214270 v 16610

[spursfannn]

Have been eyeing up the Explorer 214270 for some time now, but unable to try one on since none of my ADs have any.

I currently have a Sub 16610 and I really like the fit of it on my wrist, the modern day supercase Subs are too big for my wrists.

Can anyone who has a 214270 and a 16610 chime in whether they wear similarly, or does the Explorer wear larger due to the case?

[JSL420]

I have 214270 and put on a 16610 quite few times
They are very different, 214270 looks bigger and has a very good bracelet.
6.5 inch wrist here
I prefer no date so 14060 is my choice over 16610

[campfire]

I have a 16610 and for a long time considered the Exp1. In some ways, I found that the Exp1 wears similar to a 16610 or even larger. I do love the fit of the 16610 and in the end passed on an Exp1 for a DJ36. 7 inch wrist.

The Exp1 is a great watch though as you know. Just passed on it as I felt it would be redundant for my use.

Hope this helps.

[importstunna]

I have both and they wear very similarly to me. They are also almost identical in weight once sized. 214270 does look bigger due to the bigger dial/smaller bezel structure, not necessarily due to the case size. 214270's case isn't a wide super case like the modern Sub or GMT FYI.

I would go for it, these 2 references compliment each other very well. Good luck!

[spursfannn]

Appreciate the feedback

[spursfannn]

Originally Posted by importstunna

I have both and they wear very similarly to me. They are also almost identical in weight once sized. 214270 does look bigger due to the bigger dial/smaller bezel structure, not necessarily due to the case size. 214270's case isn't a wide super case like the modern Sub or GMT FYI.

I would go for it, these 2 references compliment each other very well. Good luck!

Do you have any wrist pics, would be interesting to see the two references on the same wrist