Which Explorer?

[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.

[majidessa]

Originally Posted by 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?

Lug to lug distance on the 40mm is actually smaller than the 39, the watch is also thinner, while the dial is bigger. So it might wear smaller than the 39, in all cases you have to try and take few pics to see for your self what looks best on your wrist.

[~Ocho1~]

Originally Posted by 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.

Haha, trust me, no one is more serious than me. My closet is all black shirts, with some grey & maybe one or two dark blues to liven things up, lol.

I really went through a hell of a time trying to decide, because, like you I usually wear that 40-42mm, with he exception of my BB58 which is 38mm. I have a similar thread to this one from last year when I was trying to make my decision.

The 1st time I tried on a 36mm Explorer at an AD it felt like I was wearing a kids watch! After much debate I came to the same decision you have, I'm going to bite the bullet & buy a 36mm & wear it for a while, if I don't like it I can always sell it & buy a 39 or 40. Well, that little watch has quickly become one of my favorites & probably gets the most wrist time next to my GMT Master.

[thughes]

Originally Posted by mini sub

The '36' would be my choice, I was in my local the other week and they had a 40 available and to be honest it just looked too big, not on the wrist but in general proportions. Its not what the Explorer was intended to be but just Rolex trying to please those who are fat in the wrist and small in the groin ��

I believe that comment was the inspiration for the line "It's better to remain silent and be thought a boor, than to open your mouth and prove it"

[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"

[Davidt]

I haven’t tried the 40 but the proportions of the 39mm 214270 are just wrong. I loved the watch in pictures and initially I loved it on my wrist. I had it for several years and I tried and tried to love it but it always felt too big. There is too much dial with too much blank space and it looks huge. The lug/bracelet proportions are also off which makes the bracelet look too thin and the head look even bigger.

I’m 6’1” with a 7.75” wrist.

I like the 36mm 114270. With no bezel and a relatively large dial it wears pretty much perfect for me.

[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.

[Brny11]

36 is small. Some can pull it off. I can’t. I’d go 40. Wears nicely.

[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.

[iberjan]

Originally Posted by Davidt

I haven’t tried the 40 but the proportions of the 39mm 214270 are just wrong. I loved the watch in pictures and initially I loved it on my wrist. I had it for several years and I tried and tried to love it but it always felt too big. There is too much dial with too much blank space and it looks huge. The lug/bracelet proportions are also off which makes the bracelet look too thin and the head look even bigger.

I’m 6’1” with a 7.75” wrist.

I like the 36mm 114270. With no bezel and a relatively large dial it wears pretty much perfect for me.

Interesting. Thank you.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by iberjan

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.

Heritage Ranger is quite slim (ETA movt) at just under 12mm including domed crystal, so might be worth a try. Discontinued in 2020 but you can still find NOS. Had mine since 2014 and it's still running great.

[cdmorenot]

Originally Posted by iberjan

How tall are you and what's your wrist size?

I am 5 feet 8 inches and my wrist is around 6.75 - I weigh 175 pounds

[ChronoZach]

Try them on both first to see which is best for your size I would recommend the 40mm for sure., I have a 40mm myself and like the new dial and the bracelet size and taper and I’m making some changes for a better fit. The 36mm is nice for someone with smaller wrist the bracelet is much thinner, that does mean that a person with larger wrists can’t rock one, personal preference is what matters.

They all work 36mm,39mm and 40mm which one works best for you. Do you like more dial on the wrist or less dial is the question?

Cheers

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by 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?

Just go with latest one, simple. 40 is better than 39 MK2.

[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.

[trailblazer68]

i have the 39 and still loving it. But if I could start again and choose, i would go 36 simply for more balance and greater comfort compared to the 40.
IMO i prefer a smaller dial on a bigger watch than the other way round.

[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

[iberjan]

Oh, man...

The 40mm does have a newer movement over the 39 mk2, right? I believe the power reserve is a little better but not sure what else has changed.

[B2 Stealth]

Always, always, always go with the bigger model. Don't understand any mammal wearing a 36mm Rolex. I wish GMTs came in 42mm!

[~Ocho1~]

haha, good thing I'm one of those guys that wears what I like & don't really care what others think.

[KatGirl]

The dial is glossy black, rather than matte, the hour hand is noticeably longer, the crown slightly larger. The lug width increased from 20 mm to 21 mm. Explorer text moved from bottom to top of dial. Rolex crown between Swiss and Made at bottom of dial. The changes, though small, are all more aesthetically leasing, to my eye. The one questionable change is the lug width, if you are a strap person. You really need to try the 36 on, as well. My wrist is 6 1/2 inches, for reference. I tried both on, at my AD, and the 40 seemed much too large, on my wrist.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SilverKast]

I have a 39 MK1 and it's one of my favorite watches to wear. Get whatever you like the look of the best as the size difference between them is negligible once you wear it for a bit. I also have the Ranger, which is fun for changing up straps, but otherwise the Explorer is just really comfortable.

I have a 7.25 wrist so maybe it's just the right size for my preference, but it's more comfortable than my sub or GMT's. I also have come to really like the smooth bezel quite a bit.

I'd suggest try some on if you can, then go with whatever feels best!

[majidessa]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

The dial is glossy black, rather than matte, the hour hand is noticeably longer, the crown slightly larger. The lug width increased from 20 mm to 21 mm. Explorer text moved from bottom to top of dial. Rolex crown between Swiss and Made at bottom of dial. The changes, though small, are all more aesthetically leasing, to my eye. The one questionable change is the lug width, if you are a strap person. You really need to try the 36 on, as well. My wrist is 6 1/2 inches, for reference. I tried both on, at my AD, and the 40 seemed much too large, on my wrist.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In addtition to what Kat have mentioned I think the anti reflective coating was also added in the 40mm as well as 36mm

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

My wrist is 6 1/2 inches for reference. I tried both on pat my AD, and the 40 seemed much too large, on my wrist.

Well, if your wrist is 6.5 inches, 36 is way to go but you seem to be suggesting that even 8 inch wrist also should go with 36 size and not 40 when that one is available too. I strongly feel that anyone over 7 inches 40 is way to go without any thought.


Sent from my SM-F956U1 using Tapatalk

[watchwatcher]

I like the 224. The wider bracelet- the same one used on the 12 series subs, in fact- would be reason enough for me.

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by Maxy

Well, if your wrist is 6.5 inches, 36 is way to go but you seem to be suggesting that even 8 inch wrist also should go with 36 size and not 40 when that one is available too. I strongly feel that anyone over 7 inches 40 is way to go without any thought.


Sent from my SM-F956U1 using Tapatalk

From its introduction in 1953 until 2010, the Rolex Explorer was ONLY available in 36 mm, and was a very popular watch, no matter one’s wrist size. So, yes, I am suggesting that even people with an 8 inch wrist should seriously consider the 36mm, over the 39 or 40 mm size. It looks great on everyone.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Davidt]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

From its introduction in 1953 until 2010, the Rolex Explorer was ONLY available in 36 mm, and was a very popular watch, no matter one’s wrist size. So, yes, I am suggesting that even people with an 8 inch wrist should seriously consider the 36mm, over the 39 or 40 mm size. It looks great on everyone.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agree. Most large, time only watches looks clumsy and badly proportioned, even on 7”+ wrists. If Tony Soprano can rock a 36mm Day Date, then 36mm is fine for most people.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Here’s the part that I don’t get, we’re supposed to be watch collectors so what’s the argument against having watches of different sizes in the collection? I personally own 36, 38, 40, 42 and 44mm with a 6.75” wrist and wear them interchangeably based on mood, circumstance and activity. I could never understand how someone would want all their watches to be the same size.