Question to Explorer I. ref. 114270 owners with thin wrists

[Robertus2]

Dear Forumners!
I have a question that might not be too easy to answer. First I had to decide where to place it because I'm talking about a watch produced in 2002 that might be a "neo-vintage" piece but I hope I have a safe place here with it:
I wish to hunt down an Explorer I. ref. 114270 that was "produced" in the first 3 quarters of 2002 (as a diploma present to my daughter who was born in early October 2002) so within the 9 month of her being a baby in wifey's uterus.
As this will be meant to be a present I do not have the chance to take the precise wrist size but she has a fairly thin wrist. Wifey and my other daughter have approx. 6.1" wrists and my 2002-born daughter has an even thinner one, my rough estimate is around 5.5" but of course I can be wrong on this. I've read that some have sold their 114270 because they could not perfectly size the bracelet to their thin wrist (size was not written) and/or the relatively long clasp (I think longer than the matching 36 mm Datejust clasps?) was not comfy while being not exactly on the opposite side of the watch head.
So after this long prologue I'd be very happy to see as many inputs on personal experiences as possible from people with thin wrist (possibly with numeric data) and if they could size the factory bracelet properly in a way 1. being not too loose and 2. placing the clasp more or less opposite the watch head and if it proved to be comfy enough or not.
Thank you very much in advance for every kind input!
Best regards,
Robert

[Josunese1975]

114270 is a fantastic watch BUT the bracelet and clasp does not fit well for a small wrist. 7 + inch wrist should not have any problems centering the clasp but any wrist smaller than that it just doesn't sit well. It is comfortable with microadjustments but I never could get the clasp to center on my 6.75 inch wrist. This is because the older oyster bracelets have 4 permanent links on the 6 o'clock side versus 3 permanent links on modern oyster bracelets. That means you'll have minimum of 5 links on the 6 o'clock side on the 114270 (as well as 14270). That makes the clasp stick out or protrude to the side instead of sitting centered on the bottom of a small wrist. It doesn't look good IMO. I eventually sold mine because of this. Some have gone to extreme measures and actually removing a permanent link. My advice? Either tolerate the protruding clasp or get the watch on a nice black leather strap. Hope this helps...

[pk552502]

I have 6.0 inch wrists and I put my 14270 on a strap. It's still a great watch I love, but it is a problem to get the clasp to sit properly. No problem adjusting it down to fit my wrist in terms of size, but the clasp won't sit right. If the clasp is centered on the bottom of my wrist, then the watch head will be tilted to one side. That's why I put most of my rolex on a strap (either canvas or leather). The only exception is my 16030 on a jubilee. That actually does fit rather well.

If you're buying it for your daughter, why not get a woman's model like a lady datejust?

[Josunese1975]

Originally Posted by pk552502

I have 6.0 inch wrists and I put my 14270 on a strap. It's still a great watch I love, but it is a problem to get the clasp to sit properly. No problem adjusting it down to fit my wrist in terms of size, but the clasp won't sit right. If the clasp is centered on the bottom of my wrist, then the watch head will be tilted to one side. That's why I put most of my rolex on a strap (either canvas or leather). The only exception is my 16030 on a jubilee. That actually does fit rather well.
If you're buying it for your daughter, why not get a woman's model like a lady datejust?

Exactly. Either accept the watch head being centered but the clasp off to the side OR the clasp being centered but the watch head off to the side. In my opinion a black leather strap with white threading makes the Explorer look very nice.

[dannyp]

Question: Is there something specific about the Explorer that you like for her, or just that style? I ask because in 2002 you could also get the Air-King 14000M with a dark blue Explorer-style 3-6-9 dial, or an Oyster Perpetual 31mm 77080 with the black Explorer-style dial, too.

[Robertus2]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Question: Is there something specific about the Explorer that you like for her, or just that style? I ask because in 2002 you could also get the Air-King 14000M with a dark blue Explorer-style 3-6-9 dial, or an Oyster Perpetual 31mm 77080 with the black Explorer-style dial, too.

Well, upon the long history from 1953 also the sportier looks with the plentiful lumed hands and lume second hand are all pros, as well as the Flip-lock clasp against unwanted opening.
With that said, the 14000M with the similar dial (and an even longer history...) sounds an excellent idea, thank you for that! As I'll try to get deeper in it the bracelet construction seems very-very similar regarding the lengths and symmetrical clasp placing, so maybe only the 2 mm case size difference can be gained with sacrificing the Flip-lock clasp. So it needs further evaluation and more inputs from fanatics of the model, now also the 14000M (I read that the M version came in 2000, I need one with salmon dial with Luminova, produced between January and September 2000...).
Unfortunately the I think that the 77080 is out for me because this has the smaller, ladies movement and I think that the long-time trustful work and maybe the daily rates are better of the larger movement.
Anyway, thank you (and also the other commenters) very much for your useful input! Hope there will also be others from others

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Robertus2

Well, upon the long history from 1953 also the sportier looks with the plentiful lumed hands and lume second hand are all pros, as well as the Flip-lock clasp against unwanted opening.
With that said, the 14000M with the similar dial (and an even longer history...) sounds an excellent idea, thank you for that! As I'll try to get deeper in it the bracelet construction seems very-very similar regarding the lengths and symmetrical clasp placing, so maybe only the 2 mm case size difference can be gained with sacrificing the Flip-lock clasp. So it needs further evaluation and more inputs from fanatics of the model, now also the 14000M (I read that the M version came in 2000, I need one with salmon dial with Luminova, produced between January and September 2000...).
Unfortunately the I think that the 77080 is out for me because this has the smaller, ladies movement and I think that the long-time trustful work and maybe the daily rates are better of the larger movement.
Anyway, thank you (and also the other commenters) very much for your useful input! Hope there will also be others from others

Agree with you on the flip lock being a nice feature. And, unlike today's models, I don't think the flip lock clasps (except those w/dive extensions) are any longer than on other models. Also not sure whether the 2mm shorter watch head in fact helps with your issue either.

The one other thing I'll mention about the 14000/14000M is that for visual effect, you can also look for the 14010, which has the engine tuned bezel.

As to the 77080, I don't honestly know whether there's a good reason to have the larger vs smaller movement, as I know little about the smaller movement of that era. However I think the specs are largely the same, vs. today where the two are entirely different beasts. That alone wouldn't deter me (unless there's something specific I'm unaware of) because up through the 90s, the 31mm was considered the true midsize.

The vintage forum may be a good place to enquire about some of these, as there will likely be more experts in the movements in each.

Last thing I'll add: I don't think that centering the clasp is actually of the greatest importance. What matters is that it's positioned such that the clasp blades follow the curvature of the wrist. An off-center buckle with properly positioned blades will be far more comfortable than the alternative.

[Robertus2]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Agree with you on the flip lock being a nice feature. And, unlike today's models, I don't think the flip lock clasps (except those w/dive extensions) are any longer than on other models. Also not sure whether the 2mm shorter watch head in fact helps with your issue either.

The one other thing I'll mention about the 14000/14000M is that for visual effect, you can also look for the 14010, which has the engine tuned bezel.

As to the 77080, I don't honestly know whether there's a good reason to have the larger vs smaller movement, as I know little about the smaller movement of that era. However I think the specs are largely the same, vs. today where the two are entirely different beasts. That alone wouldn't deter me (unless there's something specific I'm unaware of) because up through the 90s, the 31mm was considered the true midsize.

The vintage forum may be a good place to enquire about some of these, as there will likely be more experts in the movements in each.

Last thing I'll add: I don't think that centering the clasp is actually of the greatest importance. What matters is that it's positioned such that the clasp blades follow the curvature of the wrist. An off-center buckle with properly positioned blades will be far more comfortable than the alternative.

Thank you again for the additional infos. New idea: I've discovered a newer Air-King, the 114200. This has the same diameter and same lug 19 mm width, coming on a much better bracelet, maybe with more comfy wear for a thin wrist. The new question arises wether the bracelets are interchangeable between the 14000(M) and the 114200? (Theoretically yes, but the hole placement and other minor things might be deal breakers, so it needs some inputs from the experienced forum mates...)

[dredzz]

Robertus2, I was not able to post links to images because I'm still new to the forum, but I sent you the info in private message.

[Robertus2]

Originally Posted by dredzz

Robertus2, I was not able to post links to images because I'm still new to the forum, but I sent you the info in private message.

Thank you very much, reply sent via PM.

[Jawnz]

If you can get on a list for a new Explorer (ruins your specific year idea) but they fit better for 6” wrists.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ollie1982]

I’ve heard of birth year watches, but time spent in the uterus watches are a new one to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robertus2]

Originally Posted by Ollie1982

I’ve heard of birth year watches, but time spent in the uterus watches are a new one to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, as a physician this is an idea coming quite naturally :) and it narrows down the choice only by 25 %, as one was born 26 September, the other 10 October, so the first 9 months of the proper years have to play the game. I've picked up the available knowledge about serial numbers, while date of selling the watch also counts to a certain extent. Quite an acceptable approach I think :)

[Robertus2]

Originally Posted by Jawnz

If you can get on a list for a new Explorer (ruins your specific year idea) but they fit better for 6” wrists.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed but my plan of sg like birth year watches for my daughters needs thinking in this direction. The new one may play for myself but at the moment I still prefer the 31XX movement to the 32XX series, despite the longer power reserve and better regulability. This might change by time of course, as I'll read better news about the current movement.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Robertus2

Thank you again for the additional infos. New idea: I've discovered a newer Air-King, the 114200. This has the same diameter and same lug 19 mm width, coming on a much better bracelet, maybe with more comfy wear for a thin wrist. The new question arises wether the bracelets are interchangeable between the 14000(M) and the 114200? (Theoretically yes, but the hole placement and other minor things might be deal breakers, so it needs some inputs from the experienced forum mates...)

So, just to be clear, you would propose to acquire the 14000M from your daughter's birth year and the bracelet from a 114200? Personally, I'd probably go the strap route before trying to make that one work, particularly as it will add substantially to the cost. I also think the clasp might be longer.

However, you inadvertently bring up another good point: going back to your original idea, of a 114270, there's always the Jubilee bracelet of the 16200 Datejust. Different look but will definitely fit (no flip lock, though). Not sure whether that might improve fit.

[Robertus2]

Originally Posted by dannyp

So, just to be clear, you would propose to acquire the 14000M from your daughter's birth year and the bracelet from a 114200? Personally, I'd probably go the strap route before trying to make that one work, particularly as it will add substantially to the cost. I also think the clasp might be longer.

However, you inadvertently bring up another good point: going back to your original idea, of a 114270, there's always the Jubilee bracelet of the 16200 Datejust. Different look but will definitely fit (no flip lock, though). Not sure whether that might improve fit.

Thank you very much. I have a practically unworn Jubilee at home with 36 mm end-links so I'll size it - and look around for ladies watches too. Quite a task for the following time to come :)

[Spoonage]

I didn't read each response in full detail, but you could also go the route of getting a permanent link removed. Could be something to look into.

[Lesnerelli23]

I have both a very small wrist and a 114270. I sent you a private message!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1lastone]

My experience is I have 16cm wrists and a 114270 from 2001 that fits perfectly …

[Roll_ex]

I recently had some struggle with this, I have 6.5 inch wrist.

I got one permanent link knocked off from the 6'o clock side. (There is a vice like device with teeth that watchmakers have, they will use that to pull apart the links)
Alternatively one can also remove the half link and re-fit the link directly to the clasp. (OR BOTH)

There is a little bit of mismatch in tapering but that's barely noticeable (a regular screw link can be used to replace the knocked link later)

The missing half link will be clearly visible if someone decides to remove that.

Another issue that people with wrists between 6-7 inches will face is how the 12'o clock side of the bracelet link touches the inner folding lip of the clasp. (some might want to put extra links and get the micro adjust all the way in or do the opposite)

These 34-36 mm watches are ideal for smaller wrists, unfortunately everyone around seems to be having fitting issues.

Hope this helps others facing bracelet sizing issues in air king or other neo vintage watches.