ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Stalex · 11 August 2018, 06:33 AM

36mm works better for me, i would consider my size.

cosmoliu · 11 August 2018, 06:44 AM

36

pigman08 · 11 August 2018, 06:44 AM

I've tried on both, and I felt that the 39mm was a better fit for me. That being said, I'm used to a 16610 and a 116520, so i'm not surprised that the 36mm felt too small.

psv · 11 August 2018, 07:01 AM

I have both as well, love both!

Random Guy · 11 August 2018, 07:15 AM

Unless you’re 6’3, get the 36

VinnieVegas · 11 August 2018, 07:18 AM

I had the same decision to make about 18 months ago. I went with the 114270 and love it. No regrets at all. Good luck.

jdpny · 11 August 2018, 08:25 AM

I like them all but in this order...

1. 1016
2. 214270 MkII
3. 114270

Rags · 11 August 2018, 09:07 AM

Go with the 39mm explorer..You’ll love it.

Juggernaut · 11 August 2018, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pozer

I've tried both and have a 36 (114270) and a 1016, fwiw. There is one big difference, probably - do you still have lume on the 36mm? Mine is basically gone.

Regardless, I think the 36mm is going to hold value better and for me, looks just a bit better on the wrist (7")

Out of lume on your 114270?...isn't it Luminova?

AQBill · 12 August 2018, 02:26 AM

36mm is the one I chose for my 7.25-inch wrist. To me it looks like a more serious watch. I have my Omega SMP (41mm) if I want more dash. I do believe the "big watch" movement is starting to wind down (pun intended).

Juggernaut · 12 August 2018, 03:09 PM

Another difference between the two versions is the placement of the "SWISS MADE".
The 214270 has the words ABOVE the minute lines right below the 6,

shaunylw · 12 August 2018, 03:18 PM

Love the 39mm!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Juggernaut · 12 August 2018, 03:20 PM

whereas the 114270 the words are BELOW the minute lines away from the 6, which I think looks better.

Juggernaut · 13 August 2018, 01:32 AM

Other differences are
1) the 214270 has a matte dial while the 114270 is glossy (confirmed?)
2) (subtle) the 214270 has vertically brushed lugs while the 114270 lugs are brushed diagonally (old school). It's a tough choice, but I think personal wrist size/proportions is still the biggest factor (IMHO).

pozer · 13 August 2018, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

Out of lume on your 114270?...isn't it Luminova?

It is, but the watch is 10 years old. It has light lume for a while but nothing like a new watch. It's in service now and I wonder if they're going to replace it?

shaunylw · 13 August 2018, 08:01 AM

The matte on the 214270 is the best part IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

warrior · 13 August 2018, 08:13 AM

I dislike the big watch trend...having said that the 36mm is reserved for die hard old school types.
The 36mm is the smallest watch I’ve ever owned.
Wears smaller than the 36mm DJs. Looks minuscule compared to EVEN
The old school Rolex DJ dress watches.

39mm. Without. A. Doubt. Proportions IMO are perfectly fine despite
What some say.

cdlerx · 13 August 2018, 08:25 AM

The 36mm does it for me.

JSL420 · 13 August 2018, 12:11 PM

I hope this helps
My friend just bought this 5504 and I have to say it’s a real charm, the acrylic crystal and the 36mm size are real beauty.
However still love my 214270 it’s the ultimate work horse!

bax_tron · 13 August 2018, 01:45 PM

36 mm looks good on every wrist. 39 mm does not. Keep the one that makes you happy. But 36 mm does not and will never look small. Literally no one will ever look at you and think: that watch is too small.

importstunna · 13 August 2018, 03:48 PM

36mm for the classic/timeless proportions.

polaris72 · 13 August 2018, 03:50 PM

39 mm. Make your own history with a new piece.

Dr.Smellody · 13 August 2018, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglasf13

36mm is a no-brainer to me, unless you have a particularly huge wrist.

Agree!!!!

genkifd · 13 August 2018, 06:07 PM

For me i like the 39mm sizing better. But if u r going for vintage look. U cant beat the 36mm

jdpny · 13 August 2018, 07:44 PM

[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2wod2qa.jpg[/IMG]

Alex6340 · 13 August 2018, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaoxing84

39 mm

36mm

The 36mm looks nice on your wrist.

Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Juggernaut · 13 August 2018, 10:34 PM

Personally, I like to see some wrist past the lugs, ie. I don't like the look of the lug-to-lug be equal or greater than the width of the wrist.

MichaelT123 · 13 August 2018, 11:12 PM

39 mm 214270 Mk2

Md001 · 14 August 2018, 03:32 AM

36mm works well for me so i would go with it.

Juggernaut · 14 August 2018, 10:56 PM

Can you guys measure and post the lug-to-lug (top to bottom) dimensions of both watches please?

11 August 2018, 07:18 AM	#66
VinnieVegas "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Real Name: Vincent B Location: New York, NY Watch: '06 GMT Master II Posts: 1,261	I had the same decision to make about 18 months ago. I went with the 114270 and love it. No regrets at all. Good luck. __________________ Wearing Today: * Seiko SRP777 (2017)

11 August 2018, 09:07 AM	#68
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,183	Go with the 39mm explorer..You’ll love it. __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

13 August 2018, 06:07 PM	#84
genkifd "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Location: Melbourne Watch: SD43 Posts: 203	For me i like the 39mm sizing better. But if u r going for vintage look. U cant beat the 36mm __________________ SD43 MK1 Omega Dirty Dozen Casio G Shock GMW-B5000D-1DR SKX007 Japanese version

11 August 2018, 06:33 AM	#61
Stalex Banned Join Date: May 2018 Location: USA, Netherland Watch: Rolex 116710 Posts: 104	36mm works better for me, i would consider my size.

11 August 2018, 06:44 AM	#62
cosmoliu "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2015 Real Name: Norman Location: CA Watch: Rolex, PP, AP, ALS Posts: 161	36

11 August 2018, 06:44 AM	#63
pigman08 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Real Name: Mike Location: Knoxville, Tn Watch: 16610,16710,214270 Posts: 427	I've tried on both, and I felt that the 39mm was a better fit for me. That being said, I'm used to a 16610 and a 116520, so i'm not surprised that the 36mm felt too small.

11 August 2018, 07:01 AM	#64
psv "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North America Posts: 11,062	I have both as well, love both!

11 August 2018, 07:15 AM	#65
Random Guy "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Location: .. Posts: 58	Unless you’re 6’3, get the 36

11 August 2018, 08:25 AM	#67
jdpny Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: NY Posts: 501	I like them all but in this order... 1. 1016 2. 214270 MkII 3. 114270

12 August 2018, 02:26 AM	#70
AQBill "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: Sheffield, AL USA Posts: 35	36mm is the one I chose for my 7.25-inch wrist. To me it looks like a more serious watch. I have my Omega SMP (41mm) if I want more dash. I do believe the "big watch" movement is starting to wind down (pun intended).

12 August 2018, 03:18 PM	#72
shaunylw "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Here Posts: 4,504	Love the 39mm! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

13 August 2018, 01:32 AM	#74
Juggernaut "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 901	Other differences are 1) the 214270 has a matte dial while the 114270 is glossy (confirmed?) 2) (subtle) the 214270 has vertically brushed lugs while the 114270 lugs are brushed diagonally (old school). It's a tough choice, but I think personal wrist size/proportions is still the biggest factor (IMHO).

13 August 2018, 08:01 AM	#76
shaunylw "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Here Posts: 4,504	The matte on the 214270 is the best part IMO Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

13 August 2018, 08:13 AM	#77
warrior "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: massachusetts Watch: Explorer Posts: 1,659	I dislike the big watch trend...having said that the 36mm is reserved for die hard old school types. The 36mm is the smallest watch I’ve ever owned. Wears smaller than the 36mm DJs. Looks minuscule compared to EVEN The old school Rolex DJ dress watches. 39mm. Without. A. Doubt. Proportions IMO are perfectly fine despite What some say.

13 August 2018, 08:25 AM	#78
cdlerx Banned Join Date: Mar 2018 Location: Usa Posts: 99	The 36mm does it for me.

13 August 2018, 01:45 PM	#80
bax_tron "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Real Name: Bax Location: OK Watch: SEA-DWELLER Posts: 107	36 mm looks good on every wrist. 39 mm does not. Keep the one that makes you happy. But 36 mm does not and will never look small. Literally no one will ever look at you and think: that watch is too small.

13 August 2018, 03:48 PM	#81
importstunna "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: World Watch: BLNR Posts: 855	36mm for the classic/timeless proportions.

13 August 2018, 03:50 PM	#82
polaris72 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: U.S./Vienna, AT Posts: 1,967	39 mm. Make your own history with a new piece.

13 August 2018, 07:44 PM	#85
jdpny Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: NY Posts: 501	[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2wod2qa.jpg[/IMG]

13 August 2018, 10:34 PM	#87
Juggernaut "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 901	Personally, I like to see some wrist past the lugs, ie. I don't like the look of the lug-to-lug be equal or greater than the width of the wrist.

13 August 2018, 11:12 PM	#88
MichaelT123 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2018 Location: South Carolina Posts: 54	39 mm 214270 Mk2

14 August 2018, 03:32 AM	#89
Md001 Banned Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: USA Posts: 113	36mm works well for me so i would go with it.

14 August 2018, 10:56 PM	#90
Juggernaut "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 901	Can you guys measure and post the lug-to-lug (top to bottom) dimensions of both watches please?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)