Purchasing an Explorer I 214270

[run23]

I’ve been close to pulling the trigger on an Explorer for a while, but still can’t decide between 36 and 39mm. Tried the 36mm for the first time this week and it did seem really small (oddly surprising as I know how big 36mm is). Need to go back and try it again after it sinks in a bit more. I do love the idea of 36mm being perfect for casual to dressing up, but d##n the 214270 bracelet is a thing of beauty.

Trying on each of 36 and 39mm, and for fun compared to 14060m:

[jdpny]

For those that own one do you miss the date function?

A while back I went from a Seiko with day and date to a Seamaster 300 without either. It took a couple months to not look down for the date, I found that it can be located in many places and then I began to remember the date in my brain without really needing to look for it. Now with my 214270 all is well. Until you live with this model a few weeks its difficult to appreciate the strength and simplicity.

[brand_c]

Originally Posted by spoilsofwar01

I'm currently looking for a 114270 , this is how the Explorer 1 looks up against my 5513, unfortunately the AD's lights were blinding and this was the best photo I could get, in comparison its hard to believe its a 36mm, well worth a look All the best "H"

Thats a 39mm Explorer though. Love the proportion of the 36 so much better, wish Rolex would re-release it this year

[cassin907]

Originally Posted by brand_c

Thats a 39mm Explorer though. Love the proportion of the 36 so much better, wish Rolex would re-release it this year

agreed. I put the 39mm on the wrist and was put off by its size. 36mm is the historically correct size. When Rolex revives from the current bigger-is-better fetish and offers 36mm Rolex Explorer with all the modern touches (movement, bracelet, lume, etc.) -- I will be first in line to buy.

[carloman]

Originally Posted by NLYogi

just encouraging, not enabling!

Nice picture!

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by cassin907

agreed. I put the 39mm on the wrist and was put off by its size. 36mm is the historically correct size. When Rolex revives from the current bigger-is-better fetish and offers 36mm Rolex Explorer with all the modern touches (movement, bracelet, lume, etc.) -- I will be first in line to buy.

I dunno. My sweet spot is 39 to 41mm, just because of the way that range looks on my wrist. (Obviously other factors play a role, like lug length, endpiece outcropping, case thickness, etc.) That's a basic aesthetic consideration, regardless of size trends or what might be deemed historically correct. I think the 39mm Explorer is an ideal fit for me. I don't consider myself engaging in size fetishism for believing that.

[Uhtred59]

Originally Posted by uri40

For those that own one do you miss the date function?

I owned the explorer for 2 months last spring, watch worn wonderfully, but I found I need to have a date function so sold it to get the epx II. Nothing wrong with the watch, just the owner.

[brand_c]

Originally Posted by cassin907

agreed. I put the 39mm on the wrist and was put off by its size. 36mm is the historically correct size. When Rolex revives from the current bigger-is-better fetish and offers 36mm Rolex Explorer with all the modern touches (movement, bracelet, lume, etc.) -- I will be first in line to buy.

Cheers same here! I'm still not a fan of the supercase though.....even if they decide to execute it in the 36mm variant.

But I'll take that instead of a bigger watch

[uri40]

My local AD just received a new Explorer but I'm debating whether I should spend the extra money and buy from AD or from a trusted seller. The AD offers free polishes every year as well as a free watch winder (which I don't need). Should I just pay more and buy AD?