Explorer 36 vs 40?

[blackgold]

I am looking at picking up an Explorer I and love the new 40mm dial and watch but I know everyone says the 36mm is a classic and correct size for most people. I think my wrist can probably support either of them, as it is a bit under 7 inches, but I am 6ft tall, so everyone at the boutique said the 40mm looks better on me even though the 36mm still looks very good on my wrist I think. Getting older though, it's also nicer to have a bigger dial to see everything more easily Would love to get opinions though and will try to post pics of each too...

[RRGHOST1]

I would go for the 40mm myself. 36 way too small for a 6 footer !

[CNY]

I’d go 36- classic size, won’t go in or out of style

[Tritto]

This is a difficult question. I spent some time at an AD a few months ago trying on the two of them. I really liked the profile of the 36, but the bracelet was too dainty. I really liked the bracelet of the 40, but the dial looked too wide and flat (same height as the 36, but 4mm wider). I expressed an interest in the 40, but decided soon after that it really wasn't the watch I wanted. Quite the surprised when they rang after three months to offer the 40 and I had to politely decline
7.5 inch wrist, 6'1".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blackgold]

Originally Posted by Tritto

This is a difficult question. I spent some time at an AD a few months ago trying on the two of them. I really liked the profile of the 36, but the bracelet was too dainty. I really liked the bracelet of the 40, but the dial looked too wide and flat (same height as the 36, but 4mm wider). I expressed an interest in the 40, but decided soon after that it really wasn't the watch I wanted. Quite the surprised when they rang after three months to offer the 40 and I had to politely decline
7.5 inch wrist, 6'1".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I have the exact same feeling. The 36 looks a bit dainty, especially in a full mirror view, but the 40 is almost on the edge of too big/wide, based on it being mostly dial. In contrast, a 40mm or even 41mm Submariner looks great to me.

[blackgold]

Originally Posted by Tritto

This is a difficult question. I spent some time at an AD a few months ago trying on the two of them. I really liked the profile of the 36, but the bracelet was too dainty. I really liked the bracelet of the 40, but the dial looked too wide and flat (same height as the 36, but 4mm wider). I expressed an interest in the 40, but decided soon after that it really wasn't the watch I wanted. Quite the surprised when they rang after three months to offer the 40 and I had to politely decline
7.5 inch wrist, 6'1".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep I have the same feeling. I really like the watch for its simplicity and as an everyday wear, but the 36mm looks a bit dainty, especially with the bracelet, while the 40mm is a lot of dial and wide, as you said. A 40mm or even sub fits me well, but I wanted the more open dial look of the Explorer.

[xrole]

So I have had a 36mm Explorer on order for a few months now and I did it without really checking in person and just relied on internet photos and feedback to determine if a 36mm would be fine for my 7.1" wrist. Big mistake.

Yesterday I tried the 36mm on in the AD and t looks TINY, like a ladies watch. I understand the desire to look "vintage", but to me that is more a matter of styling, not so much size. If going vintage means looking like you are wearing a watch that is unusually small for your wrist, giving a disproportionate look, then I will gladly skip it. The 40mm which I then tried on is a far better fit size for a 7"+ wrist and looks in proportion. If you have a female partner than wants to share your watch then sure, go for the 36mm so you can both wear it, but for the average guy then the 40mm is the way to go.

I also tried on the 37mm Yacht Master and it also looked really small on my 7.1" wrist, the 40mm fitted perfectly, so I ordered the blue version of that too.

EDIT - Good explanation here https://www.ablogtowatch.com/hands-o...erence-224270/

Part of why the current Rolex Explorer 36 feels small is because the watch actually is slightly smaller than previous 36mm Explorer references. Aside from the fact that the case measures closer to 35.5mm, previous versions of the 36mm Rolex Explorer had their lugs set 20mm apart, while the current model reduces this distance down to 19mm. The smaller lug width means a more dramatic taper on the lugs themselves, which results in a further visual reduction in overall size. On top of that, since the bracelet is also thinner, the entire watch simply takes up less surface area on your wrist, and if you were wondering why the current Explorer 36 feels smaller than the Datejust 36 or Oyster Perpetual 36, it is simply because the watch actually is smaller than its similarly sized 36mm siblings.

Originally Posted by blackgold

Yep I have the same feeling. I really like the watch for its simplicity and as an everyday wear, but the 36mm looks a bit dainty, especially with the bracelet, while the 40mm is a lot of dial and wide, as you said. A 40mm or even sub fits me well, but I wanted the more open dial look of the Explorer.

If you have a 7"+ wrist go for the 40mm, no doubt.

[blackgold]

Yep, I've had the same feeling Tritto.

[1William]

I have a 7.5-7.75 inch wrist and find the 40mm works better for me.

[blackgold]

Originally Posted by 1William

I have a 7.5-7.75 inch wrist and find the 40mm works better for me.

Yes if my wrist was that big I would def go 40.

[blackgold]

I also thought about looking for a 39mm Explorer Mk2 as that watch seems to work well also, and 39 is usually a great size for my wrist, but the price on the secondary market is almost the same as a new 40mm if I wait to get one from the AD. I believe the 40mm measures almost the same as the Explorer 39mm too. Any thoughts?

[DoricSpiker]

Feels like the explorer I isn’t the watch for you. Have a look at other models.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

I’d go 40.

FWIW, I never see the dial issues with the 40, to me it looks perfect. I guess YMMV

[blackgold]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I’d go 40.

FWIW, I never see the dial issues with the 40, to me it looks perfect. I guess YMMV

Thanks

[Michael1968]

Originally Posted by brandrea

i’d go 40.

Fwiw, i never see the dial issues with the 40, to me it looks perfect. I guess ymmv

+1

[Dotikolos]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I’d go 40.

FWIW, I never see the dial issues with the 40, to me it looks perfect. I guess YMMV

[pablo_md1]

I think either one actually looks good. Pick whichever one you like best.

[rpdur]

36 There is a reason it has withstood the test of time. Classic proportions. As big as it needs to be.

[Calatrava r]

The new 36 has a narrower lug width and significant taper to the clasp which reduces its wrist presence compared to the older 36. People with wrists 7 inches or over should try both on prior to making a decision.

[xrole]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

The new 36 has a narrower lug width and significant taper to the clasp which reduces its wrist presence compared to the older 36. People with wrists 7 inches or over should try both on prior to making a decision.

I can confirm the new 36mm looks like a ladies watch on a 7" wrist... it does not look right if you care about proportions.

[pk552502]

Does the new 36MM explorer have shorter lugs where you need a curved spring bar to put a watch strap on in? I love the 36mm explorer but I would choose a 14270 or maybe a 114270 instead of the newest model.

[piratfisk]

Given the option of either looking possibly too small or possibly too large, I'd opt for small. The 36 works perfectly, I think. The 40 is a bit too "teacup saucer" for me. 40 is a fine size for a watch with a more prominent bezel (i.e.: Sub), but the Exp40 looks too big & flat for me.

Alternatively, maybe consider an Explorer 2 in 40 that has a more pronounced bezel & is still utilitarian? Or a Sub (no Date)?

[blackgold]

Appreciate all the feedback and comments. I'm leaning slightly towards the 40mm at this point as I do feel like the 36mm tapers pretty heavily and I like the easier to read dial on the 40, even if it does look massive when side by side with the 36. Need to go try on again at AD this week...

[xrole]

Originally Posted by piratfisk

Given the option of either looking possibly too small or possibly too large, I'd opt for small. The 36 works perfectly, I think. The 40 is a bit too "teacup saucer" for me. 40 is a fine size for a watch with a more prominent bezel (i.e.: Sub), but the Exp40 looks too big & flat for me.

Alternatively, maybe consider an Explorer 2 in 40 that has a more pronounced bezel & is still utilitarian? Or a Sub (no Date)?

It's only 1mm bigger than the OP39mm, which was the 'perfect' sized watch. Having tried on both 36 vs 40 in an AD I can tell you that the 36mm looks like a womans watch on a 6.5"+ wrist (I am 7"), it looks so small as to be proportionally uneven. This means that other people are also going to think it looks too small.

40mm is hardly a true "saucer" vs the MANY big 42mm+ watches within the industrym so lets not exaggerate that it looks 'oddly large' on a decent-sized wrist, because that is simply not true. Unlike the 36mm, the 40mm looks proportionally correct.

[piratfisk]

Originally Posted by piratfisk

Given the option of either looking possibly too small or possibly too large, I'd opt for small. The 36 works perfectly, I think. The 40 is a bit too "teacup saucer" for me. 40 is a fine size for a watch with a more prominent bezel (i.e.: Sub), but the Exp40 looks too big & flat for me.

Alternatively, maybe consider an Explorer 2 in 40 that has a more pronounced bezel & is still utilitarian? Or a Sub (no Date)?

Originally Posted by xrole

It's only 1mm bigger than the OP39mm, which was the 'perfect' sized watch. Having tried on both 36 vs 40 in an AD I can tell you that the 36mm looks like a womans watch on a 6.5"+ wrist (I am 7"), it looks so small as to be proportionally uneven. This means that other people are also going to think it looks too small.

40mm is hardly a true "saucer" vs the MANY big 42mm+ watches within the industrym so lets not exaggerate that it looks 'oddly large' on a decent-sized wrist, because that is simply not true. Unlike the 36mm, the 40mm looks proportionally correct.

Please see that I bolded/underlined/italicized key parts of my quote which you have missed. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

[blackgold]

Took me a minute to resize everything, but here are pics of the 40mm and 36mm Explorer I for comparison. Any thoughts on which fits better?

[xrole]

Originally Posted by blackgold

Took me a minute to resize everything, but here are pics of the 40mm and 36mm Explorer I for comparison. Any thoughts on which fits better?

40mm without a doubt if you want to be seen to be wearing a proportionally correct mans watch. Go with the 36mm if you want a purposefully petit look more aligned with a womans watch and odn't be surprised if you get some comments on how small it is.

[blackgold]

[painexpert]

40.....all the way.

[blackgold]

Originally Posted by painexpert

40.....all the way.