New 40mm Exp 1 end link design, phew!

[rkny]

Is it just me or is the new 224270 end link center exceedingly long, especially compared to the 39?

I was convinced I wanted the new 40, to replace the 39 I sold a decade ago and have missed ever since. But the dial seems unbalanced to me, and that end link is mighty toothsome haha.

And did Rolex revert to a thinner lume shank on the hour hand? It looks much skinnier than the MK2 39mm, like the MK1 used to have.

The 40's proportions are nice, as is the larger crown. I'd also miss the extended power reserve of the 40 if I opted for a 39.

Having seen a 36mm recently at Wempe, I was struck by how bling-y the watch has become over the years, particularly with the new glossy dial and apparently more aggressive AR coating.

Am I the only one who isn't looking for my watch to POP so much, visually?

[nickscaps]

I noticed that regarding the endlink as well but it seems to be a feature of their larger watches. Just take a look at the renderings for the OP41, Air King, Submariner 41, they all have an endlink that's nearly flush/barely recessed with the lug end, with the middle extending past.

[Drew.g.l]

The 39mm is more stylish, balanced, and overall a better looking piece in my opinion. Plus the matte dial is so much nicer and more interesting than the basic gloss dial. With that said, you really can’t go wrong with any explorer.

[dafuture]

Doesn't bother me personally. I found the 39 to be a slightly awkward size, so I'm curious how the 40mm feels. I tried the 39mm twice (Mk1 and Mk2) but just didn't love it.

[DocChand]

I have the 39 and recently tried on a 40. The 40 is definitely bling with the glossy dial. The dial proportions seemed off as well…I think the “Explorer” text moving to the top half of the dial really threw me off.

[TimeAZ]

I think you are correct that the new 40 has protruding end-links such that the total span on the wrist will be closer to 50 mm, with L2L of 47. This, and the wider bracelet, will make the watch wear bigger, more like a 41 mm, and for my wrist just too big.

The explorer 39 has L2L of 47 and wears similarly with total wrist span of nearly 47 mm. It does not really protrude. Fits perfectly for a 6.5 inch wrist. For me, the 214270 has the best proportions, best fit, and best stance on wrist.

[6SpeedTA95]

I have a 7 and 5/8 wrist so I'm generally ok with this. I like the new 40, I might even put a jubilee on it at some point (assuming my AD calls me when I'm up on the list).

[Majin Buu]

From my perspective, I just look at the time, and now since its larger I can wear it
on my large wrist. And it looks pretty too !

J.

[omar-rye]

I said this before, and I'll say it again: the Explorer crowd is the hardest to please. No one is more obsessed with proportions than the Explorer crowd.

With that off my chest, I do own the 39mm MK2, and I wouldn't trade the matte dial for anything that the Explorer 40 "got right”.

[LA_LEC]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

I said this before, and I'll say it again: the Explorer crowd is the hardest to please. No one is more obsessed with proportions than the Explorer crowd.

With that off my chest, I do own the 39mm MK2, and I wouldn't trade the matte dial for anything that the Explorer 40 "got right”.

I agree with you 100%. I have the same watch and the matte dial is amazing. Perfect watch

[mgsooner]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

I said this before, and I'll say it again: the Explorer crowd is the hardest to please. No one is more obsessed with proportions than the Explorer crowd.

With that off my chest, I do own the 39mm MK2, and I wouldn't trade the matte dial for anything that the Explorer 40 "got right”.

The new 40 has superior dial proportions by 0.000002mm and is thus perfect. The 39 is now trash and should be deposited in the nearest dumpster.

Sincerely, Explorer Guy

[nighthawk77]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

i said this before, and i'll say it again: The explorer crowd is the hardest to please. No one is more obsessed with proportions than the explorer crowd.

With that off my chest, i do own the 39mm mk2, and i wouldn't trade the matte dial for anything that the explorer 40 "got right”.

+1

[rkny]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

I said this before, and I'll say it again: the Explorer crowd is the hardest to please. No one is more obsessed with proportions than the Explorer crowd.

With that off my chest, I do own the 39mm MK2, and I wouldn't trade the matte dial for anything that the Explorer 40 "got right”.

I think that’s down to the simplicity of the design and the length of the run of the 1016 and 14270, during which time the design was burned into people’s retinas.

Other Rolex models have changed bezel materials, colors, and sizes, more often. Those changes offer more of a distraction and ways to obsess than the Explorer 1’s small incremental changes.

With a cappuccino or a latte, there’s the milk quality and ratio, foaminess, etc. The Explorer 1 is more like a straight short espresso, where you might focus solely on the flavor.

[Njkdog]

To answer your final question, you, and me, and a few other people on this forum, we are in the small minority

[R3-D9]

I own the 40mm 224270 and have at one time owned the other three modern case designs (14270/214270/124270) and can say that they are all excellent, and it really comes down to your wrist size, overall frame, and personal preference, as to which one will work best for you.

The centre part of the 40mm’s end-link is indeed quite a bit longer than the 39mm reference. The overall end-link to end-link measurement is around 50.5mm

That change may make it less wearable for some who find themselves edge of the 36mm being too small, but much more wearable for someone who prefers a 40mm+ watch on the wrist and found the 39mm to wear just a bit too small.

I find some of these arguments about which size is better amusing.

You’ll do often see someone wearing a 36mm model complain about how grotesque the 39/40mm cases are, yet the lugs of their 36mm watch overhang their baby-sized wrist by a mile.

Meanwhile, I’ve got a 7”-ish wrist with a 57-58mm wrist span, and the 39/40 looks proportionally smaller on me, than the 36 does on baby-wrist guy.

Someone put forward a good analogy recently… apologies to them, as I can’t recall who it was… they noted how ridiculous it would be to see two men wearing the same shirt… one in a size small, who weighs 140lbs, and the other wearing an XL, weighing in at 220lbs, and chastising the larger man for choosing the XL size instead of the CLEARLY better-designed size small.

Omar hit the nail on the head re: how fussy the Explorer crowd is about the differences between references… I see a lot of insecurity bubbling underneath the surface of many who complain about this reference being too short or that reference being too large.

Subconsciously (or perhaps even consciously) worried that they no longer own the quote-unquote BEST Explorer.

News flash… your Explorer reference is just as great as it was the day you bought it. And there is no lack of inventory on the secondary market for someone looking to acquire the reference they feel works best for them.

Why people hop on the internet, just to tell a person twice their size, that they chose the wrong size of Explorer is baffling to me.