Running the numbers, Explorer 114270 or new 214270?

[Jimmygood]

Just to chime in once more....the 36mm is simply beautiful. Of course, the 39mm is a great watch. But I feel like it was made to let men with really big wrists join the party. Plus the 36mm came first. And has 'Explorer' in the right place.

[mountainjogger]

Yes, I am fully aware of the size difference. about 6 1/2 years ago I traded a 114270 (which I purchased new from an AD) in to get my 5513. The 114270 was always just a little small for me.

I have tried the new 214270 on twice. And it is just a little large for me.

So there you have it.

However, I will say this, the new 214270 with larger hands is visually balanced in my mind. Not a fan of the older version. But to each their own.

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by Jimmygood

Just to chime in once more....the 36mm is simply beautiful. Of course, the 39mm is a great watch. But I feel like it was made to let men with really big wrists join the party. Plus the 36mm came first. And has 'Explorer' in the right place.

Agree. But I do not have particularly large wrists and I have worn a 5513 for my everyday for the last 6 1/2 years and found it perfect.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by mountainjogger

Yes, I am fully aware of the size difference. about 6 1/2 years ago I traded a 114270 (which I purchased new from an AD) in to get my 5513. The 114270 was always just a little small for me.



I have tried the new 214270 on twice. And it is just a little large for me.



So there you have it.



However, I will say this, the new 214270 with larger hands is visually balanced in my mind. Not a fan of the older version. But to each their own.

Little small for me better than little big, but what matters is what you want!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[douglasf13]

I'd go 114270, unless maybe your wrist is 8"+.

[run23]

Doesn't it all come down to 36 v 39mm? Both are what I consider almost perfect watches, but I prefer the 114270 on my 6.75" wrists. Plus I've been gravitating towards smaller watches over the past couple of years.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by mountainjogger

That would work except for three issues. One, I am pretty picky about the watch and insist on an excellent condition watch; two, there is room to disagree here, but my experience has been that it is much easier to trade a watch if you have box and papers. Three, for a vintage watch the service at rolex is going to be 800 plus crown and plus any other things they want to replace. Their original estimate without a new crystal for my 5513 in Feb was over 1100. Subject to additions for anything they find later. Obviously they do good work. But I am skeptical that you could find an excellent condition explorer even without papers and also get a full Rolex Service for under 4k. Again, room to disagree, just my thoughts.

1. The watch should come back from RSC good as new.

2. Get a box if you like, but RSC papers are as desirable, if not more so, as warranty papers to many buyers.

3. These models are not considered vintage yet. RSC Service cost will be much lower than for your 5513.

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

1. The watch should come back from RSC good as new.

2. Get a box if you like, but RSC papers are as desirable, if not more so, as warranty papers to many buyers.

3. These models are not considered vintage yet. RSC Service cost will be much lower than for your 5513.

Good point on number 3. Thanks.

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by run23

Doesn't it all come down to 36 v 39mm? Both are what I consider almost perfect watches, but I prefer the 114270 on my 6.75" wrists. Plus I've been gravitating towards smaller watches over the past couple of years.

Yes, I think it all comes down to size.