amanico
[JLC Moderator]
342140
I for one prefer the 36. But I am sued to 36 mm Explorers, so take it with a pinch of salt. [nt]
No message body
Rolex Explorer 114270 vs. 214270. Opinions?
Its all about 36mm vs. 39mm. Keen to hear your opinions and experience on both.
Mine is a 214270 on a 7.25" wrist
It's the smallest size watch I can see myself wearing... ...
Looks perfect on your wrist
I was always a bit sceptical about the different proportions of the 214270 but i must admit i have never tried one on and it looks great on this pic.
Yes the proportions are fine and it is a good 39 mm example for my wrist
Other 39's look much smaller.
My wrist is about the same size as India Whiskey Charlie's...
and I'm old enough to have a couple of watches from the era when I wore 35-37mm watches. If I were to get a 36mm Explorer it would be a vintage piece. Otherwise the 39mm is perfect in my eyes. Kent
Thanks a lot for your thoughts.
I have been looking for a 36mm for a few months and its not easy to get hands on a piece in good condition. I have never worn the 39mm explorer but from a technical point of view it is the better watch. Both have pros and cons..
Id say 39mm is generally speaking the finest size for me.
Dont want to wear watches that are smaller or bigger. I must say i havent worn any of those pieces though.
I went with the 214270 mk2
The matte dial is major plus that helps with legibility, the proportions are spot-on, and the hands also have the correct proportions now. Before the 214270 came out, I was keeping with the older models (e.g. 14060M, 16600, 16710) as I didn't much care fo...
For me, the 39mm looks bloated
Stung by a bee. But that's just because I'm a fuddy from the 80s.
