Flip your "stubby" Explorer I?

[Boothroyd]

Originally Posted by tomchicago

SAVE IT. "Stumpy" will hold value, plus the WG numerals gave the watch an element of dressy elegance. The new one is great, but sports all the way.

It's been bugging me all day, I will admit. But I agree with the post above--I really do NOT want lumed 3-6-9. It may have worked on 114270, but it's a distraction on the 214270 as it's slightly larger--if you think of it as a potential dress watch. And that's one thing I love about the watch..it's flexibility. I think it is somewhat less flexible now--sports all the way, as you mentioned.

When I got my Tudor BBB, I really had to get used to how LONG the hands were. It was a slight negative to me, compared to the 214270, as the minute hand covered the marker when setting. So the hands have never been an issue for me on the 214270. If anything, I think the new hands are a bit thick---again, making it a sports watch, not as flexible when trying to use it in dress mode.

Keeping it forever.

[jrs146]

Originally Posted by m1911a1

I actually think the shorter hour hand is cool.....more distinct....

I agree!
I'm hoping that second hand prices drop on them and I can pick one up for a great price!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[WristEnvy]

I have 114270 I'm keeping. I'll consider adding your short handed 214270 to my collection at the right price when you flip it for the corrected version. Though the lumed numerals are pretty sweet !

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[sickened1]

I guess I'm keeping my 14270 so I can hand it down to my son and buy the new Explorer for myself.

[maxbaris]

Originally Posted by SemperFi

I'm perfectly content with mine. The so called short hands never seemed short to me and I prefer the white gold 3, 6, 9 markers to the totally lumed dial. No regrets with the one I have.

Ditto.

[AJVESQ]

Yea not to hijack the thread but I love my 14270. Just such a classic versatile under the radar watch. I think its perfect. Its a "mans's" DJ! lol. If I were you I'd flip for a 14270!

[AK797]

If it doesn't bother you then keep it, but it sounds like it does. I had the same with my DD2, once a newer better movement was out I decided I couldn't settle.

[warrior]

I plan to keep mine. The all wg 3-6-9 is ,simply put, more elegant and it makes the watch more unique looking. The short hands never bothered me.

[Roll the Lex]

The stubby (gonna stick with it ) was my first Rolex. So for me, I'll take the stubby with WG numbers over this any day.

I'm surprised nobody has asked if the stubby will be the next collector's Rolex.

[cornerstore]

When Mercedes tweeks each models details yearly, is that correcting the previous details or pandering to shifting consumer tastes?

[bdex75]

I bet more than a few people with the "old" version with the stubby hands are going to source a set of the new hands and "fix" the "problem" themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boothroyd]

Originally Posted by bdex75

I bet more than a few people with the "old" version with the stubby hands are going to source a set of the new hands and "fix" the "problem" themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? OK.

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by Boothroyd

Really? OK.

No. I am sure they won't fit.

And it would be Rolex adultery.

But there are people that have tried several different options on these already. Some good some bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jake B]

Originally Posted by bdex75

No. I am sure they won't fit.

And it would be Rolex adultery.

But there are people that have tried several different options on these already. Some good some bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What makes you believe that they won't fit?

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by Jake B

What makes you believe that they won't fit?

Both 39mm, both 3132 movement? Maybe they would. And the blue lumed hands with the green lumed markers could be cool. I had a DJ dial that was dual colored lume dial and it seemed to draw lots of positive praise from those that saw photos. It is the one that is still in my profile pic. I miss it.

Guess it just depends on how the market in general reacts to the new changes. I would still tend to lean towards leaving it original. But if the new one does well and the old ones take a hit as a result, I would rather source a hand set than take a big loss to upgrade if at all possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[itsmekevin]

Originally Posted by SemperFi

Someone's got to come up with a better name than stubby. Maybe a contest or a poll. 😉

"Stubby" or "Dwarf".

[Estilo]

Originally Posted by itsmekevin

"Stubby" or "Dwarf".

Either way better than the "stumpy" hands of Datejusts!

[Estilo]

Originally Posted by Boothroyd

It's been bugging me all day, I will admit. But I agree with the post above--I really do NOT want lumed 3-6-9. It may have worked on 114270, but it's a distraction on the 214270 as it's slightly larger--if you think of it as a potential dress watch. And that's one thing I love about the watch..it's flexibility. I think it is somewhat less flexible now--sports all the way, as you mentioned.

When I got my Tudor BBB, I really had to get used to how LONG the hands were. It was a slight negative to me, compared to the 214270, as the minute hand covered the marker when setting. So the hands have never been an issue for me on the 214270. If anything, I think the new hands are a bit thick---again, making it a sports watch, not as flexible when trying to use it in dress mode.

Keeping it forever.

Rolex @ Baselworld 2017 predictions: 39mm Explorer 1 with re-instated WG 3 6 9 and thinning of 2016's enlarged hands

[explorerflk]

Originally Posted by bdex75

Both 39mm, both 3132 movement? Maybe they would. And the blue lumed hands with the green lumed markers could be cool

The old 214270 had blue lume for the markers as well, the last explorer to have green lume was the 114270. The new hands should fit.

[polaris72]

Keep mine, I can read the dial without lumed 3,6,9. As a matter of fact, I like my better.

[travisb]

If you love your current Exp, keep it. If not, flip it.
I was never 100% sold on the 214270 but can now see myself adding one.

[red.earth]

I'm wearing my short hand Exp today in solidarity with all my other fellow owner brothers and sisters

The reason I can joke and laugh about it's short hands is because I still absolutely love it! It remains a stunning watch, in my view, and is still my absolute favourite. The new one? Well, it's stunning too - I love it! I'll never get rid of the one I've got, but equally I can't seem myself ever owning both so I guess I'll just have to enjoy the incoming threads which will follow later this year

Oh, and I still want a NOS 114270 with engraved rehaut please

[Asp9mm]

Keeping mine and buying the new version. I bought the (now) old version as it looked like the perfect dress/sports watch combination. But love the new one as it's all Explorer!

[AK1984]

I am really looking forward to getting the new reference. Its a home run by rolex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sncarney18]

I will keep my 214270. I love the WG non lume numerals. I really don't see that much different with the hands IMHO.

[SemperFi]

Originally Posted by sncarney18

I will keep my 214270. I love the WG non lume numerals. I really don't see that much different with the hands IMHO.

I agree on all counts. Many have been bashing the current model for two days now. What will they say when Rolex slims down the lugs on the Sub one day? That the current Sub was a "mistake", that it was "stubby"? That anyone of the millions who own one should upgrade?
Newer doesn't always mean better. It means "different" at least in this context. The new Explorer is different. If the differences push anyone to now buy one, that's great. I'll be one of the first to congratulate you.
I'll keep the one I have.

[sncarney18]

Originally Posted by SemperFi

I agree on all counts. Many have been bashing the current model for two days now. What will they say when Rolex slims down the lugs on the Sub one day? That the current Sub was a "mistake", that it was "stubby"? That anyone of the millions who own one should upgrade?
Newer doesn't always mean better. It means "different" at least in this context. The new Explorer is different. If the differences push anyone to now buy one, that's great. I'll be one of the first to congratulate you.
I'll keep the one I have.

Rolex probably knows some will flip to get the latest model out. They always make good financial decisions

[perry731]

Originally Posted by SemperFi

I agree on all counts. Many have been bashing the current model for two days now. What will they say when Rolex slims down the lugs on the Sub one day? That the current Sub was a "mistake", that it was "stubby"? That anyone of the millions who own one should upgrade?
Newer doesn't always mean better. It means "different" at least in this context. The new Explorer is different. If the differences push anyone to now buy one, that's great. I'll be one of the first to congratulate you.
I'll keep the one I have.

To be honest, old 214270 is better and ppls will be going after it when stocks ran out in a year or two. The new one is sportybut ordinary. The old one is unique and elegant - the imperfect makes it a true beauty and must-have collectible.

I will keep my well-balanced old 214270 forever.

[dirkpitt73]

Having just picked up a new-to-me 214270 earlier this month, I was initially a little disappointed to see the update at Basel. I read TRF and WUS quite a bit before deciding on 39mm vs 36mm Exp1 focusing on the shorter minute hand complaints. In the end, I decided I liked the watch overall more than any concern about the shorter hand, especially after seeing it in person. I was also curious to read that the current 214270 (aka The Stubby!? - is that going to stick?) isn't the only Rolex model to have an minute hand that doesn't reach the index track (see Deepsea and current Sub).

After wearing it for a couple of weeks, I am not bothered by the shorter minute hand. Yes, I would consider a longer minute hand if it was the same width. I'm not sure how I feel about the new 'maxi" hands on the 2016 214270. Cru Jones posted a great comparison pic I'm re-attaching here for easy reference. To my eye, the Mercedes hand is too big and the hands overall are very fat. It's tough to be objective, but I think most would acknowledge it's quite a "different" look vs. just a refinement.

Having followed the vintage Rolex market for a long time, I have to think The Stubby will fair well in the long run. Any oddity from Rolex, anything that makes a specific model run more rare is typically rewarded. There are many old examples of this but a more recent one is the last run of the non-maxi Explorer II with the stick font - yes, a smaller run than the current 214270's, but an interesting parallel - great article here on this rare 16710 variant. Will "The Stubby" be in the same boat in 5-10 years and how many owners will swap out the hands (if RSC lets them!)? Will be interesting to watch ...

[bgbg13]

No way I'm getting rid of mine for the new one.
I honestly don't like the new hands, too fat for my eyes. Could care less about the length.
This is the big reason I do not like the new exp.II as well as the old one.
Bigger is not always better and all these newer releases with larger hands, cases, dials and plots to not do it for me.
And I prefer the solid WG 3,6,9 to the lume fiiled.
IMHO Rolex nailed it on the new one though to get back to its roots. This is all sport now with the fatter hands, markers and all lume everywhere.
The elegance of the solid WG 3,6,9 and thinner hands that made the previous one so versatile is no more.
It also now separates itself more now from the OP that has the 3,6,9.
It was a good move by Rolex and I like the new one and agree with why they did it.
To each there own, but I am happy with the one I have and would not even think about flipping it for the new one.