ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

35lux · 15 June 2016, 11:29 AM

The updated 2016 Explorer 214270 has been well received, its time for Rolex release a modern version of the 36mm Explorer 114270.

fskywalker · 15 June 2016, 11:48 AM

Like many, prefer the geometry of the 114270 versus the 214270 (had both). However, think is unlikely that would ever happen

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

watchwatcher · 15 June 2016, 11:51 AM

Sorry, going to have to dissent. I think the new version at 39mm is a total home run.

roll9 · 15 June 2016, 11:54 AM

I couldn't agree more.
36 is a sweet spot for that watch.

Jack T · 15 June 2016, 12:03 PM

I prefer the first iteration of the 214270, 39mm, matte black dial, white gold numerals. Sublime simplicity. Wish they gave the 2016 version a different reference.

Etschell · 15 June 2016, 12:24 PM

What's needed ? The hands are in proportion. Other than blue lume and lumed 3 6 9 it's fine.

35lux · 15 June 2016, 01:18 PM

I like to see:

- Solid link bracelet with Easylink adjustment
- Chromalight lume
- Matte or Gloss dial

36mm caters for people with smaller sized wrists. I'm sure there will be a high demand for it.

soundserious · 15 June 2016, 01:43 PM

This should be a short and sweet thread.

sea-dweller · 15 June 2016, 02:02 PM

What's wrong with the original model? (smiles)

One of my favorite models!

Old Expat Beast · 15 June 2016, 02:44 PM

No updates required for me. The 14270 and 114270 are two of the most underpriced Rolex refs around right now.

35lux · 15 June 2016, 03:04 PM

Nothing wrong with the 14270 or 114270, but only available in the used market at varied conditions. If Rolex can update the current 214270 why not looking into the 114270.

speedolex · 15 June 2016, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etschell

What's needed ? The hands are in proportion. Other than blue lume and lumed 3 6 9 it's fine.

You're forgetting something quite important.

The 36mm size fits perfectly on the 20mm Oyster bracelet, it looks like the bracelet was simply designed for it exclusively. Photos above illustrate this nicely. No other Rolex fits on a 20mm Oyster quite like the 36mm Explorer.

The 39mm size hangs over the bracelet too much, it's a lollipop, ruins the flow and balance of the original design.

Maxy · 15 June 2016, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35lux

The updated 2016 Explorer 214270 has been well received, its time for Rolex release a modern version of the 36mm Explorer 114270.

They already updated this but albeit changed little name on the dial!

gery82 · 15 June 2016, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxy

They already updated this but albeit changed little name on the dial!

That's an absolute beauty! Only if it had an inhouse movement🤔

Anthon · 15 June 2016, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35lux

The updated 2016 Explorer 214270 has been well received, its time for Rolex release a modern version of the 36mm Explorer 114270.

I shudder at the thought of a 'modern' 36mm Explorer, with the 2016 fat hour and minute hands...

GradyPhilpott · 16 June 2016, 12:49 AM

I have to agree that Tudor has produced a watch to carry on the 36mm field watch tradition.

I can't wait to personally see one and put it on my wrist.

Etschell · 16 June 2016, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gery82

That's an absolute beauty! Only if it had an inhouse movement🤔

agree.

Rolex fan 61 · 16 June 2016, 05:25 AM

I prefer the 39 mm size

Kippers · 17 June 2016, 12:50 AM

The 39mm has long hands that seem slightly out of proportion. Would be nice if they made them shorter.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

fskywalker · 17 June 2016, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kippers

The 39mm has long hands that seem slightly out of proportion. Would be nice if they made them shorter.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The first gen 214270 had shorter hands, the new one just released have longer hands. Which one are tou referring to?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kippers · 17 June 2016, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fskywalker

The first gen 214270 had shorter hands, the new one just released have longer hands. Which one are tou referring to?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was trying to be funny. By the way tried the new Explorer in Geneva. Great watch and the lumed numbers do not detract from what is a classy watch. The white gold numbers before were too dazzling but in the right light looked classy. Now the balance is perfect in my view. 39mm is a great size.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

~JJ · 17 June 2016, 06:56 AM

I prefer the 39mm, I don't like how the 36mm is almost the same width as the oyster bracelet. Plus, I prefer 38-42mm sizes since I have a large wrist.

fskywalker · 17 June 2016, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kippers

Was trying to be funny. By the way tried the new Explorer in Geneva. Great watch and the lumed numbers do not detract from what is a classy watch. The white gold numbers before were too dazzling but in the right light looked classy. Now the balance is perfect in my view. 39mm is a great size.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Got it! I prefer the smaller size of the 36mm, but the fully lumed dial of the new 214270 looks sweet!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

15 June 2016, 11:29 AM	#1
35lux "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 37	Petition to Rolex for a NEW updated 36mm Explorer 114270 The updated 2016 Explorer 214270 has been well received, its time for Rolex release a modern version of the 36mm Explorer 114270.

15 June 2016, 11:48 AM	#2
fskywalker 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Real Name: Francisco Location: San Juan, PR Watch: Is Ticking ! Posts: 25,154	Petition to Rolex for a NEW updated 36mm Explorer 114270 Like many, prefer the geometry of the 114270 versus the 214270 (had both). However, think is unlikely that would ever happen Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ Francisco ♛ 16610 / 116264 Ω 168.022 / 2535.80.00 / 310.30.42.50.01.002 / 210.90.42.20.01.001 Zenith 02.480.405 2FA security enabled

15 June 2016, 12:03 PM	#5
Jack T "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: Jack Location: The Triangle Watch: Several Posts: 6,719	I prefer the first iteration of the 214270, 39mm, matte black dial, white gold numerals. Sublime simplicity. Wish they gave the 2016 version a different reference. __________________ Sub 116613 LN; GMT 116710 LN; Sinn 104R; Exp 214270; GS SBGM221; Omega AT

15 June 2016, 12:24 PM	#6
Etschell "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: FL Watch: platinum sub Posts: 15,884	What's needed ? The hands are in proportion. Other than blue lume and lumed 3 6 9 it's fine. __________________ If you wind it, they will run. 25 or 6 to 4.

15 June 2016, 01:43 PM	#8
soundserious "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: usofmfa Posts: 3,157	This should be a short and sweet thread. __________________ Instagram: soundsoserious

15 June 2016, 11:51 AM	#3
watchwatcher "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Kentucky Watch: Yes Posts: 34,996	Sorry, going to have to dissent. I think the new version at 39mm is a total home run.

15 June 2016, 11:54 AM	#4
roll9 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Real Name: Dan Location: California Watch: 1016 & 16700 Posts: 368	I couldn't agree more. 36 is a sweet spot for that watch.

15 June 2016, 01:18 PM	#7
35lux "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 37	I like to see: - Solid link bracelet with Easylink adjustment - Chromalight lume - Matte or Gloss dial 36mm caters for people with smaller sized wrists. I'm sure there will be a high demand for it.

15 June 2016, 02:02 PM	#9
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	What's wrong with the original model? (smiles) One of my favorite models! __________________ TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)

15 June 2016, 02:44 PM	#10
Old Expat Beast TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Adam Location: Far East Watch: Golden Tuna Posts: 28,784	No updates required for me. The 14270 and 114270 are two of the most underpriced Rolex refs around right now.

15 June 2016, 03:04 PM	#11
35lux "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 37	Nothing wrong with the 14270 or 114270, but only available in the used market at varied conditions. If Rolex can update the current 214270 why not looking into the 114270.

16 June 2016, 12:49 AM	#16
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,447	I have to agree that Tudor has produced a watch to carry on the 36mm field watch tradition. I can't wait to personally see one and put it on my wrist. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

16 June 2016, 05:25 AM	#18
Rolex fan 61 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: UK Posts: 1,262	I prefer the 39 mm size

17 June 2016, 12:50 AM	#19
Kippers "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Real Name: Alex K Location: England Watch: SD4K, BLNR, Hulk Posts: 397	The 39mm has long hands that seem slightly out of proportion. Would be nice if they made them shorter. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

17 June 2016, 06:56 AM	#22
~JJ "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Chicago Watch: explorer Posts: 2,284	I prefer the 39mm, I don't like how the 36mm is almost the same width as the oyster bracelet. Plus, I prefer 38-42mm sizes since I have a large wrist.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)