36mm vs 39mm Explorer! Stuck in between

[MHB]

Originally Posted by Fraz

I have a very small wrist (just below 6 inches), and I a went for the 39 mm. Reasons being: lumed numerals, blue lume, better bracelet and clap, better movement, possibility to buy new.
I would prefer if it was a little smaller, but to be honest, it doesn't look out of place in person. Pictures really exaggerate the size of watches. This 39mm wears really thin, flat and light. No regrets, I really love it.
What do you guys think?

Looks great! I have one incoming this week

[linnaxis]

I have 114270s (2) and a 214270 mk1. Bother are very comfortable and generally work with anything. The 114270 is light and I generally don’t notice I’m wearing it. The 214270 bracelet is heavy and while comfortable, I always remember I’m wearing it.
I like the 214270 mk1 as the hand proportions and white gold numbers give it a different look than the 114270. The 214370 mk2 is just a larger 114270 and it wouldn’t make sense to me to have both.
Obviously the Explorer is my jam :)

[Daveh3196]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

Looking at my mark II 214270 in sunlight, I'm quite sure that's a GLOSS dial. I believe Rolex went back to the Gloss dial for the 2016 facelift of the Explorer....please correct me if I'm wrong, but my photo shows some pretty obvious reflections on the black dial...

So if you want a matte dial, only choice is the Mark I.
Weird...and slightly disappointing...

I purchased mine 2/18. 214270. Matte dial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pikers]

I purchased a 39mm Explorer last year, had it for about 6 months and traded it, along with with another watch, for a Hulk. I missed having an Explorer so much that I ended up getting a late model 36mm (114270) about 3 months later for about half of what I paid for the 39mm. I prefer the dimensions/proportions of the 36mm MUCH more than the 39mm. The 39mm just looks "off" to me. It looks bulbous or bloated...maybe I'm crazy. With that being said, I'd probably buy it again just because the dial and bracelet of the 39mm are simply awesome. I think about going back to the 39mm all the time as it was probably the most comfortable watch I've owned and it's the only modern Rolex that really speaks to me. Either way, you can't lose.

[Juggernaut]

Originally Posted by pikers

I purchased a 39mm Explorer last year, had it for about 6 months and traded it, along with with another watch, for a Hulk. I missed having an Explorer so much that I ended up getting a late model 36mm (114270) about 3 months later for about half of what I paid for the 39mm. I prefer the dimensions/proportions of the 36mm MUCH more than the 39mm. The 39mm just looks "off" to me. It looks bulbous or bloated...maybe I'm crazy. With that being said, I'd probably buy it again just because the dial and bracelet of the 39mm are simply awesome. I think about going back to the 39mm all the time as it was probably the most comfortable watch I've owned and it's the only modern Rolex that really speaks to me. Either way, you can't lose.

If the current 214270 would shrink by 1.5mm keeping EVERYTHING else the same, I think that would be the end-all Explorer.

[Fraz]

I totally agree. A 37-37,5 mm modern Explorer 1 would be a home run. Although I think most people would still think that the 1016 is the ultimate Explorer.

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

If the current 214270 would shrink by 1.5mm keeping EVERYTHING else the same, I think that would be the end-all Explorer.

[Seibei]

A vote for the 39mm.

[DoctorA]

39 for me (that’s if the OP is still looking)

[mmazzini1]

36mm for me- a real classic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sensui]

I like the 36mm classic size. But I also have a smaller wrist @ 6.375"....YMMV I gues sin terms of what you're looking for.

[JSL420]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

And then again, in daylight with a direct angle, it does look like a matte dial, with light grainy texture on the dial field...I'm not sure now....
Can someone with better eyes confirm or deny the Mark I dial glossy or matte?

You’re right, it does look like matte dial when under direct sunlight, but under certain angle you can see the reflection of the hands on the dial.
I noticed it since I got it but no one can provide a certain answer compare to the 214270Mk1,

[fskywalker]

Easy choice: 114270

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by gaoxing84

Just got these babies in within 2 days.

I love the 114270 dial text placement, like 1016.
But i like the size of 214270.

size wins in the end. Ultimately its probably the most important factor to me as its part of the overall appearance. Getting into the finer details doesnt really matter if the size isnt right.

[Juggernaut]

I do think that both the 36mm and 39mm models were actually made to fit the same sized wrists (maybe why the bracelet size hasn't changed), but the 39 fulfills the "modern" proportions of today's market, whereas the 36 has the more classic look. It's less "big vs. small" and more "vintage vs. modern".

[lilokito]

try them both on. took me a while but ended up picking up the 214270. just felt better, i have a 6.75" wrist.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by mmazzini1

36mm for me- a real classic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me too. I tend to gravitate towards things that look timeless...no pun intended, and that's what was always so cool about Rolex to me, at least until the 6-digit series (outside of the 114270.)

[pigman08]

After having some misgivings about the 14270 being too small, I'm coming around to the idea of wearing a 36mm. If Rolex ever decides to bring the Explorer back down to 36mm and keep a fully-lumed dial, I'd definitely consider buying one.

[G M Francis]

Had a 36, flipped it when the new 39 came out. I couldn’t get away with the solid 3/6/9 numerals and the undersized hands on it. I sold that one and after a hiatus of 3 years or so I got the new 39 with the full lume. It’s a great watch and I’ve been wearing it loads. I love it but the idea of a 37.5 or 38 mm version with the same proportions is a real winner.

[|404|]

I went for 39... no regrets. New lumed version, it looks fantastic. I wear it mostly on this MN strap, because of the superior comfort. And well its my exploring watch... its my active, hard wearing watch. For sports / outdoors etc etc

[Fraz]

I recently got the chance to compare both side by side. Although the 36mm fits me better, it's such an inferior watch. The bracelet and clasp particularly are so inferior IMO.
And to be honest 36 is a bit too small for most people.
I am absolutely on board with the ideia of a 37-37.5 Explorer, keeping everything else the same (or maybe updating the movement to have the new longer power reserve). In the mean time, I will enjoy my 39, which is easily my favorite watch.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Fraz

Although the 36mm fits me better, it's such an inferior watch. The bracelet and clasp particularly are so inferior IMO.

While the newer bracelets/clasps are unquestionably built better, outside of some controversial spot welding, things get tricky when you start taking comfort into account. I find the older, lighter weight bracelets (and watches) to be more comfortable.

[Fraz]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

While the newer bracelets/clasps are unquestionably built better, outside of some controversial spot welding, things get tricky when you start taking comfort into account. I find the older, lighter weight bracelets (and watches) to be more comfortable.

That's fair. They are lighter for sure, and some people love the confort of a light watch. But the 36 gave me the impression of being "light to a fault". Like cheap-feeling light. I know that's not the case, and they are very resilient watches, but it's just a matter of feeling and the impression that the piece leaves on you. I find the 39 to be perfectly positioned between being light enough to be comfortable but weighty enough to feel solid. But I will be the first to admit that I would prefer a modern 37-37.5mm Explorer.
Do you guys think Rolex will ever size the Explorer back down? Or expecting that is being unrealistic?
I can see them never going back, since 39 is far from oversized...

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Fraz

That's fair. They are lighter for sure, and some people love the confort of a light watch. But the 36 gave me the impression of being "light to a fault". Like cheap-feeling light. I know that's not the case, and they are very resilient watches, but it's just a matter of feeling and the impression that the piece leaves on you. I find the 39 to be perfectly positioned between being light enough to be comfortable but weighty enough to feel solid. But I will be the first to admit that I would prefer a modern 37-37.5mm Explorer.
Do you guys think Rolex will ever size the Explorer back down? Or expecting that is being unrealistic?
I can see them never going back, since 39 is far from oversized...

Yeah, I've been wearing a folded links bracelet for the last year, which is considerably lighter than even the 14270's bracelet, and it's by far my most comfortable. The lighter the better, to me.

I kind of doubt we'll see another Explorer size any time soon, although I wouldn't be shocked if they brought back 36mm to go along with the 39mm.

[173rdabn]

I've had both and it's really what you prefer. The 36 is stealthy, but the 39 has a much nicer bracelet and it's not obtrusive.

[Allinthegame]

The 36mm generally going around the £3.5k mark. The 39mm around the £4K mark (pre owned). In your opinion do you think they will hold their value? Thank you.

[Allinthegame]

Bump

[Fraz]

Not to the extent of the other popular sports models. But you should be better off than buying pretty much any other model from pretty much any other brand.

[Juggernaut]

Hey can someone confirm or deny this. Do the 36mm versions 14270/114270 have solid white gold 3, 6, 9 numbers or do they have non-luminous white paint in the center? It's very hard to tell in photos because of the shine.

[Fraz]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

Hey can someone confirm or deny this. Do the 36mm versions 14270/114270 have solid white gold 3, 6, 9 numbers or do they have non-luminous white paint in the center? It's very hard to tell in photos.

As far as I know it has non luminous white paint outlined in white gold.

[s.m.b.]

36mm, hands down...