WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
as they seem to be in the pix on Rolex's website? It looks as though they just used the same hands as were used on the 36mm Exp. So that leaves them 1.5mm shorter on the dial than they already were, and they were already too short for the old dial!

I'm a firm believer the seconds and minutes hands should touch the minutes track. It looks like the hands on the 39mm Exp. are close to 3mm too short. If they release it that way, it will look ridiculous. :rodekaart
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

well, I'm sitting on a train right now (free wifi :)) and looking down at my Deepsea Sea-Dweller, the minute hand doesn't quite touch the minute markers. The second hand does...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,213 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

I've not seen one outside of photos yet, but I've heard several people complain about the short hands. Must admit though, it's not that noticeable to me.

Jeannie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

I recently attended a Basel 2010 watch event at the Rolex boutique on rue de Rennes in Paris (pretty lengthly "trip report" on TRF). I had the pleasure of handling a pre-production Explorer - it had weights installed to simulate the production version.

I was blown away by how good it felt, and how great it looked on the wrist. Rolex really NAILED it with the size of the case, bezel and dial. Maybe not exactly Mount Everest rugged looking, but, really very nice. It felt instantly like a part of me when I tried it on.

I was well aware of the short hands before going to the show, and I criticized them and the numbers on the dial repeatedly in March, but, the overall excellent look of the watch made me forget to study the hands (o| o| o|) and made me not mind the glossy non-lume numerals.

I approve! :-! :-! :-!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I know what you mean, I feel the same about the Milgauss.

I was blown away by how good it felt, and how great it looked on the wrist. Rolex really NAILED it with the size of the case, bezel and dial. Maybe not exactly Mount Everest rugged looking, but, really very nice. It felt instantly like a part of me when I tried it on.
I do hope they use the appropriate length hands when the Explorer 39mm is in production, though.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
36,953 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

I saw the new Super-Explorer in BaselWorld and thought everything looked very proportional...until I noticed the hand length. :-s I would seriously consider it if they super-sized the hands to match the dial scale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
Re: I know what you mean, I feel the same about the Milgauss.

39mm pic taken at Baselworld '10....

what do you think?

Explorer I 39mm


Explorer I 36mm (s0meone's pic found on google image)



the minute hand on 39mm version seems abit too short (or the 36mm version's was abit too long:-d).

i wouldnt refuse the 39mm version if i was gifted one though :-! :-d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

Pretty brutal flash on the 214270 in that pic.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Re: I know what you mean, I feel the same about the Milgauss.

It's hard to tell precisely, but the minute hand on the 39mm Explorer looks like it reaches maybe 1/2 the length of the luminous hour marker it flanks, or about 3mm from the minutes track. That's just wrong. It should reach to the minutes track. Even the 36mm Exp's minute hand is a bit too short. My SD's minute hand just touches the minutes track, and it looks perfect.

Btw, the non-luminous 3-6-9 on the 39mm Explorer are also irksome. What was wrong with the original design anyway?

Nothing, imho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

Pretty brutal flash on the 214270 in that pic.....
The hall didn't have the best lighting condition for a simple P & S digi cam... So flash photography was my best bet (you are not "supposed" to take pix anyway, but no one really followed the rule).

This is probably the closest you will get to see a 39mm until it hits the AD windows/safe.....

Maybe I should bring a portable flood light next year.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

i wish they had just made the 39mm explorer I look exactly like the 36mm variety. the non-lumed applied 3-6-9 just doesn't work for me. and the hands look too short.

dunno. i was really excited about the new explorer I until i saw it. maybe i'll feel different when i check it out in the flesh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

Pheh - not a big deal. I'd be happy with the 39-mm......






....if I didn't already have a 36-mm. No need to change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

I haven't seen it. The small hands are a bit strange...I agree. I *really* prefer the new numbers. Most of all I really liked the old rounded white numbers. But the ones on the current 36mm, that don't glow, with the gold surrounds...that never looked right to me. I *much* prefer the new numbers. They're the same as the numbers on my Air King, very simple. In my opinion that's an improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

imo - it is quite smart for Rolex to slightly change the look on the 39mm Explorer I... so the real WIS can spot the difference :-d

why would a new 39mm owner want his/her Explorer I looking exactly the same as the 36mm :think: :roll:?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,251 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

why would a new 39mm owner want his/her Explorer I looking exactly the same as the 36mm :think: :roll:?
because the 36mm version was nearly perfect. they just needed to upsize it a little to 'modernize' it .

the hands on the new explorer are too short and Rolex ain't changing them so you either like it or not.

i'm in the 'not' camp unfortunately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

because the 36mm version was nearly perfect. they just needed to upsize it a little to 'modernize' it .

the hands on the new explorer are too short and Rolex ain't changing them so you either like it or not.

i'm in the 'not' camp unfortunately.
thats probably "the" good enough reason for Rolex to do whatever they have done to the 39mm.....

each to his own.

isnt this abit like the DJ vs. DJII discussion in the early days?!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
468 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

as they seem to be in the pix on Rolex's website? It looks as though they just used the same hands as were used on the 36mm Exp. So that leaves them 1.5mm shorter on the dial than they already were, and they were already too short for the old dial!

I'm a firm believer the seconds and minutes hands should touch the minutes track. It looks like the hands on the 39mm Exp. are close to 3mm too short. If they release it that way, it will look ridiculous. :rodekaart
I really wonder why they designed it with the short hands. Rolex does not do anything thoughtlessly, this is not a small boutique brand trying out something new. They must have had a reason for using the hand size they did, don't you think? Not sure if I will love it until I see it in person but wonder what the thought process was. I always loved the classic design of the Exp and the fact that it is now at 39mm makes it a winner - it was always the size that killed it for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,251 Posts
Re: Has anyone seen the new Explorer 214270 in the 'flesh'? Are the hands really as short.

I really wonder why they designed it with the short hands. Rolex does not do anything thoughtlessly, this is not a small boutique brand trying out something new. They must have had a reason for using the hand size they did, don't you think?
perhaps, but i'm not about to discount that they just made a bad decision. it's almost as if they decided they can't be bothered making a larger hand and decided to just keep using the same hands from the 36mm version.

i don't like the case on the new Sub particularly around the lugs. and some design choices on the DSSD were imo less than optimal. so AFAIAC Rolex hasn't been doing too good in the design department the last few years.

YMMV.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top