36mm vs. 39mm Explorer I

[Cru Jones]

I prefer the 39’s size as well as the dial, which is better (IMHO) aesthetically (better balanced text, more open) and functionally (easier to read).

I understand the sentiment of “returning to the classic size”, but, for me, that’s why one buys vintage.

Anyway, Rolex disagrees with me (or they have other intentions with this watch).

[Calatrava r]

I prefer the new 36mm. I thought the 39mm was out of balance with the larger case but exact same size movement.

[Brich436]

For my wrist the 39 seemed off and not well balanced. The new one is utter perfection. All depends on your personal style and preference.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

I prefer the new 36mm. I thought the 39mm was out of balance with the larger case but exact same size movement.

Agree. Tried it on many times over the years and just couldn't get myself to love it. Didn't fully understand why until all the discussions of dial size and proportionality. When comparing to my 16570, I was looking at a watch with a smaller case, but a larger (and blanker) dial. Didn't work. Same reason I find my IWC Mk XVI just wears too large these days.

[bremersm]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It is my humble opinion that the 114270 is just about the most perfect watch ever built.

I felt that way when I first tried it on at the AD and I still feel that way eleven years later.

I have a lot of watches across a wide range of prices and sizes, so I'm not particularly biased. It's just an honest reaction to such a well-built and well-proportioned watch.

Looks like you are wearing a girls watch.

[got369]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It is my humble opinion that the 114270 is just about the most perfect watch ever built.

I felt that way when I first tried it on at the AD and I still feel that way eleven years later.

I have a lot of watches across a wide range of prices and sizes, so I'm not particularly biased. It's just an honest reaction to such a well-built and well-proportioned watch.

The watch looks great…a real Classic! Enjoy!

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by bremersm

Looks like you are wearing a girls watch.

Only if your masculinity is based on something outside yourself.

It's not anyone's fault that you lack those internal qualities that define manhood, not to mention maturity.

The huge watch craze is less than twenty years old, so I'm assuming that your historical perspective is also wanting.

So, your opinion is worth nothing to me, so take your trolling elsewhere, child.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by got369

The watch looks great…a real Classic! Enjoy!

Thank you, good sir!

You have excellent taste.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by bremersm

Looks like you are wearing a girls watch.

On the contrary, it would seem unwise to insult someone whose fist can make a 114270 look so small…

[Dr.Balance]

Originally Posted by dannyp

On the contrary, it would seem unwise to insult someone whose fist can make a 114270 look so small…

This^

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

I prefer the 39’s size as well as the dial, which is better (IMHO) aesthetically (better balanced text, more open) and functionally (easier to read).

I understand the sentiment of “returning to the classic size”, but, for me, that’s why one buys vintage.

Anyway, Rolex disagrees with me (or they have other intentions with this watch).

This

[WatchNutcase]

Everyone will have their own personal opinion on these two, very subjective and dependant on wrist size IMO.

I passed on the 39mm from the AD. First off it felt like way too much dial for my small wrist size of 6.5 inches, secondly the proportions and overall feel of the watch didn't speak to me, it felt quite bland. I passed and held off until I received the call for the Sub 114060 and extremely happy I did. The Sub may seem like the larger watch on paper but it actually suited my small wrist better, mainly due to the perfect proportions and the bezel taking up some dial room making it feel smaller.

The new 36mm Explorer would be absolutely perfect for a wrist size around 6.5 inches and would be ideal up to 6.75 - 7 inches. You could probably wear it on any wrist size but if you're wrist is larger than 7 inches that is when you'd probably want to venture into the 39mm territory and try the older larger explorer. The 39mm explorer has a lot of dial with open space combined with a skinny bezel, a dangerous combo for us small wristers as we enter dinner plate range.

[iaymnu]

Originally Posted by WatchNutcase

Everyone will have their own personal opinion on these two, very subjective and dependant on wrist size IMO.

I passed on the 39mm from the AD. First off it felt like way too much dial for my small wrist size of 6.5 inches, secondly the proportions and overall feel of the watch didn't speak to me, it felt quite bland. I passed and held off until I received the call for the Sub 114060 and extremely happy I did. The Sub may seem like the larger watch on paper but it actually suited my small wrist better, mainly due to the perfect proportions and the bezel taking up some dial room making it feel smaller.

The new 36mm Explorer would be absolutely perfect for a wrist size around 6.5 inches and would be ideal up to 6.75 - 7 inches. You could probably wear it on any wrist size but if you're wrist is larger than 7 inches that is when you'd probably want to venture into the 39mm territory and try the older larger explorer. The 39mm explorer has a lot of dial with open space combined with a skinny bezel, a dangerous combo for us small wristers as we enter dinner plate range.

I have the 39mm Exp1 and the new 36mm is definitely a better fit for 6.5” wrist. I even downsized my Seamaster to the 36.25mm and now waiting for the opportunity to downsize my Exp39.

SMPc 36.25mm. Although some complain not enough dial because of the fat bezel.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Only if your masculinity is based on something outside yourself.

It's not anyone's fault that you lack those internal qualities that define manhood, not to mention maturity.

The huge watch craze is less than twenty years old, so I'm assuming that your historical perspective is also wanting.

So, your opinion is worth nothing to me, so take your trolling elsewhere, child.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Yea, pretty much this. With few exceptions, any watch is a "men's watch" when confidently worn by a man, and any watch is a "women's watch" when confidently worn by a woman. End of story.

[zab]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Only if your masculinity is based on something outside yourself.

It's not anyone's fault that you lack those internal qualities that define manhood, not to mention maturity.

The huge watch craze is less than twenty years old, so I'm assuming that your historical perspective is also wanting.

So, your opinion is worth nothing to me, so take your trolling elsewhere, child.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

The 36mm size is for the purists in my view. It’s the original size and is appropriate size for a field watch. Men with huge wrists wore it and no one ever called them girly.

I don’t think a small watch looks bad on a big wrist, a big watch on a small wrist, that is a different story.

[Driver8]

As always with this, IMO there is simply no DEFINITIVE answer. It just comes down to two things - wrist size, and personal preference... and that's it.

Saying that a watch is only 'correct' if it's certain size is like someone saying, "Size 8 shoes are great, but size 10's are out of proportion". Well not if your feet are size 10's they aren't!

Obviously there's a little more leeway with watches as opposed to shoes, but that's where personal preference comes in. Too many people speak in absolutes, so I think a little more liberal use of "IMHO" wouldn't hurt at times!

[173rdabn]

I've had both and liked each for different reasons. However, I think the new 36mm is nicer.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Driver8

As always with this, IMO there is simply no DEFINITIVE answer. It just comes down to two things - wrist size, and personal preference... and that's it.



Saying that a watch is only 'correct' if it's certain size is like someone saying, "Size 8 shoes are great, but size 10's are out of proportion". Well not if your feet are size 10's they aren't!



Obviously there's a little more leeway with watches as opposed to shoes, but that's where personal preference comes in. Too many people speak in absolutes, so I think a little more liberal use of "IMHO" wouldn't hurt at times!

The Timex Marlin that I'm wearing now is 34mm and looks great.

A mere 25 years ago, 34mm was very common for men's watches.

My Hamilton Ross, ca. 1939, is rectangular and 26mm across.

I've gotten some smartass comments on that one to my face, but those with an IQ above 80 usually recognize it as a great example of style from that era.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

The Timex Marlin that I'm wearing now is 34mm and looks great.

How well does that keep time? I was about to buy one, then saw some reviews suggesting it just wasn't accurate... Was going to use it to satisfy my 34mm urge until I can get my hands on a new OP34 silver.

Or is yours an original, from the 60s, when Timex probably made fairly precise mechanicals?

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

The Timex Marlin that I'm wearing now is 34mm and looks great.

A mere 25 years ago, 34mm was very common for men's watches.

My Hamilton Ross, ca. 1939, is rectangular and 26mm across.

I've gotten some smartass comments on that one to my face, but those with an IQ above 80 usually recognize it as a great example of style from that era.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

That's exactly why I say there's no definitive answer. What's right for one person may not be right for someone else, hence why I always question when people make 'definitive' statements/proclamations regarding what size a watch must be.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by dannyp

How well does that keep time? I was about to buy one, then saw some reviews suggesting it just wasn't accurate... Was going to use it to satisfy my 34mm urge until I can get my hands on a new OP34 silver.

Or is yours an original, from the 60s, when Timex probably made fairly precise mechanicals?

It seems to gain about 12 seconds a day, but I don't pay that much attention to it, although I do reset it everyday that I wear it.

It is the reissue and fully stainless. It's one of my favorites at any cost.

I also have a 34mm Rolex 1503 on a strap that I'm very fond of.







Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[CowtownExplorer]

6.5 wrist, 36 is perfect

[RolexEDC]

Had the 39, sold it and now waiting for the 36. Dial felt too big on the wrist.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It seems to gain about 12 seconds a day, but I don't pay that much attention to it, although I do reset it everyday that I wear it.

It is the reissue and fully stainless. It's one of my favorites at any cost.

I also have a 34mm Rolex 1503 on a strap that I'm very fond of.







Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

Waiting until the California goes on sale since, for some reason, has better water resistance rating. The 36mm Mk1 is also tempting as a beach/pool watch.

[Bosstime]

39 would be my choice more classic IMO

[Dr. Robert]

I have both, 114270 & 214270. Both are excellent & I’m happy to have them.

[WatchNutcase]

Originally Posted by RolexEDC

Had the 39, sold it and now waiting for the 36. Dial felt too big on the wrist.

Great comparison image, the dial on the explorer 39 looks way bigger than the Sub.

[zab]

Originally Posted by RolexEDC

Had the 39, sold it and now waiting for the 36. Dial felt too big on the wrist.

Felt the same way about my 39mm Tag Heuer carrera which is very similar in style to the explorer. It wore bigger than my 124060 Sub because of the bigger dial and smaller bezel. I ended up selling it and don’t miss it.

It’s more than just the diameter, but rather the face size and lug to lug size that matters more. I find my 34 mm omega Genève wears very similar in size to my 36 mm DJ because of the dial size being almost the same.

[Thuilln]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Only if your masculinity is based on something outside yourself.

It's not anyone's fault that you lack those internal qualities that define manhood, not to mention maturity.

The huge watch craze is less than twenty years old, so I'm assuming that your historical perspective is also wanting.

So, your opinion is worth nothing to me, so take your trolling elsewhere, child.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

I concur.

[Thuilln]

Originally Posted by RolexEDC

Had the 39, sold it and now waiting for the 36. Dial felt too big on the wrist.

An image is worth a thousand words.
The Explorer looks like a satellite dish.