Reply With QuoteThanks for posting.. good review... MK1 for me is still something special
Thanks for posting.. good review... MK1 for me is still something special
For me the Explorer 1 and OP 39mm are the 2 killer watches in the Rolex line up. Lovely Oyster case, balanced dial, no cyclops. Perfect
On paper, it is the perfect watch for me. In reality there is one thing that spoils it for me...
The 36mm Explorer. If I hadn’t ever tried a 114270 on I am sure I would think the current model is perfect but the proportions just seem bloated compared to the last gen. Not the size, the proportions. All very subjective i know.
I like the watch and have often thought about getting a 39mm Explorer but I stopped reading after the article said that Tensing Norgay was wearing one on the summit of Everest!
Yep.Originally Posted by watchstudent
The change in size was vandalism.
A very watchable video. I have to confess having owned and sold this model. To me, it wore larger than it ought to and couldn’t pinpoint why. Maybe the bold polished bezel, the more open space of the dial vs smaller watches perhaps. If I acquire another discreet daily Rolex it’d more likely be a 36mm Oyster Perpetual black or white dial. They wear a touch larger than the dimensions suggest which might explain why the Explorer felt more like 40-41mm to me.
Of course my perception could be codswallop as I’m hooked on my 45mm Radiomir which is technically and visibly a much larger watch. It just seems to own its size better.
Ant
Last edited by frp422; 24th April 2019 at 20:58.
Good long article which I’ll enjoy reading later - thanks for posting.
I agree with Ryan’s points above... can’t believe I’ve had mine 214270 (/ii) for over two and a half years at this stage!
I agree, just wish they did a white dialed explorer/369 white dialed 39mm OP
As for size...never tried the smaller explorer but i have tried both the 36 and 39mm OP, I was really surprised but i preferred to 39mm
Agree completely. I also owned one and it never felt right. Was more like a 41mm on the wrist. The old 36mm case and 20mm lugs bracelet is the perfect proportion imho.
Last edited by Toshk; 25th April 2019 at 08:02.
They do do a white-dialled 39mm OP. Or am I reading this wrongly?
I think they meant a traditional explorer with a white dial or a white dial OP which, instead of the batons uses arabic numerals at 3,6 and 9 :)
Exactly. The OPs with 369 markers are either small or coloured dialed. While they are nice I reckon the white dialed OP it's lovely, but would be lovelier with 369 markers not batons
I can't help thinking that it looks too big on him. I'd always go 36mm for the Explorer.
I agree that both the 39mm Explorer and OP39 wear large. They look great on those with the wrists to take them, but anyone asking themselves if they seem a bit oversized would do well to try the Omega AT 38 - they may or may not like the design but if it wears just right, it will confirm your suspicions that the Rolex doesn’t - which is sad, but it’s better to face it! Oddly though, I found that a 40mm GS quartz was very wearable, so it seems to be about the proportions and the flatness of the case and lugs, rather than just the width.
It’s a pity they discontinued the 36mm Explorer. It’s understandable that they wanted to make it slightly larger, but they’ve made it too large for perhaps a third to a half of potential buyers. Those who it happens to fit will probably say this is nonsense and it’s perfect, but it should be easy enough to understand that ‘one size fits all’ doesn’t.
Last edited by Itsguy; 25th April 2019 at 09:52. Reason: Autocorrect, as usual
I have a 39mm Explorer that I bought in 2014, so it's the "stubby" model and it is truly a lovely watch. The AD who sold it to me was wearing the 36mm version and on the wrist the size difference was hardly noticeable. What did make it look different was the bling, it is certainly more jazzy that the 36mm model.
My Explorer arrived yesterday and my initial impression is that I do agree it does wear a bit larger than 39mm. However, to my eyes it looks a touch more modern in the 39mm whilst still retaining the classic aesthetic.
It really is a very elegant watch. Very happy with it so far!
Space Dweller...
I'd never heard about them or even seen one!
Just to clarify my comments about liking the 39mm. I'm used to a 41.5mm and thick PO as my daily, and a 42 Steinhart as my beater. The 36, I thought would be my favour as I'd been wearing a 36mm SMP for a bit and loved it, but on trying them I preferred the 39mm OP.
Last edited by LondonNeil; 26th April 2019 at 14:35.
Many thanks for the link to the article. It is very useful to me as I am currently considering an Explorer.
I wrote a review on here when I got mine a few years ago...
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...nd-impressions
105,000 views so far!
I wouldn’t have thought the 36mm would require lube
And in contrast, I think they made a too small watch from a previous era, just the right size, without bloating it as they did elsewhere in their line up.
i sold my 36mm as i felt it was just a bit too small for the style- ie an SS sports watch (i happily wear leather strap vintage omegas at 34mm).
for me the 39mm is better given its overall look, plus the lumed arabics make it significantly less blingy to my eye.
The 39mm Explorer I is probably my favourite Sport Rolex. Size, proportions, matte finish dial, everything. Mine is a 1st iteration so sports the shorter hands and the all metal 3,6,& 9.
Last edited by paneristi372; 26th April 2019 at 13:40.
Oops! ***** Phone! 'Loved it'. Although maybe I should have lubed it...😁
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. People forget that it remains the smallest Rolex Professional, and is exceedingly low-key.
Damn. I sold my "MK1 dial" a few years ago for £3k, and despite owning a number of other watches since, I do think that's my favourite. Looks like I might be on the lookout for another one again, except this time it'll be at a much higher premium!
As usual a discussion of sizes reveals that some people think it’s just right and some people don’t, because people come in different shapes and sizes while the watch doesn’t. Clearly though it’s currently too large for some of us. I think this is partly because the essential Rolex shape was never intended to be a watch head that ‘fills the wrist’, and it doesn’t quite work when it does. It’s designed to sit well within the width of the wrist showing some bracelet, otherwise it can’t follow the wrist’s shape. Consequently at 39mm it requires a larger wrist than you might imagine to sit well.
NB - that’s not to say that it’s objectively ‘too big’, as there’s no such thing, and there’s no need to correct me on this! Obviously for some lucky people it will be perfect. But the design and size rule out a significant minority who could have managed a 38mm.
Last edited by Itsguy; 26th April 2019 at 17:28.
I found mine sat fine on the wrist, my trouble was with the relative proportions of dial to bezel to indices I think. My 40mm Submariner wears smaller, my 40mm Oris Pointer Date much smaller. My 40mm Explorer II wore a fair bit smaller. I recall my IWC MK XVI wore smaller too. I had the same issue, to a greater degree, with a 39mm Railmaster which seemed to wear pretty large as the markings seemed small relative to the black/blank space of the dial. In contrast a 38.5mm Omega Aqua Terra appears a good few mm smaller than a 39mm Explorer and closer to how a 36mm Oyster Perpetual wears.
Just goes to show, you can't appreciate how a watch will wear until you, well, wear it. And watches with a bezel with markings always seem to wear smaller as the space left for the dial is less. And a watch on a bracelet generally appears larger than the same watch on a strap. While I have owned all the watches listed above, it wasn't at the same time so can't do any side-by-side comparisons. I honestly feel that my 45mm Panerai Radiomir wears its dimensions better than my 39mm Explorer did as the markings occupy more of the dial space, if that makes sense.
Ant
Yes, it does make sense. I mentioned earlier that I found a 40mm GS quartz more wearable than the 39mm Explorer, and it's partly due to the way the end links and lugs work rather than the dial size. Basically it's more curvey, the famous GS 'grammar of design'. The result is the 'gap' (not a gap exactly but a bit of the edge of the case showing) which I've pointed out with an arrow where the curve of the bracelet intersects the watch case. Arguably the Rolex end link seems neater but the GS approach means the bracelet is following the shape of the wrist even when the dial is large. Consequently their 40mm sits better on a smaller wrist than Rolex's 39mm. This is not a criticism or an attempt to say that one is better (let's not get into that!), but the Rolex approach needs a slightly smaller watch head for a given wrist size if it's to sit right. Or to put it the other way round, you need a bigger or flatter wrist to pull off the Explorer.
Last edited by Itsguy; 26th April 2019 at 17:58.
You're both right. It's so boring when people complain about new Rolex models being too big. It's the same as when people say they would buy the Exp 2 if it was 40mm. Well go buy the old one then! Different strokes... I personally love the Exp 1 and will probably buy one in the next month or so (I have a WTB for one) but out of all the times I've tried one on in an AD I've thought it was too small, but I have thighs for wrists.
I did have this one for a while. Drove all the way to Leicester to pick it up on my 50th birthday. For a size comparison here is it with another 39mm cased watch.
Also it always amazes me how standing back a little changes your perception
Compared to this slightly up close version:
check in a mirror for how it may appear. It may be surprising.
My my wrists are flattish but are 6 3:4 inch last time I checked.
Martyn.
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 26th April 2019 at 19:52.
You are right of course, and it's a good argument for giving a slightly oversized watch the benefit of the doubt. It will look larger to you than anyone else. However after many years I've come to the conclusion that I like watches that look good from both distances. It's not necessary to go through life having to remind yourself that while it looks all wrong, it probably looks better from across the room. Call me selfish but I'd like to enjoy my watches myself, they're not just for other people's benefit!
Also it always amazes me how standing back a little changes your perception
Compared to this slightly up close version:
check in a mirror for how it may appear. It may be surprising.
Martyn.
Yes, I agree that Martyn is right, and his pics accord with my own experience (I also have 6.75” wrists, and the watch is a great size).
Itsguy is spot on to note that a watch will look larger to the wearer than anyone else.
But here’s the other thing that’s not really picked up - all the talk about bezels having an impact on perceived size... in my view, that also only applies to the wearer. The wearer is seeking out the dial when looking at the watch (regardless as to whether reading the time or just admiring it - it’s second nature), and so the bezel etc “disappears” to some degree. But the observer is just looking at the totality of the thing on the wrist: dial, bezel, the whole heap seen as a piece.
In reply to frp, one of the things I like about the 39mm is the larger wear proportionally compared to the Sub and other watches of larger diameter. However the key thing is the snugness to the wrist and sveltness of the case shape. Even with podgy wrists, it looks elegant.
David
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
Posting Permissions
