Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

NEW 36mm Rolex Explorer

  • 11-04-2021 2:27am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭ 2shea


    So what is the general consensus on the reintroduced 36mm Rolex Explorer 124270 and the discontinuation of the 39mm 214270?

    Personally I think its Rolex best watch in the last 10 years!

    Anyone that knows me knows I have been asking for this watch since they introduced the 39mm Explorer.

    I have been hoping every year that they would release one, it was always in my predictions and hopes for the new catalogue every year.

    But most people said it would never happen again and if anything it was only going to get bigger! So I had pretty much given up on it. Then bang! They go and drop it in 36mm. Well done Rolex!

    I spent so much time considering the 36mm 114270 but just couldn't with the awful bracelet and clasp in the end. I was even going to buy a Tudor BB 36mm to try and scratch the itch.

    But I ended up getting the 39mm Explorer 214270 mark 2. It fits nicely on my wrist and looks great but I just never took to it as I really enjoy 36mm watches and think the Explorer was and always should be 36mm as it just looks better (to me anyways).

    Don't know what to do with my 39mm now. Keep it, Sell it or trade it.

    Whats everyone else's thoughts on the 36mm Explorer 124270?

    2ff40d74d1b36e7f2d5408e51c17e7c2.jpg

    Screenshot-20210411-031809-Instagram.jpg

    My watch on my wrist

    Screenshot-20210411-032119-Instagram.jpg

    36mm with a MK1 214270

    Screenshot-20210411-032213-Instagram.jpg

    114270 with my 214270. I almost bought this 36mm for €4000 back in 2019 glad I didn't now but I was kicking myself for a while when I seen the prices hitting 6k recently

    Screenshot-20210411-032229-Instagram.jpg


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭ Fitz II


    If you like the 36mm thats the one for you. They are small but you seem to have researches and tested it. There is no bad choice here (except the new two tone thats rotten).

    I think the 36mm will be available with only a short wait from an AD I would get your name down. No point having two almost identical watches...

    I would sell the 39mm now while the market is hot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,464 ✭✭✭ 893bet


    Is the 36mm actually 36mm is the question.

    Rolex have a history of only being close....could easily be 37mm or 38mm.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭ Cyclingtourist


    Don't ask me, I'm an Omega fanboy. :)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,390 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    I think it looks much more balanced a design in the smaller size. I also like that there is the drift, or at least a choice, away from the dinner plates on the wrist trend of a few years ago. While larger is better if the oul eyes aren't great, or you've wrists like tree trunks, or the watch is a specialised tool type, or out and out fashion statement, but there's a reason why 35-38mm was the average size of a gents wristwatch for the vast majority of its history. It's more comfortable to wear, doesn't interfere with clothing, doesn't tend to clatter off things around you and is less in your face. For a tool watch like the Explorer this goes double.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭ Fitz II


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I think it looks much more balanced a design in the smaller size. I also like that there is the drift, or at least a choice, away from the dinner plates on the wrist trend of a few years ago. While larger is better if the oul eyes aren't great, or you've wrists like tree trunks, or the watch is a specialised tool type, or out and out fashion statement, but there's a reason why 35-38mm was the average size of a gents wristwatch for the vast majority of its history. It's more comfortable to wear, doesn't interfere with clothing, doesn't tend to clatter off things around you and is less in your face. For a tool watch like the Explorer this goes double.

    For the vast majority of history men have been smaller too. I have never worn a watch that interfered with clothing or clatters off things, but I would say that is more to do with the height and the lug to lug than the diameter.

    Its all about the fashion Wibbs, 36mm people are going for that retro/vintage/hipster vibe just as much as the 40mm+ crowd are going for an in your face, look at me, vibe. You just pick your poison. Its all portraying an image as much as that B&W ad above was trying to shift stock to our fathers, by making them think spending big bucks on mechanical watch was getting them a little bit of the adventure life. Watches have been an out and out fashion/lifestyle statement for a long time. And these days even more so in the vintage arena, its all about wearing something noticeably different, not being a sheep and following Hodinkee's your own style.

    Contrarian & cynical Sunday.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,464 ✭✭✭ 893bet


    I think at 36mm the explorer and datejust lose their balance entirely, assuming they are still around 12mm thick. Width to thickness ratio lost entirely.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,390 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    Fewer men were fat for much of the 20th century alright but wrist sizes haven't changed so much. Take the late 60's advert above. That's not a small small man's wrist. Plenty of skin either side of lug to lug going on. I certainly take your point regarding advertising and fashion. That's very much in play and was from early on, but has increased massively in the last 10 or 20 years. As you say vintage is far more in that mix than it was even 10 years ago. Well, before Hoodwinkee it was barely on the radar, certainly not in the mainstream.

    Though when fathers were reading that Explorer ad when it was current while it wasn't some no name 50 quid brand in the jeweller shop window, it wasn't an expensive watch either. There was certainly no waiting list or white gloved, wine and cheese, you're being allowed buy our product bullshít stuff. That same fashion and marketing has massively increased prices and all that extra ego **** twaddle too. Though it seems it works.

    I suspect Rolex heading to 36mm is also a ploy to get more women on board. A sector that the Swiss "mechanical is truly authentic" marketing has singularly failed to get by comparison to the men's side of things. And by god they've tried. Maybe because women as a group are so used to being heavily marketed to that they're a little more aware of some of the BS? Even when FP Journe made a ladies watch, he had to stick a gussied up quartz movement into it, because he knew that otherwise it would have been a hard sell. The smaller Rolex with coloured dials seem to be another attempt to get that market.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭ 2shea


    Fitz II wrote: »
    For the vast majority of history men have been smaller too. I have never worn a watch that interfered with clothing or clatters off things, but I would say that is more to do with the height and the lug to lug than the diameter.

    Its all about the fashion Wibbs, 36mm people are going for that retro/vintage/hipster vibe just as much as the 40mm+ crowd are going for an in your face, look at me, vibe. You just pick your poison. Its all portraying an image as much as that B&W ad above was trying to shift stock to our fathers, by making them think spending big bucks on mechanical watch was getting them a little bit of the adventure life. Watches have been an out and out fashion/lifestyle statement for a long time. And these days even more so in the vintage arena, its all about wearing something noticeably different, not being a sheep and following Hodinkee's your own style.

    Contrarian & cynical Sunday.

    Well I can tell now I really despise Hoodwinkee/hipsters and the soft nonsense they talk.

    But what I do like is the 36mm Explorer. I'm wearing a 45mm Seiko Sumo today and that size suits that watch and I enjoy wearing that too.

    But I'm sure there is people are getting into smaller watches because of the Hoodwinkee and their obsessed with vintage watches.

    I like the look of some Wantage watches but would never buy one as they are old and I don't want to be maintaining an old watch, plus the silly prices people are willing to pay for old watches always makes me laugh.

    There is also the fact that no one will ever notice your watch only no matter what the size or brand.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭ Fitz II


    Feel free move this to chitty chat if its off topic.....
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Fewer men were fat for much of the 20th century alright but wrist sizes haven't changed so much......

    This is an interesting one I was researching lately and you are correct wrist size has not changed much. However there are some interesting things about this.

    In a large watchUseek poll of over 1500 members, the average wrist size of a man is 7.25 inches or 18.42 cm – 50% of men have a wrist that is bigger than 7.25 inches and 50% have a wrist that is smaller. 80% of men have a wrist size bigger than 6.75 inches or 17.5 cm and 20% of men have a wrist size bigger than 7.75 inches or 19.67 cm.

    average-wrist-size-for-a-man-600x368.png

    Interestingly people think they have smaller or bigger wrists than they actually do. The vast vast majority of people have average size wrists between 6.5 and 7.5 inches. The numbers of people with actually small and actually large wrists is very low.

    However I have noticed that when I loose or gain weight I can appreciably see changes in how watches wear. I dont think its the wrist size, its the forearm and hand, and importantly the build and clothes of the person.

    Here in my mancave I will try and illustrate (these photos will self destruct).
    I have a absolutely average 7.25 '' wrist maybe a touch bigger when I am warm. A 41mm big big wearing watch.

    Here is the classic hodinkee shot. Watch looks big, and tight even though I wear it loose enough.

    PXL-20210411-165406097-MP.jpg

    Now here it is in context of me, I have 20+ years of heavy weight training and overeating, so my forearms and arms are thick enough & I can purposely make the watch look pretty small on me. If I wore a 36mm it would look like a toy, despite my average wrists.

    PXL-20210411-165602850-MP.jpg

    Its not wrist size its person size. I am short at 5'8'' and also the environment the watch is in. In the dirty gym and gym clothes a big watch looks right.

    So in conclusion think if you think you have small wrists you probably dont, and if you think you have big wrists you probably dont. However if you are a slender more formal guy smaller watches might suit you. If you are a bigger more informal guy bigger watches might be better. In the modern western world there are far more bigger informal guys these days and watch sizing reflects this. I dont see the 36mm re release as a shift to smaller watches (the submariner was just upscaled last year) its a shift to sell watches to women and draw the vintage crowd back the AD and away from the grey market.

    I would suggest that in some cases people like the price of 36mm watches more than the size of them (not talking about you here 2o'shea I can see your consideration runs deeper than that), but I dont see many men buying new DJ36's.

    The apple watch sells more units than all the swiss brands combined, its 40x34 or 44x38 so not small.

    https://theslenderwrist.com/average-wrist-size-for-a-man/
    Wibbs wrote: »
    I suspect Rolex heading to 36mm is also a ploy to get more women on board.

    This x100


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,464 ✭✭✭ 893bet


    Swoon.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭ 2shea


    Fitz II wrote: »
    Feel free move this to chitty chat if its off topic.....



    This is an interesting one I was researching lately and you are correct wrist size has not changed much. However there are some interesting things about this.

    In a large watchUseek poll of over 1500 members, the average wrist size of a man is 7.25 inches or 18.42 cm – 50% of men have a wrist that is bigger than 7.25 inches and 50% have a wrist that is smaller. 80% of men have a wrist size bigger than 6.75 inches or 17.5 cm and 20% of men have a wrist size bigger than 7.75 inches or 19.67 cm.


    Interestingly people think they have smaller or bigger wrists than they actually do. The vast vast majority of people have average size wrists between 6.5 and 7.5 inches. The numbers of people with actually small and actually large wrists is very low.

    However I have noticed that when I loose or gain weight I can appreciably see changes in how watches wear. I dont think its the wrist size, its the forearm and hand, and importantly the build and clothes of the person.

    Here in my mancave I will try and illustrate (these photos will self destruct).
    I have a absolutely average 7.25 '' wrist maybe a touch bigger when I am warm. A 41mm big big wearing watch.

    Here is the classic hodinkee shot. Watch looks big, and tight even though I wear it loose enough.

    Now here it is in context of me, I have 20+ years of heavy weight training and overeating, so my forearms and arms are thick enough & I can purposely make the watch look pretty small on me. If I wore a 36mm it would look like a toy, despite my average wrists.

    Its not wrist size its person size. I am short at 5'8'' and also the environment the watch is in. In the dirty gym and gym clothes a big watch looks right.

    So in conclusion think if you think you have small wrists you probably dont, and if you think you have big wrists you probably dont. However if you are a slender more formal guy smaller watches might suit you. If you are a bigger more informal guy bigger watches might be better. In the modern western world there are far more bigger informal guys these days and watch sizing reflects this. I dont see the 36mm re release as a shift to smaller watches (the submariner was just upscaled last year) its a shift to sell watches to women and draw the vintage crowd back the AD and away from the grey market.

    I would suggest that in some cases people like the price of 36mm watches more than the size of them (not talking about you here 2o'shea I can see your consideration runs deeper than that), but I dont see many men buying new DJ36's.

    The apple watch sells more units than all the swiss brands combined, its 40x34 or 44x38 so not small.

    https://theslenderwrist.com/average-wrist-size-for-a-man/



    This x100

    The 2 tone seems to be geared towards the females alright.

    But it will be interesting to see will this Explorer be a true 36mm or closer to 37/38mm


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,390 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Wibbs


    Fitz II wrote: »
    This is an interesting one I was researching lately and you are correct wrist size has not changed much. However there are some interesting things about this.

    In a large watchUseek poll of over 1500 members, the average wrist size of a man is 7.25 inches or 18.42 cm – 50% of men have a wrist that is bigger than 7.25 inches and 50% have a wrist that is smaller. 80% of men have a wrist size bigger than 6.75 inches or 17.5 cm and 20% of men have a wrist size bigger than 7.75 inches or 19.67 cm.

    Interestingly people think they have smaller or bigger wrists than they actually do. The vast vast majority of people have average size wrists between 6.5 and 7.5 inches. The numbers of people with actually small and actually large wrists is very low.
    Interesting indeed F. I'd suspect where people were from would have an effect too. EG US respondents would be generally larger than say Indian. Age another factor. 40 years olds would likely trend larger than 20 year olds. I haven't checked mine in a long while. I assumed I was 6.5, but it turns out I'm 6.25(16cms in new money), so defo a member of youtuber Jenni Elle's itty bitty wrist committee. :)
    However I have noticed that when I loose or gain weight I can appreciably see changes in how watches wear. I dont think its the wrist size, its the forearm and hand, and importantly the build and clothes of the person.
    +1 I would add it can also be the shape of the wrist. Some people have wrists that are an O shape, some have one that's more a D(the flat part being the top of the wrist). I'd be of the latter so have a little more leeway in lug to lug distance.
    Here is the classic hodinkee shot. Watch looks big, and tight even though I wear it loose enough.
    And how they try to flog their vintage stock.
    Its not wrist size its person size. I am short at 5'8'' and also the environment the watch is in. In the dirty gym and gym clothes a big watch looks right.

    So in conclusion think if you think you have small wrists you probably dont, and if you think you have big wrists you probably dont. However if you are a slender more formal guy smaller watches might suit you. If you are a bigger more informal guy bigger watches might be better. In the modern western world there are far more bigger informal guys these days and watch sizing reflects this. I dont see the 36mm re release as a shift to smaller watches (the submariner was just upscaled last year) its a shift to sell watches to women and draw the vintage crowd back the AD and away from the grey market.
    +1000 I'm 5'10" but slender of frame as my wrists will attest, though apparently I don't look particularly skinny in reality. I'm not Mick Jagger that's for sure, but definitely not formal, so as it turns out I was rocking the hoodwinkee hipster vintage look before it was a thing. :eek: :D
    The apple watch sells more units than all the swiss brands combined, its 40x34 or 44x38 so not small.
    The lugless design helps them too, lugless wears smaller, but I'd agree 100% they're not small by any means.

    Over the years a fair number of guys, friends, clients, even partners of same looking to buy presents have asked me about going vintage and every time I tell them it's likely a very bad idea that will end up in a drawer after the initial buzz passes(before the vintage values went nuts, vintage guys were way worse flippers than any current Rolex guys) and 90% of that is to do with the sizing of the majority of the older stuff. Pre 70's anyway. Even most chronographs were around the 36mm range. Pre 1950 vanishingly few watches were 40mm or north of that and among those that were they often went overboard and were 50mm plus(Longines Weems, B-Uhrs, Panerais and the like) so unwearable unless you have a PhD in physics, your surname is Banner and you turn green when angry. Water resistance and robustness while certainly in play would be well behind the sizing aspect imho.

    I'd reckon for the average man and woman, 38-42mm would suit 99% of the former, with 32-36mm suiting 99% of the latter.
    This x100
    Yeah it's seems pretty obvious now I suppose and another good marketing notion from the best. The pastel dialled watches in smaller sizes and now this Explorer. It's a massively untapped market for the Swiss. At least in the mechanical where margins are much larger than in the women's quartz offerings they already sell.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭ Time


    Fitz II wrote: »
    Now here it is in context of me, I have 20+ years of heavy weight training and overeating, so my forearms and arms are thick enough & I can purposely make the watch look pretty small on me. If I wore a 36mm it would look like a toy, despite my average wrists.

    Its not wrist size its person size. I am short at 5'8'' and also the environment the watch is in. In the dirty gym and gym clothes a big watch looks right.

    I had never considered this before, but it's definitely true. Your AP is 41mm and looks considerable smaller on you than my 39mm one did. In fact mine was almost too big on me lug to lug. A 41mm looks ridiculous on me.

    You aren't much taller than me either, but i'm definitely a much slighter build than you are, so build plays much more than height or wrist size for sure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,085 ✭✭✭✭ Birneybau


    893bet wrote: »
    Swoon.

    I've the same trackie bottoms. So, it's one thing that he can't judge me on. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭ Fitz II


    Birneybau wrote: »
    I've the same trackie bottoms. So, it's one thing that he can't judge me on. : D

    Modern tracksuit bottoms are a bug bear of mine. They all have these short tight legs that look terrible on pudgy middle aged men like me. These are the best of a bad lot and they keep my builders crack covered when I move without being too tight.

    BTW nothing stops the Fitz judging....always judging...:cool:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭ Cyclingtourist


    I like the TWC reaction video. 'Underwhelming' or as some guy said once "much ado about nothing".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwtwDgpz7o


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭ mailforkev


    I like the TWC reaction video. 'Underwhelming' or as some guy said once "much ado about nothing".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwtwDgpz7o

    #palmfronds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,085 ✭✭✭✭ Birneybau


    Fitz II wrote: »
    Modern tracksuit bottoms are a bug bear of mine. They all have these short tight legs that look terrible on pudgy middle aged men like me. These are the best of a bad lot and they keep my builders crack covered when I move without being too tight.

    BTW nothing stops the Fitz judging....always judging...:cool:

    And the tight cuffs to show off your 'creps' as the kids say (I think)


  • Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭ covey123


    Wibbs wrote: »
    or you've wrists like tree trunks.

    Totally agree with you on this point, but what's your opinion on the aesthetics whe when it comes to hand size,as in if like me hands are large in comparison to wrist size?so a smaller watch might look better on my wrist, but can look too small when compared to my hand


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭ Lorddrakul


    It may have been something that evolved over time, but my sense is very firmly set for what looks right on my wrist.

    Despite wearing 36mm watches in my early adult life, they now look comically small to me. I just can't adjust, even to a dress watch this size.

    39mm is tolerable. I have a 37mm that is long, lug to lug to, due to shrouded lugs, so wears bigger, but that is it. Even that is not getting out of the drawer much these days.

    A 42mm is my suite spot and what my brain seems now calibrated to. I recently had an homage of an a cockpit chrono type that was 45mm and that was just too big.

    It is odd to be so specific, but I blame my subconscious.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,694 ✭✭✭✭ Kintarō Hattori


    1d28b3dc852bac75abcb9729f7a0e0dd.jpg

    I'm in shock that Fitz wears tracksuit bottoms.

    Mental image I had of Fitz well and truly obliterated.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭ Fitz II



    I'm in shock that Fitz wears tracksuit bottoms.

    Mental image I had of Fitz well and truly obliterated.

    Jesus I wish....watches are my only source of sartorial style. When I get a new pair of runners I think I am jonny fancy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭ david


    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1d/28/b3/1d28b3dc852bac75abcb9729f7a0e0dd.jpg

    I'm in shock that Fitz wears tracksuit bottoms.

    Mental image I had of Fitz well and truly obliterated.

    Serious 5 pocket twill


  • Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭ 2shea


    Fitz II wrote: »
    Feel free move this to chitty chat if its off topic.....



    This is an interesting one I was researching lately and you are correct wrist size has not changed much. However there are some interesting things about this.

    In a large watchUseek poll of over 1500 members, the average wrist size of a man is 7.25 inches or 18.42 cm – 50% of men have a wrist that is bigger than 7.25 inches and 50% have a wrist that is smaller. 80% of men have a wrist size bigger than 6.75 inches or 17.5 cm and 20% of men have a wrist size bigger than 7.75 inches or 19.67 cm.

    Interestingly people think they have smaller or bigger wrists than they actually do. The vast vast majority of people have average size wrists between 6.5 and 7.5 inches. The numbers of people with actually small and actually large wrists is very low.

    However I have noticed that when I loose or gain weight I can appreciably see changes in how watches wear. I dont think its the wrist size, its the forearm and hand, and importantly the build and clothes of the person.

    Here in my mancave I will try and illustrate (these photos will self destruct).
    I have a absolutely average 7.25 '' wrist maybe a touch bigger when I am warm. A 41mm big big wearing watch.

    Here is the classic hodinkee shot. Watch looks big, and tight even though I wear it loose enough.

    Now here it is in context of me, I have 20+ years of heavy weight training and overeating, so my forearms and arms are thick enough & I can purposely make the watch look pretty small on me. If I wore a 36mm it would look like a toy, despite my average wrists.

    Its not wrist size its person size. I am short at 5'8'' and also the environment the watch is in. In the dirty gym and gym clothes a big watch looks right.

    So in conclusion think if you think you have small wrists you probably dont, and if you think you have big wrists you probably dont. However if you are a slender more formal guy smaller watches might suit you. If you are a bigger more informal guy bigger watches might be better. In the modern western world there are far more bigger informal guys these days and watch sizing reflects this. I dont see the 36mm re release as a shift to smaller watches (the submariner was just upscaled last year) its a shift to sell watches to women and draw the vintage crowd back the AD and away from the grey market.

    I would suggest that in some cases people like the price of 36mm watches more than the size of them (not talking about you here 2o'shea I can see your consideration runs deeper than that), but I dont see many men buying new DJ36's.

    The apple watch sells more units than all the swiss brands combined, its 40x34 or 44x38 so not small.


    This x100

    Fitz your wrists are Exactly the same size as mine but look completely different. Its crazy.

    Screenshot-20210413-012733-Whats-App.jpg

    Seiko 5 36mm on my wrist which I think wears great and looks great (to me anyway)

    Screenshot-20210413-012716-Whats-App.jpg

    Seiko Sumo with 45mm dial and almost 53mm lug to lug

    I'm 6"3 and 100kg so my wrists and arms look thinner then they actually are.

    But as well as that people have different shaped wrists, they might measure the same but might be rounder or flatter.

    I think its just a case of allowing yourself to get used to how the watch looks for a day or 2.

    If I have been wearing the Sumo for a week or more then put on one of my smaller watches it looks a bit strange until my brain accepts it.

    Then the same happens when I go from a smaller piece to one of the bigger ones.


Advertisement