Gents, the most beautiful explorer .... what do you think.... ?

[Henrik Gelardi]

Hi all,

I have been wondering a bit.

I very much admire the new 39mm explorer, and consider it to be one of the most attractive models in Rolex' current lineup. Subjectively, this along with the SubC LV is what sings the most to me.

However, it seems that the Explorer 39mm is somewhat under-appreciated in watch community, and I do not understand that. To me, it is a stunning mix of dressy and sporty, and has a lot of class. On top of that, it flies below the radar and has amazing heritage.

I simply do not understand why this piece of understated elegance does not have a larger following. I am well aware of the infamous critique of the hands, but believe that this is mostly noticeable when seen on a large photo on a computer screen, and not an issue in real life. I wonder if the lack of a date window is part of the issue.

I think it's a marvellous watch, and with its size of 39mm, a very good size no matter which way the trend goes.

So why do you think there is so little love for it ?

Best regards,
Henrik

[Umbongo]

Im sure theres more love for it than you think. Its one of the best everyday wearers of all time. And one of rolex's more tasteful offerings.
I think that watches like the Rolex explorer and the 2500 Omega aqua terra are the ones that non "WIS's" would choose.
Theyre real-world watches designed to just tell the time, not dive to great depths, or impress with needless complications.
Decent, but not un-needed WR, not too dressy, not too sporty, robust without being clunky, a reasonable size. Real goldilocks watches.
THATS why, on forums like this they dont crop up all that often - too many normal people buying them!

[Rudy Russo]

Hi all,

I have been wondering a bit.

I very much admire the new 39mm explorer, and consider it to be one of the most attractive models in Rolex' current lineup. Subjectively, this along with the SubC LV is what sings the most to me.

However, it seems that the Explorer 39mm is somewhat under-appreciated in watch community, and I do not understand that. To me, it is a stunning mix of dressy and sporty, and has a lot of class. On top of that, it flies below the radar and has amazing heritage.

I simply do not understand why this piece of understated elegance does not have a larger following. I am well aware of the infamous critique of the hands, but believe that this is mostly noticeable when seen on a large photo on a computer screen, and not an issue in real life. I wonder if the lack of a date window is part of the issue.

I think it's a marvellous watch, and with its size of 39mm, a very good size no matter which way the trend goes.

So why do you think there is so little love for it ?

Best regards,
Henrik

the explorer seemed right at 36mm

[learningtofly]

Im sure theres more love for it than you think. Its one of the best everyday wearers of all time. And one of rolex's more tasteful offerings.
I think that watches like the Rolex explorer and the 2500 Omega aqua terra are the ones that non "WIS's" would choose.
Theyre real-world watches designed to just tell the time, not dive to great depths, or impress with needless complications.
Decent, but not un-needed WR, not too dressy, not too sporty, robust without being clunky, a reasonable size. Real goldilocks watches.
THATS why, on forums like this they dont crop up all that often - too many normal people buying them!

Well summed up, that man. I do think it was perfect at 36mm, although admittedly I don't have the world's biggest wrists.

[eduk]

I have only just started coming round to the Rolex brand myself thanks to many of the beautiful images served up on this forum. I was oogling an Exp one that was sitting in AD's window today. As someone who is blessed/cursed (depends on the mood I am in), with smaller wrists the 39mm is about perfect for me so this is definitely one of my favorites in their current line up. That said I was strangely drawn to a ND Sub C that was also on display which I had assumed I would not be a fan of due to the modern ceramic but actually I really liked. Just the small matter of £5K that I don't have right now otherwise I would have a very happy problem choosing between the two.

[Geneve]

I'd say the Explorer is tasteful rather than beautiful. Saw some pics recently (on here) of Exp 2s with rubber straps - really suited it.

[AIDM]

Hi Henrik,

I know we've discussed this a few times, but I thought I'd chip in to your thread also...

I really, really enjoy my 39mm Explorer.

It is the prefect fit for my 7.5"wrist
It is beautiful
It is subtle
It is high quality
It has plenty of heritage
It is a modern take on an all time horological classic

Some people may reply to this thread and say that the 36mm was perfect, why change it, proportions were spot in, yadda, yadda... But my, (admittedly biased) opinion is - as Tony rightly points out - a watch diameter and how it looks / wears is directly proportional to wrist size. I tried a 36mm ZEX and it was too small. Too small for my wrist and my taste - it looked like I was wearing a ladies watch.

I've been successfully brainwashed by the Rolex marketing machine, (where is 'Cilla recently?) and in my time I've owned both a Sub and a Seadweller and loved them both... But neither grabbed me like the Explorer has.

I agree with Umbongo that I think the negative image isn't as bad in reality as it might seem. Understandably on release there was some negativity, it happens with lots of updated watch models, especially when they have all that heratige associated to them. A few outspoken people across a lot of forums made a fuss about the hands - I can honestly say that in over four months of almost daily wearing I've not once looked at the watch and thought the hands were too short. But my take on it is that after the initial 'shock, horror, Rolex updated a historically important model' had worn off the 214270 has slowly grown in stature and appreciation amongst 'WIS'.

All my thoughts and opinions from my review on first receiving the watch are still valid - and my positive reaction has only increased between now and then...

http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...nd-impressions

Prefect size on the wrist:



Prefect watch all round:



I know you've been toying with the idea of getting one - once the honey moon period with your lovely green monster has worn off I strongly recommend it, mate!

Cheers,

Rob

[scarto]

I have the 36mm version (paid £1900 for it in Cancun brand new in 2007) and I think that will always be regarded as the classic.

The 39mm version looks nice enough to me but it probably has enough competitors within its own brand range to not make it a viable option as it once was. Saw one in the window yesterday - it's £4,300 which also doesn't help.

[bigbaddes]

the 36mm had better lines, the new one is clunky by comparison.
and the thing about the hands is true, if you can't see it - well bully for you - but i and many like me can.
this new one is a step backwards which imho is like so much rolex is currently doing.

[scarto]

What's this 'well-known' criticism of the hands? Too short?

[andrew]

What's this 'well-known' criticism of the hands? Too short?

The minute hand is reckoned to be around 1mm too short, and frankly this has sent some people right over the edge.

[robcat]

I agree that the WIS community often overlooks less overtly sporty models, but some make excellent allrounders that are actually more practical without the thick bezels and case - the Explorer is one, as is the Datejust. (Similar to the Aqua Terra/Railmaster in the Omega range).

[paneristi372]

I like both the 36 & 39 Explorer I. My 39 is the favourite of the 2 due to me preferring the larger watch. I am however currently in negotiation to buy a 36mm F serial. The 36mm is better proportionally the head suits the 20mm bracelet better and the face is neater. Maybe they should have used a 21mm lug on the 214270 so it tapers less quickly to the bracelet!?! That said I still love mine the clasp modifications are great and the matte dial is a dream!!!!

[Jocke]

I will love it if it only

[scarto]

The minute hand is reckoned to be around 1mm too short, and frankly this has sent some people right over the edge.

[markosgr28]

Have tried both, the 39 version size is better IMHO, regarding its size, not sure if it has an updated movement version (probably the same as the later 36mm versions?), but personally I prefer the more classic 36 version.

[Henrik Gelardi]

Thanks for the input guys - the perceived under-appreciation continuously puzzles me...

I know you've been toying with the idea of getting one - once the honey moon period with your lovely green monster has worn off I strongly recommend it, mate!

Tempting, Rob, tempting... But it means that I'll most likely have to let another special watch go.... Or sell a kidney

[Mjolnir]

I will love it if it only

I know it shouldn't matter that much but this would make such a difference.

[andamanen]

Did they use the hands from the old model on the new one which has a bigger dial?

[Nudlar]

I love it. Despite having two black dial watches already, this is probably going to be my next purchase; definitely my favourite Rolex.

[pembers]

I'm loving mine! Simple and elegant.

[Rudy Russo]

I will love it if it only

that's awesome jocke, would it have been so hard?

[paneristi372]

I will love it if it only

Took me a while to spot what you did there. Looks good either way IMO. I'm sure it won't be long till someone fits some MAXI hands from a Sub to a 39mm Explorer!!

[Rudy Russo]

Took me a while to spot what you did there. Looks good either way IMO. I'm sure it won't be long till someone fits some MAXI hands from a Sub to a 39mm Explorer!!

what would be cool is normal thickness hands the right length from the factory.

[dymond]

I think it is better in 36mm and the 39mm model sports the same hands [length] as the 36mm. Instantly noticeable and very odd. Check it out.

[Kingstepper]

Didn't know there was an issue with the hands but Jocke's Photoshopped(?) version looks far nicer.

[a-new-hope]

Think it's a great watch myself. Always been tempted.

[Operation Grandslam]

I have fairly thin wrists so the 36mm won out for me.

[Dr.f]

Did someone say most beautiful Explorer ?

[G.J.]

I really like my 36mm Explorer

[Horologos]

My old or should I say aged 5500
And my 39mm example ........SHOULD BE 39mm

[walkerwek1958]

I`m a big fan of the 36mm Explorer; better proportioned than the newer larger one IMO and plenty big enough for me.

Paul

[Billyloves2boogie]

My old or should I say aged 5500
And my 40mm example ........

WOW, where did you get a 40mm version, was it a custom build?

[helidoc]

Why so little love? I think you have to look at all the recent Rolex releases.

Bolder-yes, better bracelt and clasp-yes, but what is maybe lost is some elegance. I always thought from pictures that the 36mm Explorer was underwhelming, and that 40mm Exp II would be my next Rolex, but no one was more suprised by having them on the wrist! New Exp II too big despite liking the black / orange thing, old Exp II not compelling for reasons I couldn't quite put my finger on. Saw a 14270 which I should have bought while I could, as it was just a really really nice watch. I haven't tried a 39mm Explorer, but find it hard to see how it can best the earlier model, and whatever its merits, it doesn't have the elegant proportions. Maybe if I had bigger wrist (fractionally sub 7').

Not to confuse, but if the 39mm Explorer is your thing, then the 38.4mm Omega AT with the 8500 makes a good case for itself.

The most beautiful explorer is 36mm




David

[martynw]

I've always loved the class size Explorer watches. In fact it was a 1016 on a colleague's wrist which got me into this hobby. I always ahve a few 1016s inm y collection, and judging from the pics below, would appear to be in good company:

Best wishes,
Martyn.