Detailed Relative Hand Sizes - 214270 v 16610 v 116610

[mfer]

So, I have been trying to dig up information on hand sizes of Rolex Sport models. Why you may ask? Well, I like long hands. I think they just make watches look cooler (and a little vintage). Black Bay is an example of that. An older Panerai 3646 is also the same. Those minute hands reach all the way out to the rehaut of the watches. I think it just looks good. I also love simple dials, like Panerai and a Rolex Explorer. So, I would love to see larger hands on the 39mm Explorer (model 21470).

I really hoped that the 116610 models had longer hands, so I could get a set and add to my Explorer. Well, I think they do, but only very little and only on the hour hand, not the minute hand like I really wanted. This added length in the hour hand also explains why the back end of the second hand doesn't go over the center of the mercedes hand anymore. Here is a post on that information.
Mercedes second hand overlap differences

So, all these measurements are relative, meaning I don't have a mm measure, but only relative to other models. My setup for this was pictures taken at exact same distant from the dial and then using boxes in Excel that overlay the pictures. It is important to note that I did not redraw the boxes in Excel, only copied them onto another picture (unless I had to lengthen when a difference was found). The measurements in the box are the size of the boxes in Excel, not the actual measurement. This just shows that I didn't resize the box. Basically I did all this b/c I don't want to take apart my watches to get detailed measurements. I would love is some people could do this.

In summary on the lengths (not thickness)
-The minute hand on the 214270, 16610 and 116610 are all the same length.
-The hour hand on the 214270 and 16610 are the same and the 116610 is barely longer.
-The second hands on the 16610 and 116610 appear to be same length while the 214270 is longer.
-The hands on the 214270 look smaller because the dial is bigger.
-So, not conclusive, but it looks like Rolex made the 214270 second hand longer, but not the other hands.

Relative lengths in pictures below
Minute
16610 - 2.47
116610 - 2.47
214270 - 2.47
Hour
16610 - 1.61
116610 - 1.67 (3.7% longer)
214270 - 1.61
Second
16610 - 2.59
116610 - 2.59
214270 - 2.75 (6.2% longer)

My less than detailed analysis, but somewhat conclusive I hope.




















My setup (glass is my *ahem* camera stand for my iphone!)


very close to same height


nice camera stand



Now, I better go offline for a bit. The wife is thinking I'm crazy and spending to much time on the weekend doing this.

[luvsub]

nice watches

[FTX I]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[AS1]

Appreciate the good research!

[Afghanvet]

Always thought there was a slight difference between the 16610 and 116610... now I know! Thanks

[travisb]

Good research! Useful info for us fellow crazies!

[Jack T]

Excellent evaluation. With all the talk of the shorter hands in the Explorer, I always felt that it was the hour hand that could be a smidge longer. Not that it was all that important, but glad to read a proper comparison, thanks.

[Cru Jones]

Interesting, Mik. I remember all the "short hands" talk about the Explorer, but, I guess the hands aren't so short after all?

[Dyim]

Originally Posted by mfer

My setup (glass is my *ahem* camera stand for my iphone!)


.

Thx for the research.

But I am very curious, your time is perfectly synchronized but the date is off. What's going on?

[mfer]

Originally Posted by Dyim

Thx for the research.

But I am very curious, your time is perfectly synchronized but the date is off. What's going on?

That is what you noticed!?!?!?!?

[Riva14]

Great post ! thanks for taking the time to do this !

[subtona]

conclusion????


rolex just didn't bother to make a unique hand for the explorer?


Laziness?

or

maybe if the hour hand was made any longer Rolex was afraid it might sag at the tip?


i agree the hour hand on the explorer is a disappointment.

[BlackBay1]

Originally Posted by subtona

conclusion????


rolex just didn't bother to make a unique hand for the explorer?


Laziness?

or

maybe if the hour hand was made any longer Rolex was afraid it might sag at the tip?


i agree the hour hand on the explorer is a disappointment.

Which is a shame on an otherwise superb watch. Will Rolex take note?

[jjnd08]

That's a lot of research!

[watchwatcher]

Wow...nice work, and thanks for posting.

It does seem to me that if the minute hand on the EXP is the same length as the Sub, shouldn't it come closer to touching the minute markers (as they do in the sub)? At 1mm smaller than the sub, too. Or is the dial in the EXP bigger?

[red1108nyc]

Great details here bud - thank you!

[Duey]

Excellent Post !!

[mfer]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

Wow...nice work, and thanks for posting.

It does seem to me that if the minute hand on the EXP is the same length as the Sub, shouldn't it come closer to touching the minute markers (as they do in the sub)? At 1mm smaller than the sub, too. Or is the dial in the EXP bigger?

Even though the 214270 is 39mm and the 16610 is 40mm, the dial is larger on the 214270. The bezel/insert of the sub takes up more room than the thinner bezel on the Explorer.

Relative lengths in pictures below
Minute
16610 - 3.02 (11.4% larger)
116610 - 2.71
214270 - 2.71

[tylerad1]

Wow! Great work!

[cenzor]

As I followed a link you posted in another thread, I might as well write here.
Would the 216570 hands work for the 214270?
Given the fact that 3187 is updated 3185 and 3185 is upgraded 3135 ..?


Photo is courtesy of sunster @ WUS.

Looks as they would fill the big Explorer dial nice, despite the fact they are thicker.

[mfer]

Originally Posted by cenzor

As I followed a link you posted in another thread, I might as well write here.
Would the 216570 hands work for the 214270?
Given the fact that 3187 is updated 3185 and 3185 is upgraded 3135 ..?


Photo is courtesy of sunster @ WUS.

Looks as they would fill the big Explorer dial nice, despite the fact they are thicker.

Don't think they'll fit. The 216570 has a different hand stack. The hour hand has a rather large hole.

[mfer]

Originally Posted by mfer

Even though the 214270 is 39mm and the 16610 is 40mm, the dial is larger on the 214270. The bezel/insert of the sub takes up more room than the thinner bezel on the Explorer.

Relative lengths in pictures below
Minute
16610 - 2.71
116610 - 2.71
214270 - 3.02 (11.4% larger)

I see I made a typo in my previous post. I fixed it above in RED.

[ncstate1201]

interesting.. thanks for sharing.

[Snow-Dweller]

Interesting thread.....although when I first saw the title I did think we were measuring hands instead of wrists!

[Mr Daytona]

Whatever the reason, I do believe they could of made the minute hand longer. The 36MM Explorer looks so much better because of this among other things.

[mfer]

Originally Posted by Clivek

Interesting thread.....although when I first saw the title I did think we were measuring hands instead of wrists!

I see your point. Should have named it "explorer hands are too short and here is the proof!"

[sickened1]

Very cool info. Thanks for sharing... and how did I miss this thread since January.

[eonflux]

Thanks for taking all those measurements and posting!

Interesting what Rolex chooses to save money on by using the same parts, such as the minute hand on the Explorer, but yet come up with a longer second hand for the Explorer.

The DSSD clasp is the same width as that of the SDc and Subc, so many parts can be shared, but the Glidelock is different and the bracelet lug ends are wider, so the bracelet tapers more, which many don't like.

Using the same calendar ring for the DSSD and SDc that is found on the Subc but without a cyclops so the date is a bit small and should be closer to the dial edge.

The case on the Subc seems to be the same as the GMTc (the middle part, not the casebook which is thicker on the Subc) but the lugs are just a little wider.

Etc, etc.

[Jannal]

I did not buy the 214270 model, the short hands put me off.
Is Rolex trying to save cost by using the hands from the 14270 model?
Little details like this matters (to me), especially if you're going to spend thousands of dollars on a watch.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

Wow...nice work, and thanks for posting.

It does seem to me that if the minute hand on the EXP is the same length as the Sub, shouldn't it come closer to touching the minute markers (as they do in the sub)? At 1mm smaller than the sub, too. Or is the dial in the EXP bigger?

Yes, the dial on the 39mm Explorer is a couple mms bigger than the dial on the 40mm Sub.