36mm vs. 39mm Explorer I

[aaradill]

A number of people have strong opinions against the proportions of the 39mm Explorer I vs. the 36mm version (the modern versions of this watch). I have the 39mm (the only version that can be purchased new in a store) and I think it looks and feels great. What are your thoughts about this comparison?

[Brny11]

36 is much more classic and normally looks fantastic. Unfortunately my wrists can’t handle the size so 39mm it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pauln]

I had the 39mm and eventually sold it to buy a 36mm. I like the dial and bezel proportions more on the 36mm. But they’re both great. Enjoy it!

[mgsooner]

For me the 36 is just a touch too small. I love my 39, but I think at 38 you’ve got damn near the perfect watch.

[poidog81]

I have small 6” wrists and I though the 39mm would be too large, and I thought it was initially when buying but everyone told me it looked great. I’m so glad I listened to them! After having and wearing it for a week I don’t know why I thought it was too big. It’s absolutely perfect. Sits on my wrist nicely and comfortable. It has presence, but not flashy and flys under the radar. I love the dial and it is proportional with the MkII dial with full lume. The exp1 dial is only slightly larger than the OP 34mm dial, the size increase is mostly in the flat bezel. Stick with the 39mm, you won’t regret it. (I also tried on the 36mm preowned in my shopping and although it was nice, had no where near the look or modern feel/build quality of the 39mm).

[a_carkhuff]

I personally prefer the 36mm but both are great, can’t go wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dreyep]

All other things being equal, the contest in my mind stacks up like this (assuming 114270 not 14270):
36. classic proportions (less empty black space, more manageable hands, three lines of text balances better at the top), closer to the original design, cheaper
vs
39. superior lume and bracelet

[Tqmb79]

I prefer the 39. 36 is too small on a mans wrist in my opinion. 36 looks great on my wife

[DLRIDES]

Originally Posted by Tqmb79

I prefer the 39. 36 is too small on a mans wrist in my opinion. 36 looks great on my wife

This

[fskywalker]

I owned both, first the 214270 and sold it quickly as did not like the proportions of it (bezel looked fat to my eyes, location of the Explorer wording, etc). The 1016 / 14270 / 114270 wins over the 214270 MK1 or 2 because of that.

Anyway if you like it congrats!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ppalasthira]

39mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eupbin]

39 for sure. SO used to wearing 40 mm+ now that 36 just seems too small.

[subtona]

Prefer the 36.

Had the current 39, almost perfect!

for me it was bulkier than I wanted, Specifically the lug profile was too strong a departure from the the 36.

[BradSomrak]

Originally Posted by DLRIDES

This

This always makes my head hurt. So for 80 years men were wearing watches that were too small, and only now have we cracked the correct sizing code?

Hard pass on that sentiment.

If you prefer 39 over 36, fine. Have at it. But this notion that 36 is feminine is......something, to be kind.

[poidog81]

For those that say the 39mm is to much dial is BS. Exp1 has just a slightly larger dial than 34mm OP and AK and the same size in the 36mm OP/DD. Its the increase in bezel size that makes it appear larger (ie dial is the same size as a Sub but because of the large black bezel the sub appears larger).

[BradSomrak]

Originally Posted by poidog81

For those that say the 39mm is to much dial is BS. Exp1 has just a slightly larger dial than 34mm OP and AK. Its the increase in bezel size that makes it appear larger (ie dial is the same size as a Sub but because of the large black bezel the sub appears larger).

That’s a cool picture. Shows how little difference there is, dial wise, between watches that wear so very different.

[Pauln]

Originally Posted by poidog81

For those that say the 39mm is to much dial is BS. Exp1 has just a slightly larger dial than 34mm OP and AK and the same size in the 36mm OP/DD. Its the increase in bezel size that makes it appear larger (ie dial is the same size as a Sub but because of the large black bezel the sub appears larger).

You might think it’s BS, but it’s not for me. There are all kinds of reasons a dial can look too big, the actual size of the dial is one of them, but other elements include text placement, hour markers, hands, date or no date, etc. for me, there was too much dial. YMMV.

[poidog81]

Originally Posted by Pauln

You might think it’s BS, but it’s not for me. There are all kinds of reasons a dial can look too big, the actual size of the dial is one of them, but other elements include text placement, hour markers, hands, date or no date, etc. for me, there was too much dial. YMMV.

Totally get what you're saying, and not calling BS on the way it looks to someone or how it wears. But the dial size themselves are no different. To me the dials between the two wear the same, but the bezel and the case makes the 39 wear larger, but not by a factor that it would make it too big for the wrist when comparing to the 36mm.

[bob78h]

I've owned both. I prefer the matte dial of the 39mm, but the size of the 36 is a lot better IMO. I have small wrists and found the 39 is a little too much dial for me.

[kohe321]

I love both the 36 and 39mm. Had the 36mm and really regret selling it, but the 39mm I just got really is great, and will be a true keeper.

[DLRIDES]

Originally Posted by BradSomrak

This always makes my head hurt. So for 80 years men were wearing watches that were too small, and only now have we cracked the correct sizing code?

Hard pass on that sentiment.

If you prefer 39 over 36, fine. Have at it. But this notion that 36 is feminine is......something, to be kind.

All styles change with time .....................

Wrist watches were once considered only for women, aren’t you glad that style changed ?

[BradSomrak]

To a point, fair. They are also cyclical.

But, nobody has ever walked by someone wearing a 6239 and said “meh. It if were 2 mm’s bigger it would be a mans watch.”

[sgarrity]

39mm all the way. And you get a better bracelet with the EasyLink!

[jason10mm]

Originally Posted by poidog81

Totally get what you're saying, and not calling BS on the way it looks to someone or how it wears. But the dial size themselves are no different. To me the dials between the two wear the same, but the bezel and the case makes the 39 wear larger, but not by a factor that it would make it too big for the wrist when comparing to the 36mm.

Clearly there is some dial size increase with the 6 digit exp because the old hands used on the mk1 no longer reached, right?

[poidog81]

Originally Posted by jason10mm

Clearly there is some dial size increase with the 6 digit exp because the old hands used on the mk1 no longer reached, right?

Possibly, never thought of that. Would be neat if someone has both and can put a caliber against both of them and report back.

[shapa]

39mm all the way.

[GradyPhilpott]

It is my humble opinion that the 114270 is just about the most perfect watch ever built.

I felt that way when I first tried it on at the AD and I still feel that way eleven years later.

I have a lot of watches across a wide range of prices and sizes, so I'm not particularly biased. It's just an honest reaction to such a well-built and well-proportioned watch.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by BradSomrak

This always makes my head hurt. So for 80 years men were wearing watches that were too small, and only now have we cracked the correct sizing code?

Hard pass on that sentiment.

If you prefer 39 over 36, fine. Have at it. But this notion that 36 is feminine is......something, to be kind.

[ranxoren]

Personally I think it all comes down to your wrist size and what presence you want on the wrist. Ultimately they're both great watches but trying both on will help you determine which one works best for YOU.

[Jrsanchez]

39