214270 or 124270?

[boychild]

Let me know your thoughts!

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by boychild

Let me know your thoughts!

I own them both. I’ve never worn the 36, a great watch. It’s just too small. But I love the black dial. Wondered it in the collection. But for wearing, scene, the Lumidnight, the size, 39.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kenny G]

OP this really depends on your wrist size. It’s a pretty meaningless poll without that info.

If you’re under 6.75” I’d strongly suggest the 36mm.

6.75” or above is where the 39mm becomes an option….although you should probably have a 7” or bigger for a great fit.

[diracpoint]

214270 mk II because of

✅ MATTE dial
✅Modern case size
✅"Explorer" text at the bottom
✅Full lume

[MHB]

I have and prefer the 39. Most wrists can pull it off, small or large. 39mm is not a big watch and wears way smaller than a modern sub or GMT. Both are great options though!

[Lunaen]

I went for the 124270 because in my opinion this kind of watch (three hand time only) shouldn’t be as large as your typical rotating bezel sports watch. Something to note is the dial size. The dial on the 124270 is 30.5mm which is the same as the submariner and GMT master.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StillTrying]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

OP this really depends on your wrist size. It’s a pretty meaningless poll without that info.

If you’re under 6.75” I’d strongly suggest the 36mm.

6.75” or above is where the 39mm becomes an option….although you should probably have a 7” or bigger for a great fit.

Exactly this. I have a 6.75 and have both explorers in question. The 36 fit like a glove; however, I let it go because I need the date.

[tifosi]

If one of those references is 36mm then that one.

[JMGoodnight369]

I’ve had three of the last generations of the explorer and for me (6.5 inch wrist) it went from 214270, 114270 and then the 124270. The matte dial on the MK2 explorer is fantastic. It really adds a sort of rustic feel and the size is great. The dial does seem a bit large but hey that’s more room for lume. The 124270 is great but it wears smaller than the 114270. The glossy dial does add a little more class. Also the 3132 movement in the 214270 is a beast. I wish they would have just used these instead of “upgrading” to the 3230 in the 124270

[MickCollins1916]

I wouldn’t be sad to own the 36mm someday, but I’ve had the 39mm 214270 for six years and the love’s still strong for it on my ~7in wrist.

FWIW I wouldn’t pay today’s secondary market price for either.

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by diracpoint

214270 mk II because of



MATTE dial

Modern case size

"Explorer" text at the bottom

Full lume

You could pull off the 36 easily.

Sent using Tapatalk

[diracpoint]

Originally Posted by zengineer

You could pull off the 36 easily.

Sent using Tapatalk

Yeah, but I don't like it!🤗

It's a great piece, but not in a configuration I want.

[Robf52]

39 is the sweet spot for me.

[JJGreen]

Size matters!

It depends entirely on your wrist size.

I recently got a 36mm and my friend got the same watch, 41mm. I couldn't pull off the 41mm and he couldn't pull off the 36mm.

[LA_LEC]

Originally Posted by Lunaen

I went for the 124270 because in my opinion this kind of watch (three hand time only) shouldn’t be as large as your typical rotating bezel sports watch. Something to note is the dial size. The dial on the 124270 is 30.5mm which is the same as the submariner and GMT master.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The larger dial size is a benefit for me. I can see it clearer with my aging eyes.

I also like that the dial is not so "cramped" as the 36mm - again a plus for me. I like open space and the balance of the 39mm dial is much cleaner IMO.

[*M5]

124270 on 7.25" wrist

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[*M5]

214270, same wrist :)

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[boychild]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

I own them both. I’ve never worn the 36, a great watch. It’s just too small. But I love the black dial. Wondered it in the collection. But for wearing, scene, the Lumidnight, the size, 39.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow - very nice! Thank you for sharing!

[boychild]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

OP this really depends on your wrist size. It’s a pretty meaningless poll without that info.

If you’re under 6.75” I’d strongly suggest the 36mm.

6.75” or above is where the 39mm becomes an option….although you should probably have a 7” or bigger for a great fit.

True - I have super tiny wrists but I love 40mm watches and I think Rolex does a good job aesthetically with their specs. I don't want to go grey with the 39mm so I may opt for the 36mm (that size is perfect on my wrist though). I haven't seen the 124270 in real life, but it does look like it has some wrist presence.

[boychild]

Originally Posted by Lunaen

I went for the 124270 because in my opinion this kind of watch (three hand time only) shouldn’t be as large as your typical rotating bezel sports watch. Something to note is the dial size. The dial on the 124270 is 30.5mm which is the same as the submariner and GMT master.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does it have a wrist presence regardless of its smaller size? Curious.

[boychild]

Originally Posted by JJGreen

Size matters!

It depends entirely on your wrist size.

I recently got a 36mm and my friend got the same watch, 41mm. I couldn't pull off the 41mm and he couldn't pull off the 36mm.

Yeah, I have smaller wrists and 36mm is perfect for me, although not sure about its wrist presence compared to the 39mm. Haven't seen both IRL.

[boychild]

Originally Posted by *M5

124270 on 7.25" wristAttachment 1331104

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Wow - did you end up buying it? Does it have a wrist presence regardless of its smaller size? Curious.

[boychild]

Originally Posted by *M5

214270, same wrist :) Attachment 1331105

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Love it! Thanks for sharing! Almost pulled the trigger on this one when my AD had it, but I opted for the Sub date instead. No regrets!

[S.Explorer]

36mm for me, slim wrist size.

[boychild]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

I’ve had three of the last generations of the explorer and for me (6.5 inch wrist) it went from 214270, 114270 and then the 124270. The matte dial on the MK2 explorer is fantastic. It really adds a sort of rustic feel and the size is great. The dial does seem a bit large but hey that’s more room for lume. The 124270 is great but it wears smaller than the 114270. The glossy dial does add a little more class. Also the 3132 movement in the 214270 is a beast. I wish they would have just used these instead of “upgrading” to the 3230 in the 124270

Very informative and helpful! Cheers!

[douglasf13]

I prefer the days when the DJ, DD, Exp, Exp II, SubDate and GMT all had the same dial size and 20mm lug width. I’m 6’2” with 7” wrist wearing 36mm 114270:

[matthew P]

I own both…. Flat/ skinny 7 inch wrist.

I never wear the MKII any more. The case and bracelet wear very well and the size is modern and sporty while also being comfortable. What I don’t like is the dial size, it always felt like there was a little too much dial for the design.

The 124270 solved that issue for me and arrived at a time I was looking for a smaller daily wearer.
The 36mm case size is almost too small for me but the vintage sizing is incredibly comfortable and the gloss dial, AR coating and text layout combined with the 19mm lug width to add enough presence on bracelet that it’s become my most worn and favorite watch.

I agree that 6.75 and under - 124270 best
71/4 and above - MKII fantastic ( unless really chasing the vintage size feel )
Those in between need to decide on personal preferences.










Both work…. I just prefer seeing more bracelet and less bezel & dial.
I also prefer the hour hand pointer on the 124 and the relative length of the minute\ hour hand on the 124.


..Explorer & Spring Diver - I’m just here for the photos..

[Jack T]

I wonder if the results are skewed just because of availability. So many hailed the return of the 36mm, it’s original size; yet over the past 10 years the vast majority of Explorer’s sold are the 39mm. Most people haven’t even had the chance to try on new 214270, they just aren’t around to see.

I have a 39mm, Mk1, short hands, WG numerals, and I’ll repeat what I’ve said before - it was my third Rolex and had it been my first, I might be my only Rolex. But from what I’ve seen, the 36mm is a solid piece.

[Walkersun]

36 on 6.5” wrist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[*M5]

Originally Posted by boychild

Wow - did you end up buying it? Does it have a wrist presence regardless of its smaller size? Curious.

It was just an exhibition model, it's tough to say in terms of wrist presence...

First time I tried it on, I was wearing my Daytona and when I put the 124270 on, it literally felt like a woman's watch. So much so, even the associates mentioned it.

Second time around, I went in wearing my 36mm Datejust and I put it on and it didn't feel that small anymore.


To my eyes, the 36mm DJ and OP wear larger.

The watch itself is fine, for me though, it's that dainty bracelet that feels out of place on my wrist (again, 7.25").


Personally I would like to try the two tone 124273, as the 39mm 214270 is not likely to leave my collection :)

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk