less, same as everyone else, and in at least one instance it's factually incorrect ('not an Explorer'). It does come across a little like you're stating your personal preference on a watch design as if it's a fact.
Probably not intentional, it's a minor point really.
Last edited by M1011; 1st June 2021 at 04:23.
Posting Permissions
