Sub C vs 214270 comfort

[RG1825]

Hi all,

Very specific question - I hope it's not too irrelevant.

I recently sold my Sub C date - impulse purchase after falling in love with it, trying it on twice in an AD and deciding I wanted it. A year later my 6" wrists had taken enough. I had to take it off at my desk, it slid up and down and poked into my hand and generally annoyed the s*** out of my skinny wrists. I sold it... And lost a lot of money on it!

Has anyone got an explorer 214270 and Sub C who can compare how comfortably they sit? I want a sporty, young watch to balance out my DJ and vintage IWC, but don't want to make the same mistake if the Exp1 feels the same. I see the lug-to-lug distances are only 1mm different but maybe the height helps?

Also does anyone else have to take their watch off whilst working at a desk/keyboard? Or am I losing it? ;)

Cheers in advance for the help,

A very regretful ex-sub owner :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sickened1]

With 6" wrist I'd suggest you go with a 114270 if you can find one. I've had all of them and for me, the 39mm Explorer feels smaller compare to the Sub. 36mm is also lighter and even smaller so you won't have that crown digging in your wrist problem.

[RG1825]

Originally Posted by sickened1

With 6" wrist I'd suggest you go with a 114270 if you can find one. I've had all of them and for me, the 39mm Explorer feels smaller compare to the Sub. 36mm is also lighter and even smaller so you won't have that crown digging in your wrist problem.

Thanks for the response. Yeah I loved the feel of a friend's 36mm but I'm really not keen on the old bracelets :/ they feel very light and tinny after a new-style one + I'm quite keen on buying something brand new as it's a self-graduation present! I will keep the 114270 in mind though - you are definitely right - the size is ideal.

[sickened1]

Originally Posted by RG1825

Thanks for the response. Yeah I loved the feel of a friend's 36mm but I'm really not keen on the old bracelets :/ they feel very light and tinny after a new-style one + I'm quite keen on buying something brand new as it's a self-graduation present! I will keep the 114270 in mind though - you are definitely right - the size is ideal.

I totally understand. The new oyster bracelet with Easylink simply can't be beat. In that case yes, go with the 39mm.

I'm waiting for the newer 214270 myself.

[RG1825]

Originally Posted by sickened1

I totally understand. The new oyster bracelet with Easylink simply can't be beat. In that case yes, go with the 39mm.

I'm waiting for the newer 214270 myself.

Haha I wish I could wait - I think the impulse for a new self-congratulatory purchase will have subsided by the time August/September comes around!

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by RG1825

Thanks for the response. Yeah I loved the feel of a friend's 36mm but I'm really not keen on the old bracelets :/ they feel very light and tinny after a new-style one + I'm quite keen on buying something brand new as it's a self-graduation present! I will keep the 114270 in mind though - you are definitely right - the size is ideal.

The Explorer 1 214270 wears bigger than the Submariner (have it before selling it to buy my current 114270); even though is 39mm the length of the watch vertically is longer (47.3mm) than the 16610 Submariner (46.9mm)

16610 Submariner:


214270 Explorer:


The 77200 bracelet (easylink) from the Explorer 214270 will not fit the 114270 as the lug hole positions are different, but you could put an easylink clasp assembly on an 114270 explorer (I tried that; below easylink clasp assembly from 214270 on 114270 on left, regular clasp from 114270 on 214270 on center, glydelock on 16610 sub on right)



Here the 77200 easylink clasp on my 114270 explorer:












Both clasps side by side (easylink on right):



I would definitely suggest you to consider a 114270 if your wrist is 6 inches.

Francisco

[doc.kool]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

The Explorer 1 214270 wears bigger than the Submariner (have it before selling it to buy my current 114270); even though is 39mm the length of the watch vertically is longer (47.3mm) than the 16610 Submariner (46.9mm)

16610 Submariner:


214270 Explorer:


The 77200 bracelet (easylink) from the Explorer 214270 will not fit the 114270 as the lug hole positions are different, but you could put an easylink clasp assembly on an 114270 explorer (I tried that; below easylink clasp assembly from 214270 on 114270 on left, regular clasp from 114270 on 214270 on center, glydelock on 16610 sub on right)



Here the 77200 easylink clasp on my 114270 explorer:












Both clasps side by side (easylink on right):



I would definitely suggest you to consider a 114270 if your wrist is 6 inches.

Francisco

Do you have a measurement of a Sub-C ?

I just measured my lug-lug distance on my LV-C and it is 49mm

The OP asked of a comparison of the Sub-C and the Explorer (not a 16610)

Thanks

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by doc.kool

Do you have a measurement of a Sub-C ?



I just measured my lug-lug distance on my LV-C and it is 49mm



The OP asked of a comparison of the Sub-C and the Explorer (not a 16610)



Thanks

No, don't own a SubC

[Engi]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

The Explorer 1 214270 wears bigger than the Submariner (have it before selling it to buy my current 114270); even though is 39mm the length of the watch vertically is longer (47.3mm) than the 16610 Submariner (46.9mm)

16610 Submariner:


214270 Explorer:


The 77200 bracelet (easylink) from the Explorer 214270 will not fit the 114270 as the lug hole positions are different, but you could put an easylink clasp assembly on an 114270 explorer (I tried that; below easylink clasp assembly from 214270 on 114270 on left, regular clasp from 114270 on 214270 on center, glydelock on 16610 sub on right)



Here the 77200 easylink clasp on my 114270 explorer:












Both clasps side by side (easylink on right):



I would definitely suggest you to consider a 114270 if your wrist is 6 inches.

Francisco

Thanks Francisco, very helpful.

Plase can you measure the lug-to-lug of the 114270 w.r.t. the lug-to-lug of the 214270 ?

Thanks in advance.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by Engi

Thanks Francisco, very helpful.



Plase can you measure the lug-to-lug of the 114270 w.r.t. the lug-to-lug of the 214270 ?



Thanks in advance.

214270 is 47.3mm while 114270 is 44mm

[axelbrass]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

The 77200 bracelet (easylink) from the Explorer 214270 will not fit the 114270 as the lug hole positions are different, but you could put an easylink clasp assembly on an 114270 explorer (I tried that; below easylink clasp assembly from 214270 on 114270 on left, regular clasp from 114270 on 214270 on center, glydelock on 16610 sub on right)

Here the 77200 easylink clasp on my 114270 explorer:


Francisco

Hi Francisco, just want to confirm as I want to do the same.

You bought a 114270 Watch + Bracelet and then got a 77200 Clasp (with EasyLink) and fit it into the 114270 Bracelet?

This lets you wear the 36mm Explorer yet get the benefit of the EasyLink feature?

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by axelbrass

Hi Francisco, just want to confirm as I want to do the same.



You bought a 114270 Watch + Bracelet and then got a 77200 Clasp (with EasyLink) and fit it into the 114270 Bracelet?



This lets you wear the 36mm Explorer yet get the benefit of the EasyLink feature?

Yes, that can be done if you can source the easylink clasp assembly. In my case did the test as had at the same time the 114270 and 214270, but did not ended up keeping the easylink clasp on the 114270 as swap it back before selling the 214270.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tifosi]

I concur that the 114270 is really the perfect watch. I really enjoyed mine when I had it and swore I liked it better than my Sub-C. After a while I still missed my Sub so I let it go.

The 214270 will be much lighter than the Sub and if able to be sized correctly should stay put and you shouldn't even realize you're wearing a watch. I'd have to check sometimes to make sure I was wearing my 36mm Explorer. It just disappeared on the wrist. It really is perfection. Try one out. Don't worry about the "old" bracelet. It adds to the comfort.

[japenney]

I have owned both - the 39mm explorer is hands down more comfortable. Anyone who says otherwise is basing their decision on the glide lock clasp.

[warrior]

THIS. The 39MM is way more comfortable--much lighter, thinner, sits lower on the wrist and hugs the wrist. Glide lock is great...but the easy link handles most everything the glidelock does. As far as I know, the glidelock is only offered on the dive watches. DJs, GMTs, explorers I and II, yacht masters, daytonas all have the easy link as far as I know, and you don't get many complaints on the fit/ discomfort on those models.

Originally Posted by japenney

I have owned both - the 39mm explorer is hands down more comfortable. Anyone who says otherwise is basing their decision on the glide lock clasp.

[RG1825]

Thanks for the opinions guys! I definitely agree about the 114270 but something still makes me feel like I may regret the old bracelet! It does help add to the weightless feeling though. Sounds like the 214270 is significantly more comfortable so I am tempted. I will post pictures of whichever one I end up with in June when the long-awaited day comes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Memphis]

get a smaller OP (34mm).... i used to forget i was wearing my DSSD so i can't relate.

[uncufunc]

Recently bought the 214270 and have relatively small wrists (6.25 inches). I can tell you its the most comfortable watch I own. Sometimes I have to look down to make sure it is on!!! If you're not too keen on waiting for the new Exp1 (if indeed you want the lumed numbers and longer hands), perhaps try the 114300 - pretty much the same watch as the 214270 but with a more formal air.

[RG1825]

Originally Posted by uncufunc

Recently bought the 214270 and have relatively small wrists (6.25 inches). I can tell you its the most comfortable watch I own. Sometimes I have to look down to make sure it is on!!! If you're not too keen on waiting for the new Exp1 (if indeed you want the lumed numbers and longer hands), perhaps try the 114300 - pretty much the same watch as the 214270 but with a more formal air.

Ah nice - great to hear from someone the same wrist size almost. Do you wear it tight or loose enough to move around a bit? I did look at the OP39 but I've been in love with the explorer dial for a while now so I'm fairly set on getting one haha.

[uncufunc]

Originally Posted by RG1825

Ah nice - great to hear from someone the same wrist size almost. Do you wear it tight or loose enough to move around a bit? I did look at the OP39 but I've been in love with the explorer dial for a while now so I'm fairly set on getting one haha.

Depends on the day. The ez link is great for cold days when my wrists shrink

[tifosi]

I think for a watch to be comfortable it needs to stay put.

[MickCollins1916]

I own an LVc and speed-dated a 214270 for about 3 months back in 2014.

The sub with glidelock is far more comfortable for me. The explorer's case was thinner than the sub's and coupled with the easy link bracelet, the fit always felt *slightly* off.

I wanted to love the explorer, since it's a beautiful and versatile piece, but it didn't work out. So, I sent it off to DavidSW in trade and was much happier!

[RinkRolex]

Of all the different watches I have, Rolex or not, I actually don't really recall any that felt uncomfortable. And I have my watch on 24/7 besides shower. Of all, I do find AP RO and Daytona a bit more comfortable tho.

[Roll the Lex]

I have 6" wrists and at one point owned a tt sub-c & the 214270. I didn't have a problem with the sub being loose- I wore it fairly tight. It was a tall watch and heavy. The exp by comparison is light and can easily fit under a dress shirt cuff.

[rollerballer]

Both are quite comfortable. Frankly, once I put on either, the focus is drawn more to the beauty of the dials than whether is comfortable or not.

[uncufunc]

Originally Posted by RG1825

Hi all,

Very specific question - I hope it's not too irrelevant.

I recently sold my Sub C date - impulse purchase after falling in love with it, trying it on twice in an AD and deciding I wanted it. A year later my 6" wrists had taken enough. I had to take it off at my desk, it slid up and down and poked into my hand and generally annoyed the s*** out of my skinny wrists. I sold it... And lost a lot of money on it!

Has anyone got an explorer 214270 and Sub C who can compare how comfortably they sit? I want a sporty, young watch to balance out my DJ and vintage IWC, but don't want to make the same mistake if the Exp1 feels the same. I see the lug-to-lug distances are only 1mm different but maybe the height helps?

Also does anyone else have to take their watch off whilst working at a desk/keyboard? Or am I losing it? ;)

Cheers in advance for the help,

A very regretful ex-sub owner :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you working on a laptop? Macbooks and watches don't agree with me

[RG1825]

Originally Posted by uncufunc

Are you working on a laptop? Macbooks and watches don't agree with me

Desktop but yes it's even more pronounced with a laptop haha

[madmole]

6" wrist here and my sub c date ceramic on glide lock is very comfy. Wear it reasonably tight so it doesn't move around. And also have Everest rubber for it which is very comfy

[CigarNarwhal]

Don't think I've ever tried on a Rolex that's much more comfy than the Sub-c (excluding jubilee datejust/day-date). My wrists are 7.25 though.

[watchwatcher]

Sounds like the 214270 would def be worth a try for you...I'm pretty keen on checking the new Basel version out myself when it's available. From a fellow small wristed TRF member.