Explorer 1 39mm vs Sub 116610 for small wrist

[WatchNutcase]

Can anyone chime in on which model would be best for a smaller wrist, either the Explorer 1 39mm or Sub 116610?

It looks like the Explorer 1 would be slimmer but will have a very large looking dial, while the sub is chunkier but will have a smaller appearing dial due to the bezel.

Does anyone own both?

[javier]

I had both in the past and sold them due to my small wrist size of 6,5 inches
The reasons you have mentioned are the right ones in each case

[WatchNutcase]

Originally Posted by javier

I had both in the past and sold them due to my small wrist size of 6,5 inches
The reasons you have mentioned are the right ones in each case

I also have a 6.5. I've seen some pics where the new Sub looks great on a 6.5, but the new explorer always seems to have this large almost "plate like" looking dial.

Were they both that bad on your wrist?

[nighthawk77]

My wrist size is 6.75” so not too much different to yours. Some photos below should hopefully help illustrate sizing...

I think the Explorer wears fine on my wrist, and it’s the most comfortable watch I own.

The sub whilst featuring a smaller dial has the super case and is more slab sided with wider lugs. The occasions I have tried the sub I have also found it perfectly fine and looking forward to picking one up soon!

I tend to find the lug to lug distance as important as the width and diameter of the watch and these two are not overly long in that respect.

[WatchNutcase]

Originally Posted by nighthawk77

My wrist size is 6.75” so not too much different to yours. Some photos below should hopefully help illustrate sizing...

I think the Explorer wears fine on my wrist, and it’s the most comfortable watch I own.

The sub whilst featuring a smaller dial has the super case and is more slab sided with wider lugs. The occasions I have tried the sub I have also found it perfectly fine and looking forward to picking one up soon!

I tend to find the lug to lug distance as important as the width and diameter of the watch and these two are not overly long in that respect.

Super nice pics!

I agree with the lug to lug playing a big part. Do you know which one has the shorter lugs here? Cheers

[Spoonage]

I own both the EXP and SubC. I have a 6.75" flat wrist. Both look good (to me) on this type of wrist. EXP fits closer (caseback) to the wrist, both are comfortable to me as long as it's adjusted properly. One thing to note is that the SubC has the glidelock and some do complain that the clasp and blades are too long for them. I don't have any problems with that.

[Pauln]

I’ve owned both. I love the Explorer, but feel the 39mm is just strange. The bezel is thick. The dial is large with a lot of empty space, which I didn’t like. I ended up trading it for a 36mm, which I think is the sweet spot for the Explorer.

I wear my SubC and don’t have the same problems as I did with Explorer 39mm. The watch is much better proportioned.

[mosanman]

Also depends on wrist shape imo.
Like Nighthawk, I too have a 6.75inch wrist, but unlike him, I couldn't pull off the SubC.
It just felt too bulky and square for my liking. My wrists are round, I think flatter wrists can pull it off better.




I've always wondered about the 214270 myself and whether it would be a better fit, never had the chance to try one on sadly.
I believe the lug to lug is the same at 48mm.

[MagPI]

I have the same wrist size. I would strongly recommend the 114270 36mm Explorer. If you go Sub, consider a 16610/14060.

[WatchNutcase]

Originally Posted by Pauln

I’ve owned both. I love the Explorer, but feel the 39mm is just strange. The bezel is thick. The dial is large with a lot of empty space, which I didn’t like. I ended up trading it for a 36mm, which I think is the sweet spot for the Explorer.

I wear my SubC and don’t have the same problems as I did with Explorer 39mm. The watch is much better proportioned.

Interesting, I was also thinking that the Sub C looked better proportioned than the Explorer 1 39mm. Thanks

[WatchNutcase]

Originally Posted by MagPI

I have the same wrist size. I would strongly recommend the 114270 36mm Explorer. If you go Sub, consider a 16610/14060.

I've considered this, but I've decided I want to buy new from the AD. So I will be stuck with slightly larger lugs I guess as I'm leaning towards the Sub.

[Paulsky]

If it’s any help I used to own the 39mm Explorer and wound up trading it. My wrist is 7.5. I have since bought an OP39. The Explorer always felt bigger than its 39mm size due to the oversized numerals, the flatter bezel and the matte dial. For a time only watch it felt way too big. The OP meanwhile sits perfectly on my wrist.

[PatrickGu]

My wrist is about the same size as you and when I tried the explorer 1 on my wrist it looked great! Although I feel like the sub might have more wrist presence

[scousejames]

I'm thinking about a 116610 also, and am concenrned about the heft on my small wrist.

Some pics for you on a thread I started you might find helpful
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=742213

[nighthawk77]

Originally Posted by WatchNutcase

Super nice pics!

I agree with the lug to lug playing a big part. Do you know which one has the shorter lugs here? Cheers

I can't remember exactly, but I think that both are around 47.5mm...with the Explorer a tiny bit under and the Sub a tiny bit over.

How does your Airking wear? I've never tried one of these, but I always imagine this & the milgauss as a beefier Explorer. I'm guessing if you can pull off the AK you'll be ok with the Exp

[Ny325]

I say the Explorer in 36mm.

[DG123]

Originally Posted by WatchNutcase

I've considered this, but I've decided I want to buy new from the AD. So I will be stuck with slightly larger lugs I guess as I'm leaning towards the Sub.

When you visit the AD try on lots of different Rolex models. One of them will be your favorite.

[Calatrava r]

I agree that the Sub is more balanced. It is very versatile and you can use the bezel to track the time of anything.

[gr74]

The Sub is my best choice, I like both watches but I would go with the Sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WatchNutcase]

Originally Posted by nighthawk77

I can't remember exactly, but I think that both are around 47.5mm...with the Explorer a tiny bit under and the Sub a tiny bit over.

How does your Airking wear? I've never tried one of these, but I always imagine this & the milgauss as a beefier Explorer. I'm guessing if you can pull off the AK you'll be ok with the Exp

I've got the older 34mm air-king, fits great on my 6.5 wrist. Wouldn't go any smaller, but definitely can size up a little bit for a sportier watch.

[Vipes]

I’m also considering the 39mm Explorer and my wrist size is close to yours. I don’t think the size will be a problem since the lug to lug is around 47-48mm. It’s the way it looks on the wrist that may be an issue as some members have pointed out. The larger dial and large arabics may look “off” to some. Check out Tim Mosso/ watchbox videos on youtube to get a better idea. His wrist is 6.3in I think.

[djyolky]

I have a wrist size similar to yours, I love the 214270 proportions and find the dial/bezel awesome.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[subcsteve]

I have both, similar wrist size to yourself and you should be fine with either imo.

Sub looks great however the explorer is more comfortable and probably edges it fit wise tbh.

You should probably just get both :)

[pikers]

I have 6.5" wrists as well. I had the 214270 MKII for about a year and swapped it for a 114060. I think the Explorer fit my wrist a bit better and it was slightly more comfortable than the sub, but I personally didn't like the odd proportions of the 214270. The dial and bezel are very large which makes the case look bulbus. While I’m not a huge fan of the super case, I think the overall package of the sub looks more proportional. The sub is testing the limits of my wrist but I’m a tall guy with large hands so I feel that it fits my overall size.

[watchshot94]

Originally Posted by Ny325

I say the Explorer in 36mm.

I agree.

Or this if you like

[maximilianmuller]

The explorer is on the smaller size of the spectrum in my opinion, Ive seen both on smaller wrists and they look great. Go for the one that you want not much difference in size
Good luck!

[stefwer]

While it is not a SubC, my 116710LN is somewhat close to it. It's a little bit slimmer around the lugs. As a result it already wears smaller than a Submariner. I took a picture of it next to my 214270 for you. Lug to Lug on it is about 1mm shorter. So, the Explorer is noticeably smaller and also wears noticeably smaller. For some reason people tend to say it's too big now. I think, it's ok and still proportioned well enough. It wears light compared to the Supercase models. I hope this helps.

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by WatchNutcase

Can anyone chime in on which model would be best for a smaller wrist, either the Explorer 1 39mm or Sub 116610?

It looks like the Explorer 1 would be slimmer but will have a very large looking dial, while the sub is chunkier but will have a smaller appearing dial due to the bezel.

Does anyone own both?

I have both and the Explorer is slightly less wider on the wrist due to the lugs not being as squared off as those on the Sub. However, the Explorer wears more like a 41 rather than 39 due to it’s relatively wide case. It’s thinner than the Submariner and noticeably much lighter. . You definitely must try each on. They have a much different vibe.

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by djyolky

I have a wrist size similar to yours, I love the 214270 proportions and find the dial/bezel awesome.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Looks great on you! Love my Explorer.

[Dr. T]

I've spent time with both and in real life the Explorer does wear noticeably smaller. I think the case proportions are better on the 39mm explorer but the dial proportions are perhaps better on the sub. I would pick the Explorer by a hair...