My 40mm Explorer has arrived!

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by TudorDXB

I dont have an Explorer 39 but I do have a Tudor BB 39 so I took a couple of pics just out of interest

This is the first time I've gotten an appreciation of just how flat Rolex kept the Explorer 40.

On an unrelated note, I think this is the first pic I've seen someone post on here of the new BB 31/36/39/41. Great looking watch (though my preference would be for the 36)!

[boywithakoi]

Looks great on you! Congrats!

[RemoteFisherman]

Congratulations!

Could you please post pictures of different wrist angles? For example, from the front facing you, as you might appear to someone on a Zoom call?

[Kenny G]

Originally Posted by wb55

Thanks for the pics. I'm on the second 214270 mk2 but the proportions on the Exp 40 look perfect. Looks like they finally nailed it.

I am dying to see the 39 and 40 side by side. The 39 gets all sorts of hate that I just don’t understand. I love the fact the 40 has a deep black dial and AR but surely the dial layout can’t be THAT much different.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

I am dying to see the 39 and 40 side by side. The 39 gets all sorts of hate that I just don’t understand. I love the fact the 40 has a deep black dial and AR but surely the dial layout can’t be THAT much different.

It’s all about the proportions. Bezel, lugs, bracelet width/taper…

[Kenny G]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

I am dying to see the 39 and 40 side by side. The 39 gets all sorts of hate that I just don’t understand. I love the fact the 40 has a deep black dial and AR but surely the dial layout can’t be THAT much different.

Originally Posted by dannyp

It’s all about the proportions. Bezel, lugs, bracelet width/taper…

True. I guess I’m just more interested in the actual dial itself. There can’t be a lot of visual change there but perhaps the gloss dial makes it seem that there is. I hear you on the case/bracelet proportions as the 21mm end links will make a nicer transition to the bracelet and make the lugs appear thinner like what Rolex did on the sub 41. I didn’t think the 39 had chunky lugs but I suppose the slimmer appearance on the 40 is a welcome change and more inline with the 36 aesthetic.

Hope we can get a side by side pic of the 39 and 40 soon!

[cv5]

Looks great! Congrats, enjoy your new watch.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

True. I guess I’m just more interested in the actual dial itself. There can’t be a lot of visual change there but perhaps the gloss dial makes it seem that there is. I hear you on the case/bracelet proportions as the 21mm end links will make a nicer transition to the bracelet and make the lugs appear thinner like what Rolex did on the sub 41. I didn’t think the 39 had chunky lugs but I suppose the slimmer appearance on the 40 is a welcome change and more inline with the 36 aesthetic.

Hope we can get a side by side pic of the 39 and 40 soon!

Not sure if it's the gloss, or the movement of the "Explorer" text back to the top, but the 39 dial seems to have more empty space and it at least appears to be the size of the hour markers. Smaller on the 39 leaving more blank dial. But could be illusion based on any number of factors.

[John Doyle]

Congrats! I much prefer the 36mm on my wrist and actually purchased it last month, but this one looks good too.

[boltz]

So beautiful, congrats.

[StuartM1962]

Congratulations, a beautiful looking watch.

[mini sub]

There's already one on ebay UK for £9750.

[gwang414]

Originally Posted by hemdog

congrats- she’s a beauty!

11

[destrodan]

Congrats on the pick-up. The 39mm wins by a nose for me (and I prefer the 3132 over the 32xx), but the beauty of the 40mm isn't lost on me. Wear it in good health.

[TudorDXB]

Originally Posted by dannyp

This is the first time I've gotten an appreciation of just how flat Rolex kept the Explorer 40.

On an unrelated note, I think this is the first pic I've seen someone post on here of the new BB 31/36/39/41. Great looking watch (though my preference would be for the 36)!

The new BB39 is brilliant - I love it. 36mm is always a bit too small for me and my sweet spot lies b/w 39mm to 42mm. And surprisingly, the 5-link bracelet on the BB39 is much better than the Explorer 40mm bracelet

[RemoteFisherman]

Originally Posted by R3-D9

A quick update on the measurements of the watch, which I think some will find interesting. I decided to measure out the endlink to endlink span. It is substantial at 51mm.

Again, please take my measurements with a grain of salt... I still haven't been able to find my digital callipers and have been using a tape measure from a sewing kit.

Here are the Explorer 40 measurements that I get:

-case width of approx 39mm
-lug-to-lug of 46-ish mm
-bracelet is 21mm
-end link to end link span is 51mm
-dial width of 31mm

Taken from a Watchbox review , the OP41 measurements are:

-case width of 39.5mm,
-lug-to-lug of 47mm
-bracelet is 21mm
-endlink to endlink span is 51mm
-I can't find a dial width online

The Explorer 39's measurements (again according to a Watchbox YouTube review) are:

-case width of 39mm case
-lug-to-lug of 47.4mm
-20mm bracelet
-endlink to endlink span is 48.8mm
-dial width of 31mm

Based upon this, I think the Explorer 40 case is extremely similar to both the 39mm Explorer and the OP41.

The factors that will affect wrist presence will be the larger 21mm lug width of the Exp40 and OP41 and the shorter lug-to-lug of the Exp40 vs. the other two.

On the other hand, the endlink to endlink span of the Exp40 and OP41 might make those watches somewhat less wearable for smaller wrists than the Explorer 39.

I just finished watching Watch Advisor's review of the Air King, and the proportions and finish of the Air King are identical to the new Explorer:
1. Thickness: 11.59 MM
2. Lug-to-lug: 47 MM
3. Lug Width: 21 MM
4. AR Coating: Yes

Thus, if there's a need to see how the Explorer would look and feel on a wrist the closest analogy would be the Air King.

[whybrge]

Originally Posted by destrodan

Congrats on the pick-up. The 39mm wins by a nose for me (and I prefer the 3132 over the 32xx), but the beauty of the 40mm isn't lost on me. Wear it in good health.

Is there anything other than the reported issues that has you putting the 31xx over the 32xx series? I think the latter is "supposed" to have improvements in all areas (shock absorbancy, anti-magnetic...)

And perhaps serviceability for the immediate term?

[Flaudia402]

Congrats, looks great!

[destrodan]

Originally Posted by whybrge

Is there anything other than the reported issues....

I think your observation of others' experiences with the 32xx sums it up for me.

Of course Rolex will figure out/fix the issue at some point (and perhaps they already have). I'll probably wait to pick up a 32xx until that's confirmed. On the other hand, 'never say never'.

[hkgary33]

Congratulations! The proportion looks perfect!
One thing i doubt about the 36mm Explorer (124270) is the aggressive tapering of the bracelet. But your 40mm Explorer (224270) looks great from the pictures!

[Tango130]

Originally Posted by mini sub

There's already one on ebay UK for £9750.

That didn't take long, they've already reduced the price by £250.

[matthew P]

Originally Posted by dannyp

This on-the-wrist shot confirms my previous assessment perfectly: it would wear too big for my liking, but the proportions are absolutely spot on .

Whole thing comes together perfectly, with similar proportions to many of the greatest integrated bracelet watches out there (similar silhouette, even though it is not one).

I’m pondering your integrated bracelet comment as I’ve been fixating on the 40 as well.

I like all the changes but I’m also thinking it won’t wear or look as good on my wrist as the 124270.

I’ve been playing around on my phone and I upsized my 124270 to have the same dial size as the new 40 for a size by side proportions comparison.
What I noticed was that on the 124270 the lugs seemed longer and skinnier relative to the round center / shoulders on the 40. The distance from the edge of the bezel to the top of the lugs seemed relatively shorter in the new 40 and my MKII. I suspect this allows the 124270 to wear a little larger while the MKII and 40mm Exp will wear a little smaller than the 40mm case width would suggest. I’m also noticing the short ( non center link ) part of the end link is hotter than the lug length on the 124270 but the same length in the 40mm explorer.
It’s a small thing but I suspect it plays into the integrated bracelet feel that you were alluding to……. The transition to the bracelet and the heavy taper on the 124270 create a slightly different vibe.

I’m going to stick with the 124 because it’s small on my 7 inch wrist but I think that new 40 is going to look fantastic for those larger wristed owners and people that want a modern sport watch feel ( v the vintage sizing of the 124 on my wrist )

I suspect a length/width ratio comparison will reflect this once the calipers come out .



Photo of my 124270 for discussion


..Explorer & Spring Diver - I’m just here for the photos..

[Tango130]

Originally Posted by Tango130

That didn't take long, they've already reduced the price by £250.

And another £200, down to £9300 now.

Also, I've followed the listing, the seller has sent an offer through of £8900.

[Tikktokk]

Congrats!

39mm have too small crown and handset, and the case is too oval looking. 40 mm looks perfect.

[Stonerolex]

Was shocked when my AD already had the 40mm on display

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by matthew P

I’m pondering your integrated bracelet comment as I’ve been fixating on the 40 as well.

I like all the changes but I’m also thinking it won’t wear or look as good on my wrist as the 124270.

I’ve been playing around on my phone and I upsized my 124270 to have the same dial size as the new 40 for a size by side proportions comparison.
What I noticed was that on the 124270 the lugs seemed longer and skinnier relative to the round center / shoulders on the 40. The distance from the edge of the bezel to the top of the lugs seemed relatively shorter in the new 40 and my MKII. I suspect this allows the 124270 to wear a little larger while the MKII and 40mm Exp will wear a little smaller than the 40mm case width would suggest. I’m also noticing the short ( non center link ) part of the end link is hotter than the lug length on the 124270 but the same length in the 40mm explorer.
It’s a small thing but I suspect it plays into the integrated bracelet feel that you were alluding to……. The transition to the bracelet and the heavy taper on the 124270 create a slightly different vibe.

I’m going to stick with the 124 because it’s small on my 7 inch wrist but I think that new 40 is going to look fantastic for those larger wristed owners and people that want a modern sport watch feel ( v the vintage sizing of the 124 on my wrist )

I suspect a length/width ratio comparison will reflect this once the calipers come out .



Photo of my 124270 for discussion


..Explorer & Spring Diver - I’m just here for the photos..

There’s a reason I’m turned off by all today’s integrated bracelet watches: they’re all 40+ and look like all-dial monsters even on my 7in wrist. Nautilus. Royal Oak (37 great looking). Laureato (copper aside). Defy El Primero. Overseas. Even the damn PRX.

My integrated bracelet comments had less to do with the size of lugs and links than case, lug, and bracelet tapering in concert with one another, the sharp edges of the lugs and their slope away from the bezel.

I love the 124270 and while I think the 22 keeps its proportionality and silhouette, it’ll look huge on the wrist of many (even those with big wrists - it’ll be more disk than needed). But in the box, it looks much more well designed than the 39.

[winst]

I’ve been kind of enjoying this thread OP, kind of because it makes me think of getting the latest Explorer again. So, I tried it on at my AD yesterday and having 0wned the 214270 and the 124270, I think this is the one I’ll finally be happy with.

My wrist is quite a flat just under 7 inches and I am 6ft 2, 245 pounds. I like my 124270, but was recently given and had serviced / restored my father’s 6426 34mm Oyster Precision which really doesn’t look like 34mm on and looks more like the 124270 size. Because of that I have found the 124270 somewhat redundant.

So, I think they’ve got the dial proportions just right on the 40mm and I feel I can wear that as my nice casual watch and my 6426 as a dressier watch as I have both Oyster and Jubilee bracelets for it. Currently has Silver Dial on it but I am having a Slate Grey service dial out on it when the new hands finally come in for it which have been on order for 2 months now.

All the Explorer iterations are great watches and I think part of the agony / fun is finding the one that is individually right for you. I must admit though, I have had enough of this now and really hope that when my AD manages to get it for me I will be done and dusted. Love the look of your new Tudor as well by the way OP. I am a real fan of them as well with a BB58 Blue and a BB Pro. I’m looking forward to Rubber B bringing out their new intergrated strap for the Pro which will use the Tfit Clasp, that will make it perfect for me.

All the best to you OP and my fellow Explorer explorers!

[nebulight]

Has anyone actually gotten exact measurements of the case? I purchased a 124270 but really disliked the 19mm bracelet with the harsh taper to 14mm. It did not fit my wrist well at all. Because of this, I'm considering the 224270 to replace it but want to make sure the 40 actually means 40mm and not 41mm. I would love to see it closer to 39mm, but I haven't seen exact measurements posted online. Thank you!

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by RemoteFisherman

I just finished watching Watch Advisor's review of the Air King, and the proportions and finish of the Air King are identical to the new Explorer:
1. Thickness: 11.59 MM
2. Lug-to-lug: 47 MM
3. Lug Width: 21 MM
4. AR Coating: Yes

Thus, if there's a need to see how the Explorer would look and feel on a wrist the closest analogy would be the Air King.

The 39mm Exp. does not have AR coating, correct?

[RemoteFisherman]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

The 39mm Exp. does not have AR coating, correct?

Correct.