ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

cop414 · 30 July 2013, 10:21 AM

I think that the newer Explorer I in 39mm looks great, not too big, not too small.

HL65 · 30 July 2013, 10:22 AM

No.

Rags · 30 July 2013, 10:40 AM

This topic has been covered numerous times before. The reason that people think that 36mm or 39mm & now 40mm watches are too small is because some of these other watchmakers are producing watches in excess of 50mm which looks ridiculous to me IMO. They are catering to a certain group that perceives that bigger is better. I personally would not wear anything larger than 42mm. I love my DJ which is 36mm & IMO is the perfect dress watch. The 41mm DJ should have been 39mm like the explorer & it would have been a best seller. I think people like myself shy away from it because of it's size.

sea-dweller · 30 July 2013, 10:42 AM

No.

landroverking · 30 July 2013, 11:11 AM

No nor do I think the 36mm is too small either.

rolex75216 · 30 July 2013, 11:12 AM

39mm is a great size. Not too small at all.

landroverking · 30 July 2013, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rags

This topic has been covered numerous times before. The reason that people think that 36mm or 39mm & now 40mm watches are too small is because some of these other watchmakers are producing watches in excess of 50mm which looks ridiculous to me IMO. They are catering to a certain group that perceives that bigger is better. I personally would not wear anything larger than 42mm. I love my DJ which is 36mm & IMO is the perfect dress watch. The 41mm DJ should have been 39mm like the explorer & it would have been a best seller. I think people like myself shy away from it because of it's size.

Well said.

samsmart · 30 July 2013, 11:22 AM

I don't think 1mm maters that much, now if I could only get my wife to agree...

GradyPhilpott · 30 July 2013, 12:50 PM

Watches have effectively gotten as big as they can possibly become and still be called watches.

To those who understand the way, it is intuitive that that which has expanded must perforce contract.

The only unknown is when, but the article cited above hints at the fact that manufactures are beginning to offer some smaller watches.

In the case of Rolex, on the whole, they have not abandoned smaller watches, only begun to make larger watches in addition to more traditional sizes.

Two exceptions are the Explorers. The Explorer is still within normal limits, while the Explorer II seems to be at the edge of what is likely to be acceptable after the trend reverses.

Only time will tell, but we all know, or should know, that the only constant is change and I don't expect to see many 75mm watches on the horizon.

JohnFM · 30 July 2013, 12:59 PM

The Explorer is a beautiful watch but I find it a little small at 36mm. The sweet spot for me is around 38mm (6.75" wrist). I think the newer 39mm Explorer is sized right but falls slightly short of the older version due to the hand proportions and non-painted 3-6-9. That said, both a very nice, classic watches. Even though I think the older Explorer is a little small I would be very proud to own a nice 1016.

John

CWIN · 30 July 2013, 01:03 PM

I don't think it's too small, although I do have smallish wrists.

GradyPhilpott · 30 July 2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

...I don't expect to see many 75mm watches on the horizon.

D'oh! I just found a 75mm watch!

I just bought this puppy!

Man, look at that rehaut!

http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Sports-D...&keywords=75mm

KhronosX · 31 July 2013, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jshepard

I hope Rolex continues to make conservative size watches and preserve the classics even if they choose to venture forward into future trends.

I hope so too!

Puffy · 31 July 2013, 12:49 AM

no

FalconsFan 1 · 31 July 2013, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLROCK

Do you think the current Explorer I at 39mm is too small given that most men's watches are 40mm and over?

I have the old Exp II and love the size and wanted something to compliment it but found that on my 7 inch wrist, the Exp I just looked small by today's standards.

I would probably buy an Exp I if they made it larger.

I have the 36mm Exp 14270 and love it. I do not care what "today's standards" are really. It's all about my love for the watch that's on my wrist.
Just go with what appeals to YOU, you're paying for it.

Chainring · 31 July 2013, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

D'oh! I just found a 75mm watch!

I just bought this puppy!

Man, look at that rehaut!

http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Sports-D...&keywords=75mm

That is hilarious! Please do us the favor of pointing us to the link where where we can buy your new rap CD also!

GradyPhilpott · 31 July 2013, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainring

That is hilarious! Please do us the favor of pointing us to the link where where we can buy your new rap CD also!

I've never been into rap, but I'm certain that as soon as I strap that baby on, I'll be hip-hoppin' in da hood--15" subwoofers and a 2500 watt amp in the trunk, flat-billed cap on backward with the price tag prominently displayed, gold front teeth, and a bandana protectin' my 'do.

I'll certainly post a link to where my rappin' instincts take me.

YO!

RLROCK · 31 July 2013, 04:11 AM

Does anyone have the specs on the size of the Exp I face as compared to the new DJ II?

eric23 · 31 July 2013, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLROCK

Does anyone have the specs on the size of the Exp I face as compared to the new DJ II?

The EXP 1 is 39mm and the DJII is 41mm

RLROCK · 31 July 2013, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLROCK

Does anyone have the specs on the size of the Exp I face as compared to the new DJ II?

To clarify, I meant the diameter of the face.
Thanks.

floater156 · 31 July 2013, 04:49 AM

No, it's not too small. I'm 6'6", 230lbs with 7.5" wrists and think it looks perfect on me,not that i own one, but if I did, I would enjoy it.

applebook · 31 July 2013, 05:02 AM

It's all relative. For me, 39mm is fine, but the older 36mm is far too small now as a "sports" watch. It's perfect for smaller wrists in the 6.5" range.

Boothroyd · 31 July 2013, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdog

Best watch in the lineup to me. I think it's pretty perfect.

What he said!!

30 July 2013, 10:21 AM	#31
cop414 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Apr 2012 Real Name: Tim Location: Pennsylvania Watch: 14060M Posts: 72,234	I think that the newer Explorer I in 39mm looks great, not too big, not too small. __________________ Rolex Submariner 14060M Omega Seamaster 2254.50 DOXA Professional 1200T Card carrying member of TRF's Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons TRF's "After Dark" Bar & NightClub Patron P Club Member #17 2 FA ENABLED

30 July 2013, 10:22 AM	#32
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 64,006	No. __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

30 July 2013, 10:40 AM	#33
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,196	This topic has been covered numerous times before. The reason that people think that 36mm or 39mm & now 40mm watches are too small is because some of these other watchmakers are producing watches in excess of 50mm which looks ridiculous to me IMO. They are catering to a certain group that perceives that bigger is better. I personally would not wear anything larger than 42mm. I love my DJ which is 36mm & IMO is the perfect dress watch. The 41mm DJ should have been 39mm like the explorer & it would have been a best seller. I think people like myself shy away from it because of it's size. __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

30 July 2013, 12:50 PM	#39
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,460	Watches have effectively gotten as big as they can possibly become and still be called watches. To those who understand the way, it is intuitive that that which has expanded must perforce contract. The only unknown is when, but the article cited above hints at the fact that manufactures are beginning to offer some smaller watches. In the case of Rolex, on the whole, they have not abandoned smaller watches, only begun to make larger watches in addition to more traditional sizes. Two exceptions are the Explorers. The Explorer is still within normal limits, while the Explorer II seems to be at the edge of what is likely to be acceptable after the trend reverses. Only time will tell, but we all know, or should know, that the only constant is change and I don't expect to see many 75mm watches on the horizon. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

30 July 2013, 01:03 PM	#41
CWIN "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Real Name: Chris Location: San Diego Watch: Patek, AP, Rolex Posts: 4,449	I don't think it's too small, although I do have smallish wrists. __________________ *Instagram* @cwin

30 July 2013, 10:42 AM	#34
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	No.

30 July 2013, 11:11 AM	#35
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	No nor do I think the 36mm is too small either.

30 July 2013, 11:12 AM	#36
rolex75216 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: United States Posts: 2,008	39mm is a great size. Not too small at all.

30 July 2013, 11:22 AM	#38
samsmart "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Real Name: sam Location: Dallas, TX Watch: Me Tint Posts: 3,777	I don't think 1mm maters that much, now if I could only get my wife to agree...

30 July 2013, 12:59 PM	#40
JohnFM "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: northern CA USA Watch: 114270 Explorer Posts: 479	The Explorer is a beautiful watch but I find it a little small at 36mm. The sweet spot for me is around 38mm (6.75" wrist). I think the newer 39mm Explorer is sized right but falls slightly short of the older version due to the hand proportions and non-painted 3-6-9. That said, both a very nice, classic watches. Even though I think the older Explorer is a little small I would be very proud to own a nice 1016. John

31 July 2013, 12:49 AM	#44
Puffy "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 12,485	no __________________ Fine Quality is Long Remembered After the Pain of Spending Money is Forgotten

31 July 2013, 04:11 AM	#48
RLROCK "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Real Name: Richard Location: New Jersey Watch: Depends on my mood Posts: 515	Does anyone have the specs on the size of the Exp I face as compared to the new DJ II?

31 July 2013, 04:49 AM	#51
floater156 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Real Name: Chris Location: Wisconsin Watch: Rolex Posts: 2,984	No, it's not too small. I'm 6'6", 230lbs with 7.5" wrists and think it looks perfect on me,not that i own one, but if I did, I would enjoy it. __________________ Lead by example through production.

31 July 2013, 05:02 AM	#52
applebook "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: vancouver Posts: 1,918	It's all relative. For me, 39mm is fine, but the older 36mm is far too small now as a "sports" watch. It's perfect for smaller wrists in the 6.5" range. __________________

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