Any chance Rolex comes out with a 41mm Oyster Perpetual?

[ostatedchi]

I really like the Oyster Perpetual face. Basically a Datejust with no date. The clean look really appeals to me. But I'd like to see it in a larger format.

So, Rolex pros, any thoughts or rumors that they'll produce a 41mm version?

[Nairn1980]

Everything is possible and I wouldn’t be surprised.

[HogwldFLTR]

Pretty certain the 39 is as close as it will get. Not a lot to distinguish the two.

[locutus49]

You never know with Rolex. They are a conservative company, but the size of their watches have been creeping up.

[ostatedchi]

Producing a 41mm size just seems to make sense to me. They already have the case and movement. Just don't put in the date and cyclopes. Poof, a 41mm oyster perpetual.

[superstarmar]

i don"t think so...

[dafuture]

Highly doubt it. They already have the 39mm, no reason for a third size.

[mjclark32]

I, also, don’t think so. It’s auch a great piece at 39mm though.

[chloebear]

I tend to think they won't make a 41mm OP because they want to move you up to a more expensive model. I think a smaller less expensive watch might get you in the door, but then when you see a slightly larger model that's just a little bit more, you might go for it.

[RonSwanson]

Originally Posted by chloebear

I tend to think they won't make a 41mm OP because they want to move you up to a more expensive model. I think a smaller less expensive watch might get you in the door, but then when you see a slightly larger model that's just a little bit more, you might go for it.

Agreed, they know better than to cannibalize datejust sales.

[Muzz]

I would even like the green to make it in to the 39mm range.

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by chloebear

I tend to think they won't make a 41mm OP because they want to move you up to a more expensive model. I think a smaller less expensive watch might get you in the door, but then when you see a slightly larger model that's just a little bit more, you might go for it.

Agree!!!

[uncufunc]

doubt it will happen. If you're looking for a +40mm, they likely want to get you into a sports model or a more expensive piece (DJ, DD, SkyD).

[peterskinner]

That would just be a defanged Datejust. To my surprise, I love the 41mm Datejust, especially with the Jubilee bracelet. The date and cyclops haven't annoyed as much as I expected. In fact, for me, it's the best all-round model. So maybe just give it a try? New movement too.

[AEC]

If caliber 31XX movements are eventually supplanted by caliber 32XX movements, then I could see a 41mm Oyster Perpetual being introduced. I think the 32XX movements are larger than the 31XX movements, and a larger OP case would be appropriate, and perhaps required.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by Muzz

I would even like the green to make it in to the 39mm range.

I know, right?

OP: Doubt it, but I guess you never know.

[Secondhandunwinds]

Originally Posted by AEC

If caliber 31XX movements are eventually supplanted by caliber 32XX movements, then I could see a 41mm Oyster Perpetual being introduced. I think the 32XX movements are larger than the 31XX movements, and a larger OP case would be appropriate, and perhaps required.

Great thought, wonder what the minimum case size is for the 32XX movement? DD40 is supposedly under 40mm though, so maybe a 39mm OP with 32XX movement is possible.

[rossi46]

Originally Posted by AEC

If caliber 31XX movements are eventually supplanted by caliber 32XX movements, then I could see a 41mm Oyster Perpetual being introduced. I think the 32XX movements are larger than the 31XX movements, and a larger OP case would be appropriate, and perhaps required.

3235 movement is same size as 3135. So definitely not required.

The DJ41 case isn't actually 41mm - I believe it's 39.x mm.

[rossi46]

Originally Posted by Secondhandunwinds

?..maybe a 39mm OP with 32XX movement is possible.

For sure it is. I mean, the 3135 is used in the 34mm Oyster Date models!

[AK797]

Originally Posted by rossi46

3235 movement is same size as 3135. So definitely not required.

The DJ41 case isn't actually 41mm - I believe it's 39.x mm.

Yes, and so can't see it myself, and while the popular models are being chronically under produced I don't want this messing about with the outliers.

[AEC]

Originally Posted by rossi46

3235 movement is same size as 3135. So definitely not required.

The DJ41 case isn't actually 41mm - I believe it's 39.x mm.

Thanks for the info. In a photo of 3235 by itself, it looked like it could be bigger than 3135, but I was just guessing.

[pikupiku]

The OP would look ugly at 41mm. Here's why:

Look at the 36mm and then at the 39mm. Notice how the 39mm has little squares at the edges of the dial. This is because as the OP dial gets bigger, more detail is needed to balance the negative/positive space of the dial aesthetic and design. At 39mm, squares needed to be added. At 41mm the watch would look like a giant empty gulf of a dial. Tasteless, and somehow suddenly competing with much richer dials on bigger watch sizes.

Even the 39mm OP is a tad bit of a stretch to begin with.

[rossi46]

Originally Posted by pikupiku

The OP would look ugly at 41mm. Here's why:

Look at the 36mm and then at the 39mm. Notice how the 39mm has little squares at the edges of the dial. This is because as the OP dial gets bigger, more detail is needed to balance the negative/positive space of the dial aesthetic and design. At 39mm, squares needed to be added. At 41mm the watch would look like a giant empty gulf of a dial. Tasteless, and somehow suddenly competing with much richer dials on bigger watch sizes.

Even the 39mm OP is a tad bit of a stretch to begin with.

This is spot on. When I tried on the newly-released grey dial OP39 a while back, something felt... off. I couldn't put my finger on it at the time, but what pikupiku said explains it.

What's weird is that sport models with larger case sizes don't have the same problem - I think the dials on Subs are actually smaller than dials on the OP39?