ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

stockae92 · 2 July 2011, 03:07 AM

They are basically the same size, but do they wear very similar as well?

And they both have about the same "tough-ness"? twin lock crown, WR100M, same case size, etc.

Gerardus · 2 July 2011, 05:28 AM

Both great pieces, it is what you prefer.
Out of personal experience I can say " nothing wears more comfortable then a 116200"!)

p_mcgee · 2 July 2011, 06:09 AM

Must be an optical iillusion, but the Datejust seems to be the appropriate size while the Explorer seems small. Maybe its just because most sports watches these days are >= 40mm.

Adam K. · 2 July 2011, 08:06 AM

Yes. Same toughness--same case/crown construction--same WR.

G.J · 2 July 2011, 06:27 PM

I am lucky to own both, and I don't feel that they wear ''dfferent'' at all..

padi56 · 4 July 2011, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam K.

Yes. Same toughness--same case/crown construction--same WR.

Yes agree but many years ago the DJ was only rated to 50m, while the Explorer was 100m so it was classed as a sports watch.

z32turbo · 3 July 2011, 06:06 AM

I'd go for the DJ over the Exp.

warrior · 3 July 2011, 08:39 AM

The DJ wears a little bit bigger ( even though they are the same size 36MM) b/c the DJ has slightly broader shoulders.

GradyPhilpott · 4 July 2011, 12:12 AM

I also own both and I believe that except for styling and the date complication, they are equal watches. One is rugged, but dressy and the other is dressy, but rugged.

acce1999 · 4 July 2011, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

One is rugged, but dressy and the other is dressy, but rugged.[/IMG]

Well said!

Since the introduction of the 160XX-series the Datejusts have been as rugged as the Explorer.

The 14270 had the same mid case, and case back as the 162XX. And the only difference between the 114270 and the 14270 was the position of the lug holes (and the caliber, of course). The 114270 still has the same caseback, crystal, gaskets, crown as the 1162XX, but the shape of the case now differs.

Best,

A

sparky · 4 July 2011, 01:07 AM

also the 36mm ex had a flip lock clasp, while a dj from the same era did not

DT14 · 4 July 2011, 02:47 AM

to my eye, the Datejust appears larger. I have heard as a possible explanation that the cyclops make a watch wear larger than it really is. I have always thought that the Sub-date looks larger than the Sub-no date, so maybe there is some truth to the cyclops explanation.

burger'n'fries · 4 July 2011, 03:30 AM

When comparing the two, I believe the Datejust is slightly thicker. This may explain why it looks bigger.

2 July 2011, 03:07 AM	#1
stockae92 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Socal Posts: 4,962	DateJust 36mm vs Explorer 36mm They are basically the same size, but do they wear very similar as well? And they both have about the same "tough-ness"? twin lock crown, WR100M, same case size, etc.

2 July 2011, 05:28 AM	#2
Gerardus "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Gerardus Location: often in the air Watch: ♕ Posts: 12,142	Both great pieces, it is what you prefer. Out of personal experience I can say " nothing wears more comfortable then a 116200"!) __________________ ♕126610 ♕126333 ♕116300

2 July 2011, 06:27 PM	#5
G.J "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 2,094	I am lucky to own both, and I don't feel that they wear ''dfferent'' at all.. __________________ In Memory of JJ Irani

3 July 2011, 06:06 AM	#7
z32turbo "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sea Level Watch: Varies Posts: 6,877	I'd go for the DJ over the Exp. __________________ Instagram @z32turbo

4 July 2011, 12:12 AM	#9
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,460	I also own both and I believe that except for styling and the date complication, they are equal watches. One is rugged, but dressy and the other is dressy, but rugged. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

2 July 2011, 06:09 AM	#3
p_mcgee "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,150	Must be an optical iillusion, but the Datejust seems to be the appropriate size while the Explorer seems small. Maybe its just because most sports watches these days are >= 40mm.

2 July 2011, 08:06 AM	#4
Adam K. Banned Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: WA Watch: All the Oysters Posts: 811	Yes. Same toughness--same case/crown construction--same WR.

3 July 2011, 08:39 AM	#8
warrior "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: massachusetts Watch: Explorer Posts: 1,692	The DJ wears a little bit bigger ( even though they are the same size 36MM) b/c the DJ has slightly broader shoulders.

4 July 2011, 01:07 AM	#11
sparky "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Real Name: Cal Location: Seattle, WA. Watch: explorer Posts: 658	also the 36mm ex had a flip lock clasp, while a dj from the same era did not

4 July 2011, 02:47 AM	#12
DT14 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Dallas Watch: Daytona, Explorer Posts: 218	to my eye, the Datejust appears larger. I have heard as a possible explanation that the cyclops make a watch wear larger than it really is. I have always thought that the Sub-date looks larger than the Sub-no date, so maybe there is some truth to the cyclops explanation.

4 July 2011, 03:30 AM	#13
burger'n'fries Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: CA Watch: 42mm Exp 2 Posts: 378	When comparing the two, I believe the Datejust is slightly thicker. This may explain why it looks bigger.

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