Which Explorer?

[iberjan]

I've been meaning to add an Explorer (I) to my collection for a while now and am about ready to pull the trigger on a new one from my AD.

However, I am having doubts as to whether to get the current 40mm version or the previous 39mm (Mk 2).

For a 5'10" guy with a 7" wrist, which one would you all recommend? The 214270 Mk2 or the 224270?

[~Ocho1~]

dude, to be honest, I really like my 36mm 124270

I am a 6'4' guy with an almost 8" wrist. I was worried that it would be too small, but it really wears great. So much so that it made me turn down a DJ41 I had been after because now I prefer the 36mm

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by ~Ocho1~

dude, to be honest, I really like my 36mm 124270

I am a 6'4' guy with an almost 8" wrist. I was worried that it would be too small, but it really wears great. So much so that it made me turn down a DJ41 I had been after because now I prefer the 36mm

Attachment 1481634

That’s the best one, IMO!

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[iberjan]

Originally Posted by ~Ocho1~

dude, to be honest, I really like my 36mm 124270

I am a 6'4' guy with an almost 8" wrist. I was worried that it would be too small, but it really wears great. So much so that it made me turn down a DJ41 I had been after because now I prefer the 36mm

Attachment 1481634

No denying that it looks great. Kinda the same way the OP, DJ and DD look great in 36mm, no matter your size.

[majidessa]

Originally Posted by ~Ocho1~

dude, to be honest, I really like my 36mm 124270

I am a 6'4' guy with an almost 8" wrist. I was worried that it would be too small, but it really wears great. So much so that it made me turn down a DJ41 I had been after because now I prefer the 36mm

Attachment 1481634

I'm sorry to say but the watch looks small on your wrist, I understand the charm of 36 but I do not think that it fits all wrists equally good the same goes for 40

[gmtyacht]

Get a Tudor Ranger. Its 39mm and has a T-fit clasp.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by gmtyacht

Get a Tudor Ranger. Its 39mm and has a T-fit clasp.

Or the Heritage Ranger, which is 41mm and looks more like the OG 1950s Explorers with the all-brushed case and bracelet, straight endlinks and lug holes.

[iberjan]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Or the Heritage Ranger, which is 41mm and looks more like the OG 1950s Explorers with the all-brushed case and bracelet, straight endlinks and lug holes.

I've considered the Ranger, but Tudors have been hit or miss for me. Mostly miss, unfortunately. I've owned the BB Pro, BB GMT, BB Chrono and BB54. Only the 54 is still in my collection, the others were too thick/lopsided, even if they wore decently on my wrist.

[Clockmeister]

Originally Posted by majidessa

I'm sorry to say but the watch looks small on your wrist, I understand the charm of 36 but I do not think that it fits all wrists equally good the same goes for 40

Agreed. The 40mm would look better IMO.
If classic size is the main goal: if you were looking for a dress watch, (not for a tuxedo) would you choose a “classic” 33mm Patek Calatrava? I think most people on this forum would say it’s too small. But, it’s been a classic for many decades.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by majidessa

I'm sorry to say but the watch looks small on your wrist, I understand the charm of 36 but I do not think that it fits all wrists equally good the same goes for 40

I think it looks great, but here’s the truth. The only opinion that matters is that of the wearer. As someone else said, I have all different size watches in my collection, ranging from 34 mm to 45 mm. Today I’m wearing a 40 mm GMT, and it fits fine, and looks great on my wrist. Whatever anyone else may think is irrelevant.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[~Ocho1~]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

I think it looks great, but here’s the truth. The only opinion that matters is that of the wearer. As someone else said, I have all different size watches in my collection, ranging from 34 mm to 45 mm. Today I’m wearing a 40 mm GMT, and it fits fine, and looks great on my wrist. Whatever anyone else may think is irrelevant.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I whole heartedly agree. I've never been one to be influenced by what others think, especially rando's on the internet, lol.

I love my little Explorer & like how it looks on my ham hock wrist.

Funny, a few weeks ago I was at the poker table & this older guy comments on my watch, a DJ41. He says "that's a beautiful watch, but don't they make it bigger? Your a big guy, you should wear something bigger." I told him I wished it were smaller & I don't really like big watches. Of course he was wearing something like a 50mm Invicta, so......

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by ~Ocho1~

dude, to be honest, I really like my 36mm 124270

I am a 6'4' guy with an almost 8" wrist. I was worried that it would be too small, but it really wears great. So much so that it made me turn down a DJ41 I had been after because now I prefer the 36mm

Attachment 1481634

Glad you are happy with it but I don't think it's correct suggestion. Not many 8 inch wrist men will wear 36 mm. It's like 7 inch wrist wearing 30 or 32 mm which is ladies size watch. It's a no-go and TBH it looks small on your wrist.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by Maxy

Glad you are happy with it but I don't think it's correct suggestion. Not many 8 inch wrist men will wear 36 mm. It's like 7 inch wrist wearing 30 or 32 mm which is ladies size watch. It's a no-go and TBH it looks small on your wrist.

Looks great on anyone! It’s the original classic size for the Explorer. It even looks great on a woman:



I have a hard time taking it off to wear something else, since getting it for Christmas. It’s so comfortable and such a cool iconic piece.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Personally I’d go with the 40.

[WatchTimes]

I wear 40 mm watches mostly with a 6.8 in wrist
I ended up picking up a 36 mm Exp on a late night impulse buy.
Despite preferring 40 mm watches the Exp I is just perfect in 36 mm

[herts9]

I think the 39 is just classic. That would work with a 7" wrist. I have a 7.5 and had a 39 for a while, and it was just fine, and I'm 6'2"/225

[travisb]

40 would be the one.

[KatGirl]

You really have to try them all on and see how they feel on your wrist, and decide which one looks best. For me, it was a no brainer. The 36 is an awesome watch. For you, probably the 40 is a better choice, over the 39. The improvements in the bracelet alone are enough reason to choose the newest version. You will also love the glossy black dial.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[goldboy]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

You really have to try them all on and see how they feel on your wrist, and decide which one looks best. For me, it was a no brainer. The 36 is an awesome watch. For you, probably the 40 is a better choice, over the 39. The improvements in the bracelet alone are enough reason to choose the newest version. You will also love the glossy black dial.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Except that the new Explorer has a visible ridge on the inside of the case between the lugs when you remove the bracelet, so it looks pretty terrible on an aftermarket strap. This is a first for the Explorer, with all other variants being smooth and taking to aftermarket straps beautifully.

If taking the bracelet off is something you're never going to do then this is obsolete.

The older 39mm explorer MK II could be a sweet spot for many people since it sits between the new 36mm and 40mm size wise. Shorter lugs, upgraded fully lumed dial etc... and no case ridging with bracelet removed.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by goldboy

Except that the new Explorer has a visible ridge on the inside of the case between the lugs when you remove the bracelet, so it looks pretty terrible on an aftermarket strap. This is a first for the Explorer, with all other variants being smooth and taking to aftermarket straps beautifully.

If taking the bracelet off is something you're never going to do then this is obsolete.

The older 39mm explorer MK II could be a sweet spot for many people since it sits between the new 36mm and 40mm size wise. Shorter lugs, upgraded fully lumed dial etc... and no case ridging with bracelet removed.

I’ve heard that, but I have no interest in wearing mine on a strap. A NATO should work, though.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[espanol]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

The improvements in the bracelet alone are enough reason to choose the newest version.
Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What are the “improvements?” To the best of my knowledge it’s a size change to bracelet and clasp. That’s all. I wouldn’t see that as an improvement in any way personally. But maybe I’m missing what Rolex improved.

OP, if you’re not wed to the newest model I’d go for the 39mm Explorer. Matte dial, more balanced dial text as “Explorer” is written on bottom half. Just a perfect watch overall.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by espanol

What are the “improvements?” To the best of my knowledge it’s a size change to bracelet and clasp. That’s all. I wouldn’t see that as an improvement in any way personally. But maybe I’m missing what Rolex improved.

OP, if you’re not wed to the newest model I’d go for the 39mm Explorer. Matte dial, more balanced dial text as “Explorer” is written on bottom half. Just a perfect watch overall.

Milled clasp, instead of folded stamped metal, plus the easy link. Also, the more exaggerated taper of the bracelet makes the watch look awesome on the wrist.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[espanol]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

Milled clasp, instead of folded stamped metal, plus the easy link. Also, the more exaggerated taper of the bracelet makes the watch look awesome on the wrist.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Both the MK1 and MK2 39mm Explorers had milled clasps and easy link extensions… It’s not new to the 40mm

[iberjan]

Wow, I was not expecting this kind of response in such a long time! Thank you all for your feedback.

I have tried on the 36mm in the past, solicited feedback and been told that it looks "dainty" on me. Maybe it's that although I'm of average size, I'm kinda serious and the smaller watch doesn't match my personality. Or maybe it's that I tend to wear watches that are around the 38 - 42mm mark, typically. Not sure. This is why I discounted the 36mm as an option.

It's kinda difficult to try on the 39 and 40mm side by side since ADs typically haven't had both in stock at the same time. Both look great and in some respects the 40mm actually appears to measure smaller than the 39mm.

I think I might just bite the bullet, pick up the 40mm, wear it for a while and see how I feel about it. Then it'll be easier to compare it to the other two sizes as well since I can always walk into a store with it on...
This is probably the first time I'm this split about a Rolex, which is heavily favored in my collection.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by espanol

Both the MK1 and MK2 39mm Explorers had milled clasps and easy link extensions… It’s not new to the 40mm

Was thinking of 124270 vs.114270. Sorry for the confusion. I don’t care for the 39 much. Odd proportions, in my view. I’d rather see OP get the new 40.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[iberjan]

Originally Posted by espanol

What are the “improvements?” To the best of my knowledge it’s a size change to bracelet and clasp. That’s all. I wouldn’t see that as an improvement in any way personally. But maybe I’m missing what Rolex improved.

OP, if you’re not wed to the newest model I’d go for the 39mm Explorer. Matte dial, more balanced dial text as “Explorer” is written on bottom half. Just a perfect watch overall.

The matte dial is one of the bigger things drawing me to the 39. It's just more low key and fitting for a watch of that caliber. Sorry, had to...

[goldboy]

Originally Posted by iberjan

The matte dial is one of the bigger things drawing me to the 39. It's just more low key and fitting for a watch of that caliber. Sorry, had to...

Same here, I see the matte dial as a big positive. A nice change away from all the other glossy black dials in the Rolex sport lineup. It's definitely more "exclusive"

[espanol]

Originally Posted by iberjan

The matte dial is one of the bigger things drawing me to the 39. It's just more low key and fitting for a watch of that caliber. Sorry, had to...

Yeah I agree. The current range of Explorer 1s would benefit from having matte dials. I find matte dials to be more aesthetically appealing than gloss.

[spellmanski]

36MM hands down

[Kevin of Larchmont]

OG 36mm all day long, the 39 and 40 are pretenders.