Explorer 36 vs 40 PHOTO comparison

[Krash]

The 40mm Exp isn’t that big. It’s basically the same size as a DJ41. A DJ41 looks good on me but I think a DJ36 would look sort of small.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[afjag256]

Marine here…prefer the 36 mm.

Semper Fi

[Driver8]

I have to say, I genuinely don't get all the "too much empty real estate" or "the proportions are all wrong" comments when it comes to the 40mm (and especially the 39mm) version. I honestly just don't see it.

Sure some have a preference for 36mm; others for something larger. And that's cool, because not everyone's wrist is the same size. What looks good on one person might not look good on another.

And while saying that historically men wore 36mm and smaller, is factually correct, it's also factually correct to say that men also used to wear powdered wigs.... but it doesn't mean we should all do so today (unless you want to of course!). If it was my money, then on my wrist size alone, I'd go with the 39mm, then the 40mm, and then 36mm. But ultimately they're all great watches IMO, and people should just wear whatever they think suits their wrist size (and personal preferences) better.

[SaddleSC]

When choosing an Explorer, I love the traditional 36mm size and sold my 214270 in 39mm to buy the 124270. I absolutely love how comfortable and wearable the 36mm is and it is a lifetime keeper for me. When the Explorer is upsized, my eye sees too much empty real estate. The way I solved this "problem" was to buy the new Air King 126900. I have described it to others as a "Super Explorer" and that is the best description of how it wears. The added text and numbers tend to fill the empty space and make it really a great alternative for people that want an "Explorer-like" watch in a larger size:)

[Bozzie1982]

Jesus wept. The thing I hate most about social media….people cannot accept others opinions of it differs from there’s. Just accept them simple!

For what it’s worth I’d take the 40mm. That’s just my taste. 5 years ago I’d have taken the 36mm. Both watches can also be worn by men and women.

[RVAG02]

nice! More pics? Size of wrist?

[espanol]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

When choosing an Explorer, I love the traditional 36mm size and sold my 214270 in 39mm to buy the 124270. I absolutely love how comfortable and wearable the 36mm is and it is a lifetime keeper for me. When the Explorer is upsized, my eye sees too much empty real estate. The way I solved this "problem" was to buy the new Air King 126900. I have described it to others as a "Super Explorer" and that is the best description of how it wears. The added text and numbers tend to fill the empty space and make it really a great alternative for people that want an "Explorer-like" watch in a larger size:)

Great perspective on the AK. Have never thought of it that way, but totally agree. The text on the AK fills much of the empty "real estate" as you noted, when compared to the 39/40 Exp. Thanks for sharing

[loisvale]

Originally Posted by Saxonite

I prefer the 39. The 36 is a bit too small for my 7.25" wrist. I prefer the Explorer text on the bottom of the dial to match the other sports models as well. It looks too crowded on the top of the dial.

Totally agree. Love my 214270 MK 2. Think the dial layout is perfect on this model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[georgew]

Originally Posted by LA_LEC

I think it's time for another view of the perfection of the 39mm version!

Even with a 6.75 inch wrist, the 36 looks too small to me - reason why I purchased the 39mm (MK I) 12 or so yrs ago. Personal preference clearly

[cmoray]

I reccomend all the members to try the new 40mm version. I think it is a well thought design and feels great on the wrist.

[Oldstate]

The 40mm will be my next watch. My last watch purchase was a Portugieser 40 (all dial) and it looks perfect on my 7.5” wrist.

The 36 vs 40 choice should be all about proportion to your wrist. Larger watches have been common now for 30+ years. I think they have transcended temporary fashion and are the long term style.

Showing old pictures of big guys wearing smaller watches as justification is silly. Men also wore knickers for hundreds of years. They wore top hats of over 100 years.

To my eyes modern aesthetic makes a 36mm watch on a wrist larger than 6.5-75” look too small. The dial to wrist size ratio starts to look like what is common for women…which is why people think it looks feminine. Has nothing to do with “insecurity”.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

When choosing an Explorer, I love the traditional 36mm size and sold my 214270 in 39mm to buy the 124270. I absolutely love how comfortable and wearable the 36mm is and it is a lifetime keeper for me. When the Explorer is upsized, my eye sees too much empty real estate. The way I solved this "problem" was to buy the new Air King 126900. I have described it to others as a "Super Explorer" and that is the best description of how it wears. The added text and numbers tend to fill the empty space and make it really a great alternative for people that want an "Explorer-like" watch in a larger size:)

As usual, amazing photo, Charles.

[SaddleSC]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

As usual, amazing photo, Charles.

Thank you, my brother!

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

As usual, amazing photo, Charles.

I’d like to second that

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Driver8

I have to say, I genuinely don't get all the "too much empty real estate" or "the proportions are all wrong" comments when it comes to the 40mm (and especially the 39mm) version. I honestly just don't see it.
… :

I have to say I’m the same.

That said, I guess I like the 40 enough to have entered the giveaway

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I have to say I’m the same.

That said, I guess I like the 40 enough to have entered the giveaway

What’s the story on the giveaway?

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

What’s the story on the giveaway?

I was referring to the giveaway on the afterdark forum for the 40mm Explorer.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[BigPapiDoesItAgain]

My left wrist is 6.75" or 171 mm in circumference at the point where I wear my wristwatch. My favorite size watch is 39 mm. I thought 39 mm Exp 1 was perfect. 36 mm DJ's look small to me on my wrist, however I have a couple of older 37 mm dress watches on straps that look just right to my eye, and I can't explain it but there is something about 36 mm oyster case proportions that doesn't look right to my eye on my wrist. But I respect the fact that this size case is within what to me is the most pleasing range for modern men's wristwatches - 36 - 42 mm. That is squarely one man's opinion, and I wouldn't even argue the merits of it. Just say that is what works for me.

[watchmanjimg]

Clearly our opinions are informed by experience, and having loved these watches for nearly 50 years I was well into adulthood before Rolex increased their traditional sizes. Thus, I get a bit of a chuckle when I read some of the “too small” comments posted by the youngsters among us. That said, I’m not entirely opposed to the size increases and love my DD40. I also think the 41mm Sub was an overall improvement, while the Explorer II wears “clumsy” for my taste.

11 days ago my AD contacted me regarding a 36mm Explorer and naturally I took it home. For me Rolex definitely nailed the proportions by dramatically tapering the bracelet, which evokes a 1950s-60s vibe that I appreciate. I would almost certainly have taken the 40mm if that were available instead, but I suspect I’ll be happier with this one long-term.

I’ll leave questions of manhood, wrist size, etc. out of the discussion and wish everyone here a happy holiday season no matter what size watch you prefer. 😁

[watchmanjimg]

Clearly our opinions are informed by experience, and having loved these watches for nearly 50 years I was well into adulthood before Rolex increased their traditional sizes. Thus, I get a bit of a chuckle when I read some of the “too small” comments posted by the youngsters among us. That said, I’m not entirely opposed to the size increases and love my DD40. I also think the 41mm Sub was an overall improvement, while the Explorer II wears “clumsy” for my taste.

11 days ago my AD contacted me regarding a 36mm Explorer and naturally I took it home. For me Rolex definitely nailed the proportions by dramatically tapering the bracelet, which evokes a 1950s-60s vibe that I appreciate. I would almost certainly have taken the 40mm if that were available instead, but I suspect I’ll be happier with this one long-term.

I’ll leave questions of manhood, wrist size, etc. out of the discussion and wish everyone here a happy holiday season no matter what size watch you prefer. 😁

[lamnyc]

I originally asked my AD for a 36mm. But after a few weeks and trying out the 36mm against the 40mm, the bracelet on the 36mm felt too thin at the clasp . I have a 6.5 inch wrist and the 36mm felt much smaller to me.

[painexpert]

I have had the 36,39 and 40mm.I like the 40 the best.Im not a big guy but I found the 36 too small. The 36 would be great for a woman or a guy with small wrists. All three are great watches.

[espanol]

It’s a bit sad to see adults bicker in this manner over the size of a watch. This isn’t even a logical debate, just adults thwarting their opinions with no regard for other ways of thinking.

1) The original 36mm Explorers were marketed toward men. Google older advertisements and you will see

2) Any fans of the 6263 Daytona here? Well anyone complaining about the bracelet and its taper on the current 36mm Explorer should also complain about the 6263’s, as the dimensions are essentially the exact same (taper and clasp included)

3) It’s all a matter of perspective. I’ve owned both the 36mm Explorer and 39, and had no preference. They’re both great watches. I’d wager not a single one of you “36mm is for women” would dare say that to someone’s face while wearing one. Only exists in internet land

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by espanol

It’s a bit sad to see adults bicker in this manner over the size of a watch. This isn’t even a logical debate, just adults thwarting their opinions with no regard for other ways of thinking.

1) The original 36mm Explorers were marketed toward men. Google older advertisements and you will see

2) Any fans of the 6263 Daytona here? Well anyone complaining about the bracelet and its taper on the current 36mm Explorer should also complain about the 6263’s, as the dimensions are essentially the exact same (taper and clasp included)

3) It’s all a matter of perspective. I’ve owned both the 36mm Explorer and 39, and had no preference. They’re both great watches. I’d wager not a single one of you “36mm is for women” would dare say that to someone’s face while wearing one. Only exists in internet land

And of course most men in the military in WWII went off to fight with 30 to 32mm watches on their wrists.

[nighthawk77]

All great references, but I don’t have any desire to change my 39mm MkII

Aside from the obvious case size, I think the bracelet and clasps have a lot to do with how the watch feels on wrist. For me 20mm lug width is my sweetspot - as found on my Explorer and Sub 116610. The bracelet on the new 36mm explorer felt too small for me, and the 21mm bracelet/bigger clasp on the new subs feels slightly too big compared to the previous gen.

[direwolf]

The new 40 is near perfect imo if you have 6.75in wrists and above. The 36 is awesome as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by nighthawk77

All great references, but I don’t have any desire to change my 39mm MkII

Aside from the obvious case size, I think the bracelet and clasps have a lot to do with how the watch feels on wrist. For me 20mm lug width is my sweetspot - as found on my Explorer and Sub 116610. The bracelet on the new 36mm explorer felt too small for me, and the 21mm bracelet/bigger clasp on the new subs feels slightly too big compared to the previous gen.

I’m keeping it because I have it and love it. 39




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SALTY]

I, for one, am a very pleased 39mm MKI owner.

I have 7.25 - 7.375" wrists and large hands. For me the 36 wore small. The 40mm would likely work for me as well but it wasn't available when I purchased my Explorer and, lest I forgot to emphasize, I am very happy with my 214270 MKI. S&T, dress shirt and slacks/jeans, T-shirt/shorts and everything in between. At the risk of atrocious grammer - it doesn't not work with nothing.

I prefer the MKI over the MK II dial beause I really like the white gold numerals contra to the lumed numerals; I already have enough sport watches with lume. Moreoever, I like that the lum on the MKI hands just readhec the lumed indices withotu overlapping them. To me, that was an error in the design of the MKII dial - or at least a design feature I didn't appreciate.

YMMV
Respectfully,
Satisfied Explorer owner.

[JimSnyder]

I’m on the 36 side. The new Explorer ll is huge (in my mind) and the 40mm Explorer looks even bigger.

[direwolf]

Couple more on my 7in wrist. Really not as big as people think. Glad there are multiple sizes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk