39 mm Explorer Hands

[RoliSubMan]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

Here's the flaw in your reasoning: I don't see the "short" hands as a flaw. I don't even consider them to be short.

I'm not saying I'll take the watch in spite of the flaw. I don't even view it as a flaw, full stop.

You just have accept that reasonable people can have different opinions and likes and that not everyone thinks like you.

Why must I accept there is a flaw?

Because you might have lost the ability to judge

[RoliSubMan]

Originally Posted by 2jabs

In your opinion. Sorry my fellow TRF'er I just cant agree on this one.

You reaction is understandable. Just look at you avatar.
I don't own any explorer, no 36mm, no 39mm. I do not need to be biased here, but you do. My comments are neutral while yours aren't.

[Lion]

I can't believe you people are still arguing over and wasting breath on this non-issue(and me continuing to read this). I will say that it has been amusing and better entertainment then TV!!!

[2jabs]

Originally Posted by RoliSubMan

You reaction is understandable. Just look at you avatar.
I don't own any explorer, no 36mm, no 39mm. I do not need to be biased here, but you do. My comments are neutral while yours aren't.

I appreciate your comments I really do.

12 months ago I was fortunate enough to purchase my first Rolex. Pretty much anyone I wanted within reason.

I chose the 214270 as I Love the style of it. I did a lot of research on here (check my previous posts) and I took into account that some said they thought the hands looks short on the 214270. I would never have even noticed this had I not seen a lot of people arguing over it on here.

When I eventually tried on the watch, I personally disagreed with everything I read and was satisfied that the so called “Short hands” is just an issue with a selection of hardcore WIS.

What I’m simply saying is that you or anyone else out there cannot tell people what is what, fact or fiction. It's yours, mine and anyone else's opinion - nothing else. I'm not biased because I own a new explorer, that was my choice and I made it after this argument even rose it’s ugly head. I simply just love the look of the watch and for me, it’s perfect.

Maybe you are a hardcore WIS, that's cool I totally appreciate it.

One day I hope to visit Everest with my explorer and when I pass my timepiece onto my son in later life, he will wear it knowing it's been to the Himalayas, worn by his father. I’m sure my son will not give an absolute dam about an extra 2 mil on the length of the minute hand.

To each his own, can we not just leave it at that?

out of interest, what is on your wrist?

[SCD]

Originally Posted by RoliSubMan

My comments are neutral while yours aren't.

Stunning. Popcorn?

[rolexertion]

Beauty is all about proportion. The difference between a beautiful human face and an ordinary face is only a couple of millimeters in a couple of places. Same with watches. Same with pretty much anything.

I think most people here can agree that the proportions on the 36mm Explorer 1 were pretty well bang-on. Thus the question is inevitable, why change them substantially when moving to a larger case? If the watch is 3mm larger, and the dial is close to that increase, why leave the minute and hour hands exactly the same length as they were? That changes the proportions, away from what has been the standard for centuries.

If Tom Cruise's nose was the same size today as it was when he was in 6th grade, would he be a movie star? If Brad Pitt's eye spacing was the same today as it had been when he was 10, would people want to pay money to watch his films? No, they would both look ungainly and strange, at least as far as 'movie-star good looks'.

If everyone had the same tastes and preferences and insisted on perfection, only 1 or 2 people in 100 would ever find spouses. Fortunately, most of us can accept when something is 'off' by a fraction and be just fine with it. But when one of the foremost watch manufacturers in the world has the chance to hit one out of the park, and instead holds back apparently to save the investment in one small part of the entirety, one can't help but wonder why.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Beauty is all about proportion. The difference between a beautiful human face and an ordinary face is only a couple of millimeters in a couple of places. Same with watches. Same with pretty much anything.

I think most people here can agree that the proportions on the 36mm Explorer 1 were pretty well bang-on. Thus the question is inevitable, why change them substantially when moving to a larger case? If the watch is 3mm larger, and the dial is close to that increase, why leave the minute and hour hands exactly the same length as they were? That changes the proportions, away from what has been the standard for centuries.

If Tom Cruise's nose was the same size today as it was when he was in 6th grade, would he be a movie star? If Brad Pitt's eye spacing was the same today as it had been when he was 10, would people want to pay money to watch his films? No, they would both look ungainly and strange, at least as far as 'movie-star good looks'.

If everyone had the same tastes and preferences and insisted on perfection, only 1 or 2 people in 100 would ever find spouses. Fortunately, most of us can accept when something is 'off' by a fraction and be just fine with it. But when one of the foremost watch manufacturers in the world has the chance to hit one out of the park, and instead holds back apparently to save the investment in one small part of the entirety, one can't help but wonder why.

It must have been a giant nose if it was bigger back then.

[Gundam]

I agree with those that consider it aesthetically less pleasing.

However i am not surprised that it has its defenders, and of course everyone is entitled to their own views and tastes. But I think, as Rolex fans, people perhaps tend to make allowances for things that they would otherwise find less acceptable were it a watch from another brand.

[DG123]

Rolex chose to make 39mm hands wider than 36mm, so proportions are correct.

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Beauty is all about proportion. The difference between a beautiful human face and an ordinary face is only a couple of millimeters in a couple of places. Same with watches. Same with pretty much anything.

I think most people here can agree that the proportions on the 36mm Explorer 1 were pretty well bang-on. Thus the question is inevitable, why change them substantially when moving to a larger case? If the watch is 3mm larger, and the dial is close to that increase, why leave the minute and hour hands exactly the same length as they were? That changes the proportions, away from what has been the standard for centuries.

If Tom Cruise's nose was the same size today as it was when he was in 6th grade, would he be a movie star? If Brad Pitt's eye spacing was the same today as it had been when he was 10, would people want to pay money to watch his films? No, they would both look ungainly and strange, at least as far as 'movie-star good looks'.

If everyone had the same tastes and preferences and insisted on perfection, only 1 or 2 people in 100 would ever find spouses. Fortunately, most of us can accept when something is 'off' by a fraction and be just fine with it. But when one of the foremost watch manufacturers in the world has the chance to hit one out of the park, and instead holds back apparently to save the investment in one small part of the entirety, one can't help but wonder why.

[Sixxgrand1]

Originally Posted by DG123

Rolex chose to make 39mm hands wider than 36mm, so proportions are correct.

...well width-wise perhaps...

[Boadicea]

Originally Posted by 2jabs

The Milgauss minute hand doesn't touch the indices so you are wrong.

Um... touching the indices or not, they are still full sized and fill the dial nicely!

[Paracentesis]

They do look a little bit short, to me. I can't really understand why Rolex messed with the Explorer, it was a really nice watch.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

They do look a little bit short, to me. I can't really understand why Rolex messed with the Explorer, it was a really nice watch.

It's all about the ability to sell them - the Explorer had its niche taken away with the arrival of the 36mm Oyster Perpetual. A WIS might choose the Explorer over the O.P. because of the history, but for you average Rolex buyer, they'd choose the O.P. because it was cheaper and had a nicer feeling bracelet. By putting the Explorer in at 39mm, it sits alone between the smaller Air Kings and O.Ps and the larger Milgauss. Although I appear to be very much in the minority here, I didn't look twice at the old Explorer, but I love the size and feel of the new Explorer. I think it would have more of an appeal for a younger market, a market that Rolex is consciously tapping into with each of its upgrades.

With every new model, there are people who prefer the old models, but the fact remains that the new models are selling well, and transforming Rolex's image. We're moving into a new generation of Rolex watches and Rolex buyers, IMO

[DG123]

Excellent post !
I'll add that while Rolex may be introducing new styles to attract younger customers, the new styles also compel existing Rolex owners to buy a new model. For example , when Rolex introduced the 116000 OP and 116200 DJ some of the youthful looking dials, such as black orange and silver blue combos, the bold Arabic fonts, or DJ's without traditional DJ dial graphics etc...raised some eyebrows because these dials did not look like previous Rolex styles.
These new dials, new size cases, and bracelet improvements may make older traditional dials appear "dated". The changes all serve to incentivize a guy with a 5 or 10 year old Rolex to trade in his old watch and buy a new one.

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

It's all about the ability to sell them - the Explorer had its niche taken away with the arrival of the 36mm Oyster Perpetual. A WIS might choose the Explorer over the O.P. because of the history, but for you average Rolex buyer, they'd choose the O.P. because it was cheaper and had a nicer feeling bracelet. By putting the Explorer in at 39mm, it sits alone between the smaller Air Kings and O.Ps and the larger Milgauss. Although I appear to be very much in the minority here, I didn't look twice at the old Explorer, but I love the size and feel of the new Explorer. I think it would have more of an appeal for a younger market, a market that Rolex is consciously tapping into with each of its upgrades.

With every new model, there are people who prefer the old models, but the fact remains that the new models are selling well, and transforming Rolex's image. We're moving into a new generation of Rolex watches and Rolex buyers, IMO

[rolexertion]

Originally Posted by MonBK

It must have been a giant nose if it was bigger back then.

Pardon? Who said bigger? Have you been sampling the cooking sherry?

[Explorer 2011]

Originally Posted by 2jabs

I did have the option and I went for the 214270 with the Jeremy Beadle hand.

There's an old saying that you should always be with a women with small hands, well I chose a watch with small hands!

........in fact that's now what I'm calling it... "The Jeremy Beadle Explorer"

lol

The new "paul newman" = The "Jeremy Beadle"

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

Pardon? Who said bigger? Have you been sampling the cooking sherry?

How else would you get the food to taste good?

[rolexertion]

Originally Posted by MonBK

How else would you get the food to taste good?

My, you certainly do seem to slay yourself with your own 'wit'. I guess you mistake non-sequiturs for humor. As long as you're enjoying youself, pal.

Whatever you're 'on', I'm sure there are some people out there who would love to try it. As for myself, I'm happy with being clean and sober, always have been. Buh-bye.

[GradyPhilpott]

There seems to be a certain number of mean-spirited individuals on this thread who have no interest in discussion, but rather engaging in ad hominem attacks.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

My, you certainly do seem to slay yourself with your own 'wit'. I guess you mistake non-sequiturs for humor. As long as you're enjoying youself, pal.

Whatever you're 'on', I'm sure there are some people out there who would love to try it. As for myself, I'm happy with being clean and sober, always have been. Buh-bye.

I DO enjoy myself on these forums but what I don't enjoy is snide remarks on what I've been sniffing or what I'm "on".

[DeeJay]

I have owned the 39mm explorer since December. I was aware of the controvery about the hands before I bought the watch. Not one time in the 3 months that I've been wearing this watch did I look at it and think "gee these hands are too short".

The watch is perfect just like all rolex watches. This is my favorite and I've owned sub gmt-c dj gmt-coke

DeeJay

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

My, you certainly do seem to slay yourself with your own 'wit'. I guess you mistake non-sequiturs for humor. As long as you're enjoying youself, pal.

Whatever you're 'on', I'm sure there are some people out there who would love to try it. As for myself, I'm happy with being clean and sober, always have been. Buh-bye.

That was uncalled for

[WatchTimes]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

My, you certainly do seem to slay yourself with your own 'wit'. I guess you mistake non-sequiturs for humor. As long as you're enjoying youself, pal.

Whatever you're 'on', I'm sure there are some people out there who would love to try it. As for myself, I'm happy with being clean and sober, always have been. Buh-bye.

So uncalled for

[LostInTime]

Originally Posted by rolexertion

My, you certainly do seem to slay yourself with your own 'wit'. I guess you mistake non-sequiturs for humor. As long as you're enjoying youself, pal.

Whatever you're 'on', I'm sure there are some people out there who would love to try it. As for myself, I'm happy with being clean and sober, always have been. Buh-bye.

Really, really uncalled for.

[Lion]

Is it time for a commercial yet???

[2jabs]

WATCH out Beadle's about!!! Get it?

[Explorer 2011]

[zeuloa]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

It's all about the ability to sell them - the Explorer had its niche taken away with the arrival of the 36mm Oyster Perpetual. A WIS might choose the Explorer over the O.P. because of the history, but for you average Rolex buyer, they'd choose the O.P. because it was cheaper and had a nicer feeling bracelet. By putting the Explorer in at 39mm, it sits alone between the smaller Air Kings and O.Ps and the larger Milgauss. Although I appear to be very much in the minority here, I didn't look twice at the old Explorer, but I love the size and feel of the new Explorer. I think it would have more of an appeal for a younger market, a market that Rolex is consciously tapping into with each of its upgrades.

With every new model, there are people who prefer the old models, but the fact remains that the new models are selling well, and transforming Rolex's image. We're moving into a new generation of Rolex watches and Rolex buyers, IMO

Originally Posted by DG123

Excellent post !
I'll add that while Rolex may be introducing new styles to attract younger customers, the new styles also compel existing Rolex owners to buy a new model. For example , when Rolex introduced the 116000 OP and 116200 DJ some of the youthful looking dials, such as black orange and silver blue combos, the bold Arabic fonts, or DJ's without traditional DJ dial graphics etc...raised some eyebrows because these dials did not look like previous Rolex styles.
These new dials, new size cases, and bracelet improvements may make older traditional dials appear "dated". The changes all serve to incentivize a guy with a 5 or 10 year old Rolex to trade in his old watch and buy a new one.

Agree with both! Someone mentioned this was a design flaw - I don't consider something to be a design flaw if it does not defeat its purpose. The shorter hands allow you to tell time just fine - if this was not the case than it would be a design flaw.

As for aesthetics it is much more a personal like then a fact. I don't like the flashy colors that Lamborghini uses (and I would not buy one in what I consider a flashy color), but it is not a design flaw. A lime green Lambo will go just as fast as a black Lambo!

[RoliSubMan]

Originally Posted by 2jabs

I appreciate your comments I really do.

12 months ago I was fortunate enough to purchase my first Rolex. Pretty much anyone I wanted within reason.

I chose the 214270 as I Love the style of it. I did a lot of research on here (check my previous posts) and I took into account that some said they thought the hands looks short on the 214270. I would never have even noticed this had I not seen a lot of people arguing over it on here.

When I eventually tried on the watch, I personally disagreed with everything I read and was satisfied that the so called “Short hands” is just an issue with a selection of hardcore WIS.

What I’m simply saying is that you or anyone else out there cannot tell people what is what, fact or fiction. It's yours, mine and anyone else's opinion -

nothing else. I'm not biased because I own a new explorer, that was my choice and I made it after this argument even rose it’s ugly head. I simply just love the look of the watch and for me, it’s perfect.

Maybe you are a hardcore WIS, that's cool I totally appreciate it.


One day I hope to visit Everest with my explorer and when I pass my timepiece onto my son in later life, he will wear it knowing it's been to the
Himalayas, worn by his father. I’m sure my son will not give an absolute dam about an extra 2 mil on the length of the minute hand.

To each his own, can we not just leave it at that?

out of interest, what is on your wrist

Thanks for the long post. Lets leave it there shall we
I am a sub fan, currently have two. 16610 and 116613.

[RoliSubMan]

[QUOTE=rolexertion;2321484]Beauty is all about proportion. The difference between a beautiful human face and an ordinary face is only a couple of millimeters in a couple of places. Same with watches. Same with pretty much anything.

I think most people here can agree that the proportions on the 36mm Explorer 1 were pretty well bang-on. Thus the question is inevitable, why change them substantially when moving to a larger case? If the watch is 3mm larger, and the dial is close to that increase, why leave the minute and hour hands exactly the same length as they were? That changes the proportions, away from what has been the standard for centuries.

If Tom Cruise's nose was the same size today as it was when he was in 6th grade, would he be a movie star? If Brad Pitt's eye spacing was the same today as it had been when he was 10, would people want to pay money to watch his films? No, they would both look ungainly and strange, at least as
far as 'movie-star good looks'.

If everyone had the same tastes and preferences and insisted on perfection, only 1 or 2 people in 100 would ever find spouses. Fortunately, most of us
can accept when something is 'off' by a fraction and be just fine with it. But when one of the foremost watch manufacturers in the world has the chance to hit one out of the park, and instead holds back apparently to save tinvestment in one small part of the entirety, one can't help but wonder why.

Good examples, simple and clear. However i don't think they will be convinced.