36mm vs 39mm Explorer! Stuck in between

[Brny11]

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.

Wrist shot?

[mgsooner]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have a similar wrist and had a similar experience. While I did not have the opportunity to try on a 36mm Exp I did try on a 36mm OP at a dealer and it looked too small to me in comparison to the Explorer.

[lilokito]

like em both, took me a while. but ended up getting the 39mm.

[Calatrava r]

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?

It does not look bad. You bought it for all the right reasons.

[Calatrava r]

For the 3mm size increase it would have been neat if Rolex had beefed up the WR to at least 200m. No real more bang for the buck other than 3mm.

[Fraz]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

For the 3mm size increase it would have been neat if Rolex had beefed up the WR to at least 200m. No real more bang for the buck other than 3mm.

To be honest, as long as I can clean the watch under running water I am ok with any water resistance rating. Not being able to clean a watch properly is the only reason I personally prefer water resistant watches. I know a lot of people swim, go into the ocean and shower with their watches, but I really don't see a reason for that. If I am swimming, I don't want an expensive thing strapped to me that I can end up banging against something. And if I am at the beach, the less stuff I have on me the better. I don't even bring my phone. I still find it funny when I see people in the ocean wearing their phones like a necklace in those little plastic waterproof bags/cases. I can't help but think to myself "how more dependent of your phone can you really get? Do you really need it here? Are you gonna twit between waves?"
Anyway, I know this is all personal and a lot of people will disagree, but that's what I think. Actually I would take a thinner watch with less water resistance (as long as it's" washable") over a thicker more water resistant watch any day.

[ChipWong]

36mm on leather and 39mm on bracelet...

[Juggernaut]

Originally Posted by Fraz

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

I wonder if on the Tritium dial-models whether that non-luminous white paint in the numbers patinas to the same color as the Tritium markers?

[Fraz]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

I wonder if on the Tritium dial-models whether that non-luminous white paint in the numbers patinas to the same color as the Tritium markers?

The white paint doesn't patina as far as I know. You almost certainly will end up with a dial with two different coloured markers (which could end up being kinda cool).

[Juggernaut]

I find it unfortunate that the Introduction of the 114270 did not include similar upgrades that the 116200 Series Datejust got in 2005 (D-series), namely, the beefier lugs, the improved bracelet and clasp. Of course, minus the polished lugs and centerlinks...
That would have been the perfect combination!

[gordonite]

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.

I agree on this one, been wearing my 114270 for 3 months after selling my omega seamaster midsize automatic. More versatile and classic, the quirky older bracelets fits comfortably. Plus it’s like time machine from the past since I love all things vintage yet could not weigh in buying too old rolex watches. I intend to wear the watch to its full potential.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrg60202]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

I find it unfortunate that the Introduction of the 114270 did not include similar upgrades that the 116200 Series Datejust got in 2005 (D-series), namely, the beefier lugs, the improved bracelet and clasp. Of course, minus the polished lugs and centerlinks...
That would have been the perfect combination!

The new 36mm 116000 Oyster Perpetual is certainly a somewhat "beefier" watch than the 14270 or 114270. If Rolex introduced a new 36mm Explorer I with these slightly larger proportions I think it would be a slam dunk.

[Juggernaut]

It seems to me that Rolex wanted to fully bring the Explorer into the Sports model class by increasing its size similar to the Sub, GMT, YM etc. and also similar to those, it moved the model name “EXPLORER” to the 6 o’clock side of the dial.
(I find it curious then that Rolex didn’t do this with the Explorer II)

[Kliminator]

I like the size of the 39mm. Great size for most wrists IMO

[Juggernaut]

Can anyone verify or deny whether the 14270 model has the notch on the case back allowing it to be fitted with the 114270’s SEL 78690 bracelet?