The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 25 September 2017, 01:13 AM   #1
cassin907
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: CT
Posts: 62
Explorer vs Oyster Perpetual for Skinny Wrists

I'm an adult male with skinny wrists (6.33") who very much wants to buy the 39mm Explorer (214270) but recently have come to view the plain-vanilla 36mm Oyster Perpetual (116000) as arguably a better "successor" to the old 36mm Explorer.

They both have the same movement (3130), both are made of the same 904L steel. Their dials are almost the same. No date complication. I think the Explorer retails for about $6,500 and the OP for about $5,400.

So while I very much am drawn to the Explorer's "heritage", given the near-equivalency in terms of design, materials and movement, the smaller diameter (arguably better for my skinny wrists), and cheaper price, should I just go with the 36mm 116000 as an almost-but-not-quite Explorer?

Interested to hear opinions.
cassin907 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 September 2017, 03:05 AM   #2
Thuilln
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Real Name: Nick
Location: YUL
Watch: 16570
Posts: 1,936
Yes.
The 214270 is foolishly big compared to the previous 36mm version, which I obviously prefer. It probably won't fit you well.
__________________
Nick

_________________________________________
14060M - 114200 - 114270 - 214270 - 16710BLRO - 16570 - 3570.50 - Cartier Tank Solo - Cartier Tank Française ‘Yearling’ - CWC Navy Diver
Thuilln is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 September 2017, 03:17 AM   #3
mui.richard
"TRF" Member
 
mui.richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 673
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassin907 View Post
I'm an adult male with skinny wrists (6.33") who very much wants to buy the 39mm Explorer (214270) but recently have come to view the plain-vanilla 36mm Oyster Perpetual (116000) as arguably a better "successor" to the old 36mm Explorer.

They both have the same movement (3130), both are made of the same 904L steel. Their dials are almost the same. No date complication. I think the Explorer retails for about $6,500 and the OP for about $5,400.

So while I very much am drawn to the Explorer's "heritage", given the near-equivalency in terms of design, materials and movement, the smaller diameter (arguably better for my skinny wrists), and cheaper price, should I just go with the 36mm 116000 as an almost-but-not-quite Explorer?

Interested to hear opinions.
Sorry but you're incorrect there...the 214270 Explorer has the 3132 movement, but the only difference being the Paraflex shock absorber in the 3132 vs the 3130.

And I think the use of Mercedes hands and the latest dial having lumed arabics, gives the Explorer a substantially different vibe compared to the Oyster Perpetual.

And no it will not be too big...but that all boils down to preference didn't it?

On my 6" wrist


Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk
mui.richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 September 2017, 03:39 AM   #4
Bfd70
"TRF" Member
 
Bfd70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 893
Sounds to me like you want the Exp and are trying to talk yourself out of it.
Re $: when the cost of a watch is so ridiculously high, don't let $1,000 sway your decision.
Bfd70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 September 2017, 03:41 AM   #5
doramas
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Gran Canaria
Posts: 3,469
Explorer 114270 36mm secondhand
doramas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 September 2017, 03:14 PM   #6
dubins930
2024 Pledge Member
 
dubins930's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Real Name: Aaron
Location: WA
Posts: 772
I love the grape 36mm OP, but the new explorer was too tough to pass up
dubins930 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 September 2017, 09:19 PM   #7
Blingtone
"TRF" Member
 
Blingtone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Tony
Location: Loughton UK
Watch: 16610LV no Rehault
Posts: 369
OP 116000 Blue 3-6-9 Arabic Dial

The Oyster Perpetual is the watch that the Explorer was derived from - historically and chronologically (Indeed all Explorers still have the line on the dial beneath the coronet 'OYSTER PERPETUAL'), I own Explorers 14270 & 114270 and this OP 36 (was also available with silver dial), which for legibility reasons I had the hands swapped for a genuine Rolex 'mercedes' set.... it is now my daily wearer (I've given the Explorers to my daughters) I did look at the 214270 when it first came out, but was not impressed so I purchased the OP instead and have not regretted a minute since (no pun intended!).
In my opinion the OP and the 36 Explorer are virtually the same watch (on the inside at least) and I still like all 3.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_0546.jpg (151.6 KB, 2050 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0883 .jpg (200.9 KB, 2044 views)
Blingtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 September 2017, 09:49 PM   #8
jrs146
"TRF" Member
 
jrs146's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Josh
Location: Lost in time
Watch: Me Nae Nae
Posts: 9,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blingtone View Post
The Oyster Perpetual is the watch that the Explorer was derived from - historically and chronologically (Indeed all Explorers still have the line on the dial beneath the coronet 'OYSTER PERPETUAL'), I own Explorers 14270 & 114270 and this OP 36 (was also available with silver dial), which for legibility reasons I had the hands swapped for a genuine Rolex 'mercedes' set.... it is now my daily wearer (I've given the Explorers to my daughters) I did look at the 214270 when it first came out, but was not impressed so I purchased the OP instead and have not regretted a minute since (no pun intended!).
In my opinion the OP and the 36 Explorer are virtually the same watch (on the inside at least) and I still like all 3.


I love that look with the hands!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
"Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own."
-Jerome J. Garcia, Robert C. Hunter
jrs146 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 September 2017, 09:58 PM   #9
Uhtred59
"TRF" Member
 
Uhtred59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Real Name: Ken
Location: Europa
Watch: 216570
Posts: 693
Have you tried them on?
__________________
"My center is yielding, my right is retreating. Excellent situation, I am attacking" Ferdinand Foch
Uhtred59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 September 2017, 12:23 AM   #10
watchwatcher
"TRF" Member
 
watchwatcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Larry
Location: Kentucky
Watch: Yes
Posts: 34,443
I would go Explorer...plus you get the easy link clasp with it.
watchwatcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 September 2017, 01:35 AM   #11
Brny11
"TRF" Member
 
Brny11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Real Name: Brian
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by doramas View Post
Explorer 114270 36mm secondhand


This is my choice if you think 39mm is too big.

I don’t think that is the case and I would at least go try on the 214270 (with lume or WG hands).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brny11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 September 2017, 01:36 AM   #12
Brny11
"TRF" Member
 
Brny11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Real Name: Brian
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,456
Sorry don’t know what happened with the link. I meant the 36mm Explorer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brny11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 October 2017, 12:49 AM   #13
cassin907
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: CT
Posts: 62
Thanks, everyone, I appreciate the feedback. I want to elaborate that I tried on an Explorer at the AD, and it appeared to sit well on the wrist.

Just to "flesh out" (excuse the pun) my dilemma, I've attached two wrist shots. The Seiko is 38mm and the Victorinox is 40mm. Feel free to opine openly on whether the 39mm Explorer is suitable to a skinny-wrist guy like me. Also curious whether I could pull off a 40mm model like the Sub or GMT.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg seiko2.jpg (90.1 KB, 1866 views)
File Type: jpg vic2.jpg (99.8 KB, 1862 views)
cassin907 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 04:04 AM   #14
cassin907
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: CT
Posts: 62
and if anyone knows where I can find a pre-owned 36mm Explorer, please shoot me a message
cassin907 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 05:23 AM   #15
doramas
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Gran Canaria
Posts: 3,469
36mm Explorer 14270 or 114270 both are your best choice
doramas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 06:21 AM   #16
Spoonage
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,054
Jacek is a forum member here. Try sending him a PM or visit HQ Milton in where he is a partner or co-owner I believe. There are several Explorers there for sale right now.
Spoonage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 09:39 AM   #17
Danwealth
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: China
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassin907 View Post
Also curious whether I could pull off a 40mm model like the Sub or GMT.
Yes you can pull off a sub c or gmt ii c..

Also, try the new airking..its cheaper than explorer i
Danwealth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 09:56 AM   #18
BlackRose
"TRF" Member
 
BlackRose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Ontario
Watch: Explorer 214270
Posts: 177
The Victorinox looks quite long lug to lug. Looks too big. The Seiko looks borderline to me. Not sure how lug to lug of 39 mm Explorer compares to those two but that may be more important than dial size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BlackRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 10:31 AM   #19
Roll the Lex
"TRF" Member
 
Roll the Lex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,842
I have a somewhat flat 6" wrist.

I've owned a 36mm Omega, a 39mm Explorer I, the sub-c, and currently I have a gmt-2c.

The 36mm felt small- now mind you this years before I was made aware of the Panerai and the whole big watch movement.

All the Rolexes fit fine. No need to remove a permanent link. In terms of fit:

1) sub-c due to the glide lock. But it was a bit tall and and had some trouble getting over some dress shirt cuffs. It looks like a big watch, due to the fat lugs, I liked it.

2) Explorer I- it fit fine, no issues. But the watch looked bigger than the two because the dial was bigger- no big ceramic bezel.

3) GMT-2c- fits fine, but it can lean toward the 12 o'clock position slightly. But not a deal breaker.

My rule is if the lugs hang over the edges of your wrists like that Victorinox, then game over. The seiko looks fine.

I don't wear anything over 40mm (in fact I don't even look at them) and I'm always open to smaller sizes, down to 36mm. I don't buy anything unless I try it on.

If it were me, it's Explorer all day, everyday. I love the arabic numerals, the Mercedes hands. But if you want color, OP can't be beat.
Roll the Lex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 11:38 AM   #20
Seanken
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Batavia
Posts: 183
Isn't oyster perpetual on every Rolex but the celllini?
Seanken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 09:39 PM   #21
subking86
"TRF" Member
 
subking86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: key west
Watch: 16610
Posts: 811
6.25" wrist here. I had a 44mm Breitling for little while but ultimately got rid of it because it felt too large.
As per your question, if the explorer is what you want, I think it'll look perfect in your size wrist. But a 36mm would look perfect too!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
subking86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 11:42 PM   #22
Uppersouth
"TRF" Member
 
Uppersouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Real Name: Lee
Location: Kentucky
Watch: SWISS
Posts: 1,521
The explorer would be my choice. By all means, 39mm will not be too large for your wrist. After a few days wearing a 39mm piece, you'll think the 36 is too small. Our minds eye adjusts very quickly.
Uppersouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 October 2017, 11:51 PM   #23
luvan12
"TRF" Member
 
luvan12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Port St. Lucie
Posts: 142
It sounds like you really want the Oyster.

If i were you, I would just go with my gut.
luvan12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 October 2017, 12:02 AM   #24
jstan9
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Real Name: Jon
Location: Bay Area
Watch: Rolex GMT BLNR
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassin907 View Post
Thanks, everyone, I appreciate the feedback. I want to elaborate that I tried on an Explorer at the AD, and it appeared to sit well on the wrist.

Just to "flesh out" (excuse the pun) my dilemma, I've attached two wrist shots. The Seiko is 38mm and the Victorinox is 40mm. Feel free to opine openly on whether the 39mm Explorer is suitable to a skinny-wrist guy like me. Also curious whether I could pull off a 40mm model like the Sub or GMT.
I have skinny wrists too and you can definitely wear a gmt. I completely understand our dilemma. In the current fashion of ginormous watches we don’t want pie plates over hanging our wrists!

The gmt is quite reasonable in that respect and will look great. I don’t know my wrist size but know it’s small. I’ll post pix from my laptop later this morning. Of my 35mm SS/PL Yachtmaster and my 40mm GMT Batman BLNR.
jstan9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 October 2017, 12:14 AM   #25
Ruud Van Driver
"TRF" Member
 
Ruud Van Driver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Real Name: Chopped Liver
Location: S. Wales Valleys
Watch: Mickey Mouse
Posts: 9,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassin907 View Post
Thanks, everyone, I appreciate the feedback. I want to elaborate that I tried on an Explorer at the AD, and it appeared to sit well on the wrist.

Just to "flesh out" (excuse the pun) my dilemma, I've attached two wrist shots. The Seiko is 38mm and the Victorinox is 40mm. Feel free to opine openly on whether the 39mm Explorer is suitable to a skinny-wrist guy like me. Also curious whether I could pull off a 40mm model like the Sub or GMT.
Try a Sub, if you can find one. The Victorinox looks bigger than it needs to because the NATO flares out wider that a normal strap or bracelet.

From what you've said though, the Explorer might be more your bag.
__________________
116520 Black, 116610 LVc, 116660 D-Blue, 116610 LNc, 116622 Blue, PAM359, PAM689, PAM737

"Why should you allow an AD to shake you down, just so you can buy a watch" - Grady Philpott
Card carrying member of TRF's Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
Ruud Van Driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 October 2017, 12:42 AM   #26
The Libertine
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Real Name: Mike
Location: BOS
Watch: 16710;14060;214270
Posts: 6,375
OP, you will have no issue with the 39 mm Explorer, which will “wear” smaller than the Seiko and Victorinox you currently own.
The Libertine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 October 2017, 01:34 AM   #27
Rolex fan 61
"TRF" Member
 
Rolex fan 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 1,262
Explorer all the way.
Rolex fan 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 October 2017, 02:55 AM   #28
cassin907
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: CT
Posts: 62
thanks for the input, everyone, I've read (and re-read) all the comments, and it's been helpful.

Above I posted a wrist shot of my Seiko. While it looks relatively big in that photo, it looks much better in the field. I don't know why; optical voodoo I guess.

But my question is this: I've done some further research. The Seiko is 38mm case with 46mm lug-to-lug, whereas the 214270 Explorer is 39mm case with 47mm case. So, since I am reasonably satisfied that the Seiko is not "too big" for me, I feel confident that I'll find the Explorer suitably well-sized for my wrist.

What I can't find however is the lug-to-lug measurement of the 36mm Oyster Perpetual, so if someone knows that, it would be helpful info to brood over prior to my trip next week to the AD.

Again, it's a two-horse race between the 39mm 214270 Explorer and the 36mm OP. Aesthetically I prefer the Explorer, but almost certainly the 36mm (from a fit perspective) would better suit my wrist.
cassin907 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 October 2017, 03:02 AM   #29
KrismanX
"TRF" Member
 
KrismanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Real Name: Kristofer
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Watch: my feet.
Posts: 2,364
Don't settle. If you're thinking of settling...Don't. Happy Hunting

I vote EXP.
__________________
No sticker left behind.

"Better three hours too soon, than a minute too late."

"All we have to do is decide what to do with the time that is given to us."


ref. 116520 Daytona - 10/2014
KrismanX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 October 2017, 03:12 AM   #30
faz
"TRF" Member
 
faz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Real Name: Faz
Location: Bay Area, CA
Watch: like'em all
Posts: 4,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassin907 View Post
thanks for the input, everyone, I've read (and re-read) all the comments, and it's been helpful.

Above I posted a wrist shot of my Seiko. While it looks relatively big in that photo, it looks much better in the field. I don't know why; optical voodoo I guess.

But my question is this: I've done some further research. The Seiko is 38mm case with 46mm lug-to-lug, whereas the 214270 Explorer is 39mm case with 47mm case. So, since I am reasonably satisfied that the Seiko is not "too big" for me, I feel confident that I'll find the Explorer suitably well-sized for my wrist.

What I can't find however is the lug-to-lug measurement of the 36mm Oyster Perpetual, so if someone knows that, it would be helpful info to brood over prior to my trip next week to the AD.

Again, it's a two-horse race between the 39mm 214270 Explorer and the 36mm OP. Aesthetically I prefer the Explorer, but almost certainly the 36mm (from a fit perspective) would better suit my wrist.
I think you are spending too much time with measurements and exact millimeters. My advice: STOP the research and go put them on and see how they feel on you, and take a few steps back from the mirror and look at the overall picture.

A good friend of mine, a big guy, has smaller wrists and was worried about a larger size of the Explorer on his wrists. I basically talked him into buying a Rolex (see thread >>HERE<< ) and he has not been happier since. The watch looks awesome on his hand, and when we go out for lunch, I am very satisfied to see that watch on his wrist. (and more importantly, so is he!)

FYI, I am more of a conservative when it comes to larger size watches and find some of the pictures people post here to be on the funny side (as in the watch is WAY too big for them and they are still happy with it), but that is fine for them, whatever rocks their boat I guess. And I am suggesting that you should not just zoom in to the pictures of watch on your wrist and you have to look at how the watch fits into the overall package.
__________________
-Faz

Instagram @fazmoto
faz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.