I almost pulled the trigger on a 114270 a few times. I like the classic size and simple design, but I just can't get pass the paint filled numerals. I mean even the older 1016 had lumed numerals. What was Rolex thinking? 14270 was already messed up, when it's time to upgrade it to 114270, they decided to keep the corners cut?
Doesn't bother me as the colour of the paint is similar to the lume under normal light. But if it is full white gold like the 39mm MK1 then it's a deal breaker for me.
I think after 214270 they should release a 36mm 314270 - with only "3" filled with lume, then 2 years later, 614270 - with only "6" filled with lume, then 2 years later, 914270 - with only "9" filled with lume, and then finally after a decade a 36mm 36914270 - with all 3-6-9 filled with lume. That would be an awesome release!
I'm also considering a 14270, and am having a similar issue with it. If I do pull the trigger, it would be on a tritium 14270, and I've noticed on some examples that have already developed patina that the stark white 3 6 9 (which obviously does not age) does seem off against the aged markers.
I don't personally have a problem with it. Especially if we're talking tritium then there's pretty much no functional glow to speak of anyways. The painted numerals bring a nice dial balance and a coldness that you lose over time when the tritium paint turns to cream. Best of both worlds IMO.
Perhaps not ‘seriously’ flawed but certainly a little odd. Just imagine the decision making process at Rolex: “Shall we fill the numerals with lume?” “No let’s just make it look like lume but not be luminous...” “Ok, great!” I have a 114270 and it is a super watch but I do notice the gaps in the lume when it is dark...
The first batch of 14270s had the "blackout" dials, but Rolex dropped that after 1-2 years, so it does seem like the company wasn't really sure what to do with the numerals.
I like almost everything about the understated nature of the 36mm Explorer but would also like to understand the thinking behind the oversized 3, 6 & 9 as well as the exclusion of 12. Any insights? Is it purely down to aesthetics?
I recently bought a 1996 14270 tritium with box and papers. I like it, but don’t quite love it. I find the typeface on the 369 is a bit modern and aggressive. We’ll see, I may end up selling.
i think rolex focuses far too much on up scaling dress elements. they want some bling. as for painted indices, maybe they want to keep it dressier. i feel most of the current rolex line lacks any design creativity.
I have a weird pet peeve... I don’t like metal surrounding the hour makers unless very small, like the Daytona....I guess that’s why I generally prefer vintage models with tritium plots. Yes, I agree with you and if you like the Explorer, I’d consider getting a vintage model if it’s within your budget.
I’m with you on that one. Before I bought a 114270 I was also baffled by the decision to enamel the numerals rather than lume them. In the end the overall package won me over and I’m glad I purchased it.
I have been tempted on numerous occasions but would prefer to spend the money on other watches for the price they are now. it also doesn’t help that I turned down a great example when they were relatively inexpensive because I was on a hunt for a 5513!
