Explorer "Short Hand" Owners Club

[KeithP]

The more I sit with this, the more I appreciate the original 214270. The balance is beautiful and it's a very elegant watch, while still sporty and and rugged enough for anything. Amazingly versatile.

The new one lost a bit of that. Longer hands are fine by me, but the new ones are a bit bulky, and I loved the full white gold 3 6 9.

Cheers all, beautiful watches.

[dkpw]

As we know, the original hands were only ever a "problem" when examined in larger than life macro shots on watch fora. In the flesh they are great. The new hands are simply too fat for the size of watch and make it look inelegant in my opinion. I have a 16610 and so am used to thin hands rather than those gallumping paddles.

The term "dwarf Explorer" is offensive on many levels and should be disposed off now.

[jshepard]

I can't imagine parting with mine, it was my first Rolex. Too many good things happened around the time I got this watch...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SemperFi]

Originally Posted by dkpw

The term "dwarf Explorer" is offensive on many levels and should be disposed off now.

I agree 100%. Along with "stumpy", "stubby", and "mistake".

[dkpw]

Indeed!

[Mick P]

Chaps

With the greatest of respect etc, anyone who is genuinely worried or delighted that the minute hand of a watch has been increased by a fraction of an inch really does need to get out more.

99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the worlds population could not give a damn.

Regards

Mick

[red.earth]

Originally Posted by Mick P

Chaps

With the greatest of respect etc, anyone who is genuinely worried or delighted that the minute hand of a watch has been increased by a fraction of an inch really does need to get out more.

99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the worlds population could not give a damn.

Regards

Mick

Presumably because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the population isn't interested in watches. Your point is not unreasonable, however

[red.earth]

Originally Posted by jshepard

I can't imagine parting with mine, it was my first Rolex. Too many good things happened around the time I got this watch...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fskywalker]

Shorter hands nor lack of lume on arabics never bothered me on my now gone 214270; switched to 114270 more because preferred the proportions of the original size version.

Guess am glad did my switch before the "revised version" was announced yesterday as, denial or not, many will likely prefer to buy the newest version over the older one, unless the older is deeply discounted, which thus hurts the pocket of whoever is selling one.

[Friar]

Originally Posted by semperfi

i am perfectly happy with my "short hand" explorer. Far too much has been made of that little detail so there's no need to discuss it further.
As far as the 3,6,9 lume goes...i've never had occasion to need to know the time while sitting in the dark so i don't really care about that either.
Add the fact that this was my first rolex at nearly age 65 and it's a lifelong keeper, a watch i love to look at dozens of times each day, and get excited about whenever anyone asks me for the time. It's one that will eventually be passed down to my son and then grandson.
So, am i content with my "short hand" explorer? You bet i am!

+1

[jay1988]

I don't see how Rolex making the hand longer is acknowledging a mistake. Was the DDII a mistake because the DD40 came out?

I go back and forth on the Explorer but if I wanted one I'd be trying to buy it now because for me the previous 214270 beats the 2016 one any day. The hand difference is barely noticeable. The decision to remove the white gold numerals was a really bad one though and if I had to choose I would happily take the shorter hands in exchange for the white gold.

Wonder if I can get a deal from an AD.

[red.earth]

Originally Posted by jay1988

I don't see how Rolex making the hand longer is acknowledging a mistake. Was the DDII a mistake because the DD40 came out?

I go back and forth on the Explorer but if I wanted one I'd be trying to buy it now because for me the previous 214270 beats the 2016 one any day. The hand difference is barely noticeable. The decision to remove the white gold numerals was a really bad one though and if I had to choose I would happily take the shorter hands in exchange for the white gold.

Wonder if I can get a deal from an AD.

I doubt it... but I sincerely hope so

[Gray1730]

Count me in too!
Mine is less than a week old, in fact I had it a couple of days before the news about the new one came out. I picked this because of the solid WG and the hands looks in balance to me. It's a special gift as well. I am not too keen, being new to Rolex and it's my first, of the phrase that Rolex is 'acknowledging a mistake'!
I also don't wake up and look for a watch as the bedside clock does that job. Lume only really looks good when you artificially charge it up for show, under normal UK day time it's fairly week in the night. That's not worth spoiling the good looking solid white gold in my opinion. Not bothered about the minute hand but that new hour hand is very wide for it's length. The wife says it just looks 'dumpy' and she's right. It would be different if it had a new movement or strap which it doesn't. So I am happy as if I return my watch I may never get it back 'new' again while I wait to see the new version up close.
Count me in and how do I post a photo?
Thanks.

[wrap]

To be honest i needed a good two month to get used to the watch and "learn" how to read it properly. At first i wished it had the lume filled 3 6 9 like the previous model because it would make it easier to read the watch at dark times but now when im used to the watch im glad it has the solid white gold 3 6 9 and the dwarf hands, it just looks so much cleaner and i would never trade that for the new look. Now that im used to it im keeping it for life!

[cop414]

Originally Posted by red.earth

Presumably because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the population isn't interested in watches. Your point is not unreasonable, however

Mick, I like the cut of your jib, well said my friend.

To those of you who are saying that the white gold 3 6 9 have been removed they haven't. The 3 6 and 9 are still white gold, they now have been lume filled just like the rest of the dial markers.
Great looking watches, both variations.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by cop414

The 3 6 and 9 are still white gold, they now have been lume filled just like the rest of the dial markers.

Exactly! They used to be solid WG, now they are WG but hollow at the center with luminous material inside


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wrap]

This is the way the real 214270 looks like! Could the hands be longer? Yes, but that would require thicker hands to prevent an akward look which obviously ruins the look and feel of the watch. So given the facts im very happy with my explorer just the way it is.

[Exhausted]

I'm definitely hanging onto my 214270. Love it!

[cenzor]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

Exactly! They used to be solid WG, now they are WG but hollow at the center with luminous material inside


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So in the 2016 explorer you get less white gold , for higher price?
Or bigger hands compenstate for the overall gold amount?

[Rags]

My short hand Explorer.

[davidflo]

Remember that in the new model, the lume of the minutes hand doesn't align with the lume of the indices as it does in the current Explorer.
Complete and total failure.

[dkpw]

Originally Posted by Rags

My short hand Explorer.

I'm really sorry, those hands are so short I can't tell the time. I'm too distracted by hand envy. No lumed indices? My GOD!

Oh I know - I'll sell my defective, incorrect watch to buy the new one with fat hands and the extra shiny bits. It's so radical.

[m1911a1]

Originally Posted by davidflo

Remember that in the new model, the lume of the minutes hand doesn't align with the lume of the indices as it does in the current Explorer.
Complete and total failure.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean?

Also....is the movement the same in the current model as the newly introduced model at Basel-world?

[Seaotter]

Is Rolex Ref. 14270 a "Short Hand" Explorer with a well-balanced size dial & case ?

[Gray1730]

Regarding the Explorer 1 2010-2016:

I must admit finding out just after I bought it they replaced it did make me wobble (a little).
Now that's over I'm certainly keeping it, just perfect very happy with my first Rolex.
Silly thing but it gives me so pleasure just to look at it. I need to relook if I want to know the time! Hope this picture posts.
Cheers fellow keepers.

http://www.rolexforums.com/attachmen...1&d=1458345108

[zein21]

Originally Posted by m1911a1

I'm trying to figure out what you mean?

Also....is the movement the same in the current model as the newly introduced model at Basel-world?

The old exp 214270, lume on stick hour mark align with lume of minute hand.. On new exp 214270, lume on stick hour doesn't align with lume on minute hand..

[blowfish89]

Originally Posted by dkpw

The term "dwarf Explorer" is offensive on many levels and should be disposed off now.

Correct. As I read in a comment on Hodinkee, it is now being designated as the 'Trump' Explorer due to the short hands.

[Seaotter]

Same movement Cal. 3132

−2/+2 sec/day, after casing = COSC + ROLEX CERTIFICATION AFTER CASING !!!

[Seaotter]

Originally Posted by davidflo

remember that in the new model, the lume of the minutes hand doesn't align with the lume of the indices as it does in the current explorer.
Complete and total failure.

???
Schermafbeelding 2016-03-19 om 01.20.27.jpg

[Seaotter]

Originally Posted by blowfish89

Correct. As I read in a comment on Hodinkee, it is now being designated as the 'Trump' Explorer due to the short hands.

LOL