New Rolex Explorer 36mm 124270

[LFFL]

Had I not seen the 39mm, I would have thought the new 36mm was perfect. Comparing the two (I realize I may be the outlier here), my eyes gravitate more towards the 39mm dial. Possibly due to the spacing of everything, but the 36mm looks very compacted. I'm not sure if its the three lines of text up top on the 36mm causing that illusion, but I do like and much prefer the Explorer text positioned towards the bottom half of dial. Also like the longer second and minute hands on the 39mm


Below is a screen cap I've taken from one of Teddy's YouTube videos

[J-rob]

36

[EmpireCity]

I have to say the warmth of the steel/yellow gold is growing on me!

[S.Explorer]

The current 36 text arrangement is classic, but the font is bolder than the older 36s (especially the Rolex text).

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by LFFL

Had I not seen the 39mm, I would have thought the new 36mm was perfect. Comparing the two (I realize I may be the outlier here), my eyes gravitate more towards the 39mm dial. Possibly due to the spacing of everything, but the 36mm looks very compacted. I'm not sure if its the three lines of text up top on the 36mm causing that illusion, but I do like and much prefer the Explorer text positioned towards the bottom half of dial. Also like the longer second and minute hands on the 39mm


Below is a screen cap I've taken from one of Teddy's YouTube videos

Agree, the 39 fits my wrist better (7.25”). I also prefer the EXP text at the 6 o’clock position.

[HogwldFLTR]

With an OP41; the 36mm Exp starts to have some allure.

[Calatrava r]

I too had the 39mm for a while. It looked off, so I sold it. Finally, got the 36mm and absolutely love it. It will be my one watch collection if I downsize.

[WatchSmith]

I would be tempted to trade my 39mm for the 36mm.

[MHB]

Love my 39mm mk2. 36mm is frankly too small for me. It’s a small watch by modern standards. Even 39mm is small by modern standards. Go with whichever one sings to you.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by MHB

Love my 39mm mk2. 36mm is frankly too small for me. It’s a small watch by modern standards. Even 39mm is small by modern standards. Go with whichever one sings to you.

Maybe by modern 2008 standards. Classic sizes have been back in favor for a while now.

[Heady Topper]

A friend recently got a 124270 so got to compare it with my 214270 mark 2 and personally, I’m glad I was able to get a 39 before they were phased out.

The size make it sporty enough or small enough, depending on your wrist size, of course, to work in any situation.

Like others have mentioned, the Explorer text at 6 o’clock make for a more balanced dial layout.

39 was widely well received for both the Explorer and OP, so just having a 39mm Rolex is nice, to me anyway.

So it seems watch enthusiasts are in one of either camp when it comes to the Explorer:

1. Those who saw the 39mm as a design upgrade for its size and dial layout (not to mention modern 20mm bracelet)

2. Those who prefer what Rolex tells them is the right/latest look, so the 36 with classic dial layout and, well, 36mm case size.

The 19mm bracelet and its taper are just too dainty for me. Feels too dressy and I have little to no use for a dress sized watch in my collection. That said, everyone’s mileage will vary :)

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Heady Topper

So it seems watch enthusiasts are in one of either camp when it comes to the Explorer:

1. Those who saw the 39mm as a design upgrade for its size and dial layout (not to mention modern 20mm bracelet)

2. Those who prefer what Rolex tells them is the right/latest look, so the 36 with classic dial layout and, well, 36mm case size.

“Those who prefer what Rolex tells them is the right look.” The entire point of the Explorer is that it does away with complication so it can be compact and lightweight for use in the field. If you’re gonna go larger, you may as well get the GMT or 16570, so you get the extra complication that comes with the size penalty. The 39mm version of the Exp was a fashion move that never made sense.

Now, I don’t love the 19mm bracelet on the new one, but it least Rolex went back to the original, 55+ years old concept of the Explorer as the basis of a modular sports watch line.

[bgbg13]

I’ve had the old 36 and the 39.
I have 6.5” wrists as well.
36 for me without question.
One of the best watches you can have IMO.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Heady Topper]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

“Those who prefer what Rolex tells them is the right look.” The entire point of the Explorer is that it does away with complication so it can be compact and lightweight for use in the field. If you’re gonna go larger, you may as well get the GMT or 16570, so you get the extra complication that comes with the size penalty. The 39mm version of the Exp was a fashion move that never made sense.

Now, I don’t love the 19mm bracelet on the new one, but it least Rolex went back to the original, 55+ years old concept of the Explorer as the basis of a modular sports watch line.

That’s what I was trying to say. To some, the traditional size and dial layout is more appealing as that’s the heritage of the Explorer line.

Others still see the 39 and its layout as a design upgrade. Personally, the Explorer at the bottom makes for a more balanced layout. I’m a graphic designer by trade, it’s not just an opinion I’m throwing out there, it IS more balanced. That said, I see the appeal of the new 36 being a closer iteration of the original Explorers, and to some, that may be more appealing.

You can chuckle and banghead all you want, or you can accept that others see it differently and that that’s okay :)

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Heady Topper

That’s what I was trying to say. To some, the traditional size and dial layout is more appealing as that’s the heritage of the Explorer line.

Others still see the 39 and its layout as a design upgrade. Personally, the Explorer at the bottom makes for a more balanced layout. I’m a graphic designer by trade, it’s not just an opinion I’m throwing out there, it IS more balanced. That said, I see the appeal of the new 36 being a closer iteration of the original Explorers, and to some, that may be more appealing.

You can chuckle and banghead all you want, or you can accept that others see it differently and that that’s okay :)

We can certainly debate which dial is more balanced (I'd love to see the actual designer weigh in,) and I think the older 14270/114270 dial is more balanced than the current model, but none of that is relevant to my point. I'm making a form follows function argument, because the function of the compact 36mm case is paramount.

[Heady Topper]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

We can certainly debate which dial is more balanced (I'd love to see the actual designer weigh in,) and I think the older 14270/114270 dial is more balanced than the current model, but none of that is relevant to my point. I'm making a form follows function argument, because the function of the compact 36mm case is paramount.

There is literally no difference in function. I’m not gonna keep debating as I feel at this point this is becoming a bit too “this is my favourite sports team you’re talking about” to you. All I’m saying is there is no right or wrong answers.

As for the balance in typography on the dial, again, I feel there’s no point in explaining this further. I could go full visual, pull out pictures of seesaws and try to illustrate the point, but when someone doesn’t want to see something, there isn’t much to do

Enjoy your watches!

[MHB]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Maybe by modern 2008 standards. Classic sizes have been back in favor for a while now.

I would consider 39mm a pretty classic looking size at this point. It's all personal preference. All of the Explorers are classics in my book.

[Lonehiker]

Originally Posted by Heady Topper

There is literally no difference in function. I’m not gonna keep debating as I feel at this point this is becoming a bit too “this is my favourite sports team you’re talking about” to you. All I’m saying is there is no right or wrong answers.

As for the balance in typography on the dial, again, I feel there’s no point in explaining this further. I could go full visual, pull out pictures of seesaws and try to illustrate the point, but when someone doesn’t want to see something, there isn’t much to do

Enjoy your watches!

That’s because preference and taste are rather subjective. I prefer the smaller 36mm size and feel the proportions are perfect (for my taste). Obviously, it’s good we all have different tastes, otherwise we’d all wear the same style clothes, drive the same cars etc .. which would make for a dull world!

[Heady Topper]

Originally Posted by Lonehiker

That’s because preference and taste are rather subjective. I prefer the smaller 36mm size and feel the proportions are perfect (for my taste). Obviously, it’s good we all have different tastes, otherwise we’d all wear the same style clothes, drive the same cars etc .. which would make for a dull world!

Absolutely! I’m quite happy both are out there :)

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Heady Topper

There is literally no difference in function. I’m not gonna keep debating as I feel at this point this is becoming a bit too “this is my favourite sports team you’re talking about” to you. All I’m saying is there is no right or wrong answers.

As for the balance in typography on the dial, again, I feel there’s no point in explaining this further. I could go full visual, pull out pictures of seesaws and try to illustrate the point, but when someone doesn’t want to see something, there isn’t much to do

Enjoy your watches!

Again, I’m not talking about the typography, which is debatable. That’s like bringing up the badge of a car, rather than the car itself.

There is certainly a difference in function, as one is more compact and lithe on the wrist. That’s the whole point of the watch. It’s also why the newer 42mm Exp II doesn’t make sense. Would a spelunker want a larger watch and dial to bang around on things?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by MHB

I would consider 39mm a pretty classic looking size at this point. It's all personal preference. All of the Explorers are classics in my book.

I consider it a trend from the Bruno Meier era, that, like the DJII and others, has been thankfully reversed.

Rolex essentially died to me after the pivot from the 5-digit, tool era, and, while I don’t love the 124270 enough to buy, I appreciate it as an indication that they maybe kinda sorta are attempting to reverse course.

[Heady Topper]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I consider it a trend from the Bruno Meier era, that, like the DJII and others, has been thankfully reversed.

Rolex essentially died to me after the pivot from the 5-digit, tool era, and, while I don’t love the 124270 enough to buy, I appreciate it as an indication that they maybe kinda sorta are attempting to reverse course.

You’re making my point, that your nostalgic about an old piece, and the latest iteration isn’t as foreign to you. Others saw the 39 as the right evolution path for this model (Rolex obviously reversed course). However, you seem to have trouble accepting that others see the previous version as superior/their preference.

I don’t have to agree with Rolex about anything :) I happen to prefer the design language and size of the 214270

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I consider it a trend from the Bruno Meier era, that, like the DJII and others, has been thankfully reversed.

Rolex essentially died to me after the pivot from the 5-digit, tool era, and, while I don’t love the 124270 enough to buy, I appreciate it as an indication that they maybe kinda sorta are attempting to reverse course.

The one thing the Explorer 39 did right that its contemporaries didn’t was maintain relative proportions and style. No fat lugs. No cushion case. No PCL. Also didn’t get “creative” with color schemes. To me, it was just too big. Partly, as you say, for tradition sake, partly because it was just too much dial.

Much prefer the replacement for those reasons. However, with that said, the ideal might have been a “Rolex 37mm” (which means a “true 36”), 20mm bracelet, with otherwise identical proportions to the current version. However unlike most, I prefer a watch a little smaller than ideal rather than a little larger.

[FTX I]

I'd love a 38mm Exp with glossy black dial, 3132 movement and adjustable clasp. I know that will never happen so in this case I vote 214270 for the 3132 movement and better size for me.

[S.Explorer]

Originally Posted by Heady Topper

So it seems watch enthusiasts are in one of either camp when it comes to the Explorer:

1. Those who saw the 39mm as a design upgrade for its size and dial layout (not to mention modern 20mm bracelet)

2. Those who prefer what Rolex tells them is the right/latest look, so the 36 with classic dial layout and, well, 36mm case size.

I've highlighted in bold your mistake. You could have worded it nicer to those who genuinely prefer the 36mm for the aesthetics.

[MHB]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I consider it a trend from the Bruno Meier era, that, like the DJII and others, has been thankfully reversed.

Rolex essentially died to me after the pivot from the 5-digit, tool era, and, while I don’t love the 124270 enough to buy, I appreciate it as an indication that they maybe kinda sorta are attempting to reverse course.

To each their own

[Innocenti]

The explorer always struck me as a simple under the radar discreet watch perfectly suited to its modest 36mm case size.

When it went to 39mm I felt it was trying to gain some wrist presence. “LOOK AT ME IM WEARING A ROLEX”

[matthew P]

I own both and the MKII never gets worn any more.
I prefer the visually “top heavy” redesigned layout and I prefer the smaller case size / gloss dial and AR.

It’s just a more comfortable watch and the vintage sizing and modern construction and lume makes it a modern classic in my book.

I get why some people prefer the 36/20 proportions and I understand why larger wrists will prefer the MKII.
After 20 years or watches trending larger the 124270 has been a very pleasant surprise on wrist


….Save the drama - I’m just here for the photos….

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Heady Topper

You’re making my point, that your nostalgic about an old piece, and the latest iteration isn’t as foreign to you. Others saw the 39 as the right evolution path for this model (Rolex obviously reversed course). However, you seem to have trouble accepting that others see the previous version as superior/their preference.

I don’t have to agree with Rolex about anything :) I happen to prefer the design language and size of the 214270

Nope, it’s not nostalgia. It’s function, but you’re so caught up on form that you keep missing it.

I’m 6’2” 190lbs. No one would say a 39mm watch looks too big on me, but that doesn’t matter to me. The point of the Explorer is to be compact and lighter weight than its sports model brethren. I wear an Explorer 24/7, doing everything from drumming to construction to hiking to tennis to golf to tennis to swimming to working out, etc., so I moved to it from the Explorer II, because the compact form and 30% less weight made it noticeably more functional and comfortable for actual use.

[matthew P]

Originally Posted by dannyp

The one thing the Explorer 39 did right that its contemporaries didn’t was maintain relative proportions and style. No fat lugs. No cushion case. No PCL. Also didn’t get “creative” with color schemes. To me, it was just too big. Partly, as you say, for tradition sake, partly because it was just too much dial.

Much prefer the replacement for those reasons. However, with that said, the ideal might have been a “Rolex 37mm” (which means a “true 36”), 20mm bracelet, with otherwise identical proportions to the current version. However unlike most, I prefer a watch a little smaller than ideal rather than a little larger.

I remember when the images first were released with out the caliper measurements.
Someone extrapolated a case size of 37mm based on a 20 mm width lug …… because everyone agreed that there was no way rolex would go back to a smaller explorer and not have a 20mm bracelet. ( I guess we all got that wrong )
It would have been an interesting size and as someone who always felt the MKII was a little to “all dial” I’m sure I would have loved it at 37mm/ 20 /16 mm clasp as well.



Found it… photoshop assembly with the 124270 “sized” with a 20mm bracelet in between a mk and datejust 36 for comparison…… the watch that wasn’t .


….Save the drama - I’m just here for the photos….