Hands on Explorer I 214270

[Jack T]

On several threads I have read disparaging remarks about the hands on this watch. Not obvious to me, what is that some people do not like?

[chrono1g]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the hands.

[cc75]

To some people, the hands appears shorter as the case is 39mm.
The previous Explo I had a 36 mm case.
I have this watch and i love it!!
Even with the"shorter" hands!!

[cop414]

I've read the opinios on the "short" hands, I feel that the current Explorer I is the best of the bunch and that the hands look fine.

[LA_LEC]

Men are always worried that things are too short...

[Cru Jones]

at the time it came out, the short hands were the subject of GREAT controversy on the boards. many threads from that time on the topic.

[ralpie]

It's funny because prior to (I think) around 1980, the 1016 had slightly shorter hands. I don't see it at all on the 214270. There hasn't been an Explorer 1 reference that I have not loved yet!

[alanc]

Originally Posted by cc75

To some people, the hands appears shorter as the case is 39mm.
The previous Explo I had a 36 mm case.
I have this watch and i love it!!
Even with the"shorter" hands!!

Comparing my 114270 to the pic, it looks like the same hands as the ones on mine, are used on the 214270. given the larger case, the reach of the hands is less. for example, my minute hand reaches the outer edge of the "3" on the dial, whereas on the 214270, it does not.

I don't see this as a big deal. One shortcoming of the hands (and this is true of both references) is that their thinness means not much lume, and relative difficulty seeing them in the dark, even on a full lume charge.

[Jack T]

After trying one on, it seems to me the minute hand is fine, it's the hour hand that is shorter than would be expected.

[scottb2]

would like to see a matt dial on this and any other rolex sports watch for that matter

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Jack T

On several threads I have read disparaging remarks about the hands on this watch. Not obvious to me, what is that some people do not like?

Its not obvious because in the photo you referenced, like most others i have seen, the minute hand is lined up with the dial marker to create the illusion of a full length hand.

In essence the minute hand could be longer, when compared with most other watches.

Personally, i do not like the short minute hand, the minute hand is to me the single most used part of any watch..... I tend to be more than a little particular about the hands and have sold several nice watches because i couldn't make peace with the hand design

[S1016]

Originally Posted by LA_LEC

Men are always worried that things are too short...

+1

[Lew Archer]

I think this is one of those issues that is driven, in large part, by photography...pictures of the watch many times the actual size of the watch literally magnify the hand length question.

When worn, to my eyes, the hands look proportionate.

This is one of my favorite watches. I usually prefer the classic, long established designs...hence, my preference for the pre-ceramic Subs, for example, and the older Explorer 2s. But, as much as I love the Explorer's history (and, as an Ian Fleming fan, it's connection to him and it's arguably being the literary Bond watch), when I tried it on, it seemed too small to me...despite my comfort level with more traditionally sized watches and relatively small wrists. I'm sure, had I bought it, I would have adapted to it, but the new 39mm instantly struck my fancy, and so, that, plus the upgrades to the movement and bracelet, sold me on the 39mm, which is a pleasure to wear. A great watch.

[stockrabbit]

I have the watch, and it's fantastic. I can enjoy it without lying though. Yes, it would be better with both fatter and longer hands. Something to look forward to in the next version :) (hopefully with a cerachrome bezel -- tired of all the scuffs, and the introduction of something called the mini glidelock). This version should finally be started in rose gold, it's earned it!

[Concord]

I have a Rolex brochure which is dated circa the early 1980s, showing that Explorer I. I see NO difference between the hands in the brochure, and the hands on yours! The picture you posted appears to me to be a cut from Rolex literature, rather than a photo of yours. However, if yours looks like the image, it's fine! Put it down to the jealousy of those who wish they owned such a nice watch. There are SO many "experts" around, aren't there? It gets frustrating!

[wingku]

Originally Posted by Concord

I have a Rolex brochure which is dated circa the early 1980s, showing that Explorer I. I see NO difference between the hands in the brochure, and the hands on yours! The picture you posted appears to me to be a cut from Rolex literature, rather than a photo of yours. However, if yours looks like the image, it's fine! Put it down to the jealousy of those who wish they owned such a nice watch. There are SO many "experts" around, aren't there? It gets frustrating!

[TimeOnMyHands]

Hands are a little undersized on the EXP39mm while a little over sized on the EXPII42mm. IMHO

[Castor]

The Explorer I was the most comfortable watch that I ever wore. But I found the black dial with those hands nearly impossible to read (I'm at that age... sigh!). That's why I chose the Polar Explorer 216570: very easy to read.
Now and Explorer I with the polar dial and the 2165790s hands (minus the orange hand), I would trade for in a heartbeat!

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by Concord

I have a Rolex brochure which is dated circa the early 1980s, showing that Explorer I. I see NO difference between the hands in the brochure, and the hands on yours! The picture you posted appears to me to be a cut from Rolex literature, rather than a photo of yours. However, if yours looks like the image, it's fine! Put it down to the jealousy of those who wish they owned such a nice watch. There are SO many "experts" around, aren't there? It gets frustrating!

That is a photo from a Rolex brochure, I expect to pull the trigger on my own Explorer any day now, short hands and all. I'll post my own when acquired.

[CharlieR6VED]

I have this watch (39mm) and have no issues with the hands whatsoever - fair enough for people who do but I really don't see the issue.

[cornerstore]

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthre...58#post4420558
comparison pics. No issue on size for me.

[dysondiver]

Originally Posted by Castor

The Explorer I was the most comfortable watch that I ever wore. But I found the black dial with those hands nearly impossible to read (I'm at that age... sigh!). That's why I chose the Polar Explorer 216570: very easy to read.
Now and Explorer I with the polar dial and the 2165790s hands (minus the orange hand), I would trade for in a heartbeat!

a pic would be great ,,,, sounds very interesting.

[Old Expat Beast]

The hands aren't shorter, the dial is just bigger.

[Jack T]

image.jpgWell, finally got around to it, picked up my new favorite about three weeks ago, and haven't taken it off since.

[Cesium133]

Glad you saw past the hand issue. Really not a big deal IMHO. Could they be a tad longer? Yes, but it doesn't take away from the fact it's one of the most handsome watches out there. Congratulations on the purchase and enjoy the 214270!

[franklin]

Perfect watch.

[RollieVerde]

Originally Posted by Castor

The Explorer I was the most comfortable watch that I ever wore. But I found the black dial with those hands nearly impossible to read (I'm at that age... sigh!). That's why I chose the Polar Explorer 216570: very easy to read.
Now and Explorer I with the polar dial and the 2165790s hands (minus the orange hand), I would trade for in a heartbeat!

Interesting. I find white hands on a white dial impossible to read, at least in the case of some watches I've worn. Never worn a Polar Explorer II, though. One of the reasons I have an Explorer 1 is legibility, which I find excellent. I can read the time w/o my glasses in pretty much any light with no problem. It must be a contrast thing, and people's eyes can be very different in this regard.

[Rags]

I love it..

[sea-dweller]

Originally Posted by LA_LEC

Men are always worried that things are too short...

[Anthon]

I bought my Explorer today. When researching the watch I was slightly concerned about the hand issue, although from the pictures I could not see what all the fuss was about. Now that I've worn the watch for a day I can say that not once I saw any issue with the hands whilst wearing the watch. Not once did I think 'hmmm, those hands are short' or 'hmmm...can't read what time it is due to the short minute hand'. And trust me, at this stage of owning a new watch I am hyper sensitive to any minute imperfection.

Only when I was setting the watch did I notice that it was a bit harder to accurately set the minute hand exactly on the minute as in any previous watches. The distance from the and to the markers made it a bit harder. But that has as much to do with my OCD as with the shortness of the minute hand, I gather! Again, when the watch is worn, it is a non issue.