Explorer 36 - Old vs New

[Calatrava r]

I prefer the new model. looks more balanced to me and sturdier with the thicker lugs. This is a watch to take to extremes in the wild.

[ink3027]

I think we're likely exaggerating the bracelet taper.

My wife has a 114200 OP 34 from 3 years ago, which has a 19mm lug width (I think the new OP 34 reference 124200 has 18mm lug width). I just measured the removable links on it, and they're 15.5mm, which I believe is the standard removable link size on most (or all) 20mm lug width oyster bracelets. A buddy of mine measured his 116500 Daytona bracelet and the removable links there are 15.5mm as well.

As it relates to this new 124270 36mm Explorer, I would be surprise if the removable links are any smaller than that. I think it's going to look great.

[ByzantineFire]

Originally Posted by ink3027

I think we're likely exaggerating the bracelet taper.

My wife has a 114200 OP 34 from 3 years ago, which has a 19mm lug width (I think the new OP 34 reference 124200 has 18mm lug width). I just measured the removable links on it, and they're 15.5mm, which I believe is the standard removable link size on most (or all) 20mm lug width oyster bracelets. A buddy of mine measured his 116500 Daytona bracelet and the removable links there are 15.5mm as well.

As it relates to this new 124270 36mm Explorer, I would be surprise if the removable links are any smaller than that. I think it's going to look great.

^ Exactly this

[Juggernaut]

Originally Posted by thorm

Not for me. For me it's the best thing they could've done. However I do feel for all those with bigger wrists. I think it could easily have been a two size offering on the explorer.

I have a feeling we’re going to see the release of a 41mm Explorer in coming years as an addition, not a replacement of the new 36mm version.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by CagKaly

This is the first time I think Rolex is using a 19mm bracelet on a 36mm model, vintage or modern. They could have easily achieved it by simply making the case 36.5mm or so, instead of overdesigning it to make it appear larger. I’m starting to believe that Rolex is primarily targeting women with this watch, contrary to true unisex models like DJ36 and OP36.

I believe the YM 37 has a 18mm bracelet (at the lugs)

[Juggernaut]

Originally Posted by ink3027

It's a puzzling decision, I also thought they would stick to the 20mm lug width, like the older Explorers and also current OP36 and DJ36 references. My only thought as to why they reduced the lug width to 19mm would be to make the lugs slightly thicker so the case can appear slightly larger. From the comparison photos I've seen, the overall case size is similar to the 114270. So I would guess that Rolex took 1mm from the bracelet and made each lug something like 0.5mm thicker so the case would appear larger. That's all that comes to mind.

I for one have no problem with a 19mm bracelet to slightly thicken the lugs, but I would have expected a more gradual taper to end up at the same 16.7mm (just measured my 114270) clasp. A. Ore aggressive taper to end at a narrower clasp is a bit of an issue. A taper is more comfortable but I found that the degree of taper makes a large impact in the appearance of the bracelet.....just ask any Omega owner—those bracelets are famous for little to no taper and they look more robust in general.

In my experience the degree of taper makes a much bigger visual difference than the overall width of the bracelet.

[JJK]

They are breaking with about 70 years of design tradition with the 19mm lug width on a 36mm oyster. It will probable look pretty good in the flesh but it was a mistake again IMO with the Explorer.
They could have lumed the numbers when they switched over from the 1016 and they didn’t.
They could have gotten the 39mm dial correct the first time and they didn’t and it was also just a bit big for the design.
They could have reintroduced the 36 with 20mm lugs and fully lumed matte dial but they didn’t.
The 114270 is about as close as they have come to perfection - it’s close enough.
I’ll probably keep it instead of getting the new one. We will just need to wait and see it in the metal.

[HORNBLOWER]

Yes, totally stockier and muscular around the lugs. Welcome the 'Pec-splorer'

[CagKaly]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

I for one have no problem with a 19mm bracelet to slightly thicken the lugs, but I would have expected a more gradual taper to end up at the same 16.7mm (just measured my 114270) clasp. A. Ore aggressive taper to end at a narrower clasp is a bit of an issue. A taper is more comfortable but I found that the degree of taper makes a large impact in the appearance of the bracelet.....just ask any Omega owner—those bracelets are famous for little to no taper and they look more robust in general.

In my experience the degree of taper makes a much bigger visual difference than the overall width of the bracelet.

This.

[JohnFM]

Lot of great points made here. I love both watches because they're both so wearable and comfortable. While I like bigger watches too, after a long day, I'm glad to take them off. But I can wear a 36mm Explorer all day and night, without discomfort. Back when we used to have to wear watches to tell time, 36mm was the sweet spot and, if anything, slightly large compared to the many 34mm watches available years ago.

I think the older model is a bit more elegant and the new model more sporty. Forced to choose on looks alone, I prefer the 114270. Among modern Explorers, it has some of the aesthetic magic of the lovely 1016.

Still, I'm thrilled that Rolex has reintroduced a 36mm Explorer and those who buy one will know they're getting the ultimate in fit and finish, an updated movement, and a watch they can wear comfortably for hours on end.

[Juggernaut]

One other gripe I had about the 39mm 214270 was the dial field...it was not as glossy as the 114270, but it definitely was not a truly flat matte dial...slightly glossy, like satin.

What is the meaning of an “enameled” dial on the new one? It still looks slightly glossy.

[Brich436]

Originally Posted by JohnFM

Lot of great points made here. I love both watches because they're both so wearable and comfortable. While I like bigger watches too, after a long day, I'm glad to take them off. But I can wear a 36mm Explorer all day and night, without discomfort. Back when we used to have to wear watches to tell time, 36mm was the sweet spot and, if anything, slightly large compared to the many 34mm watches available years ago.

I think the older model is a bit more elegant and the new model more sporty. Forced to choose on looks alone, I prefer the 114270. Among modern Explorers, it has some of the aesthetic magic of the lovely 1016.

Still, I'm thrilled that Rolex has reintroduced a 36mm Explorer and those who buy one will know they're getting the ultimate in fit and finish, an updated movement, and a watch they can wear comfortably for hours on end.

This. The bigger watches have much more wrist presence but nothing wears like a 36mm. It just wears so nice. It’s also screams ROLEX a lot less. I can wait to see the new model on a grey nato. Think it will be fantastic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlakeA]

Originally Posted by Njw

Lmao 19mm v 20mm is ‘horrendous’. Is everyone on this board a bunch of autists going crazy over a 1mm difference? FFS you guys are mental

[ink3027]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

I for one have no problem with a 19mm bracelet to slightly thicken the lugs, but I would have expected a more gradual taper to end up at the same 16.7mm (just measured my 114270) clasp. A. Ore aggressive taper to end at a narrower clasp is a bit of an issue. A taper is more comfortable but I found that the degree of taper makes a large impact in the appearance of the bracelet.....just ask any Omega owner—those bracelets are famous for little to no taper and they look more robust in general.

In my experience the degree of taper makes a much bigger visual difference than the overall width of the bracelet.

At which point on the 114270 did you measure and get 16.7mm? I just measured a link from a 78790A bracelet (which I believe is the bracelet for the 114270) and it measures 15.5mm. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, my wife's OP34 with 19mm lug width has the same removable link width at 15.5mm. Based on this info, I would be surprised if Rolex got smaller on the removable links for the new 124270.

[CagKaly]

Originally Posted by ink3027

At which point on the 114270 did you measure and get 16.7mm? I just measured a link from a 78790A bracelet (which I believe is the bracelet for the 114270) and it measures 15.5mm. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, my wife's OP34 with 19mm lug width has the same removable link width at 15.5mm. Based on this info, I would be surprised if Rolex got smaller on the removable links for the new 124270.

16.7mm is the width of the clasp, not the removable link.

[ink3027]

Originally Posted by CagKaly

16.7mm is the width of the clasp, not the removable link.

Just checking. In fact, I bet we actually end up with a wider clasp than on the 114270. I keep referencing my wife's OP34, but it's the on 19mm lug width Rolex I've handled. That watch has the clasp that the modern OP and DJ share, without flip lock, and it measures 17.5mm wide -- which is larger than the old 114270 clasp. Because the new clasps are made of thicker steel, Rolex would REALLY have to downsize the clasp and bracelet to make it smaller than the 114270. I actually think there's a chance the new Explorer will have a larger clasp than the 114270.

[RonnieBadger]

Now... is it poor form to address the taper design faux pas by removing the bracelet and replacing with a nato/perlon alternative to maintain the 19mm band. Understand this is not the intended, but makes it the watch that many would like.

I will now be retiring to a place of shelter.

[SaddleSC]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

One other gripe I had about the 39mm 214270 was the dial field...it was not as glossy as the 114270, but it definitely was not a truly flat matte dial...slightly glossy, like satin.

What is the meaning of an “enameled” dial on the new one? It still looks slightly glossy.

It means a completely gloss black dial. Just like the Sub and GMT. If the diminutive size didn’t kill my desire completely, the new gloss dial would have certainly done the trick. The matte-ish satin dial on the current EXP is one of my favorite features.

[Vuerre]

Originally Posted by davidevo

This pic from Hodinkee Japan is a fantastic side by side, I have to say I'm loving the new maxi dial. The lug width is undeniably smaller though, has to be 19mm.

yes, and the case size looks at least 1 mm larger than the old 36 mm case, too. Exciting.

[Juggernaut]

[QUOTE=baamvino;11394109]Here is another comparison shot by YoureTerrific]

When I look at that photo, it’s clear that the angle of the bracelet taper needs to follow the angle of the lug sides for this watch (or any for that matter) look fully integrated with its bracelet. With its broader lugs and narrower lug opening, the angle is more acute when compared to those of the 114270 which is more parellel. The case would have ended up measuring about 37mm if they would have kept similar geometry. If the clasp width ends up being similar to the 16.7mm of the 114270 it would mean that the tapering levels off after the 3rd link and becomes just about parellel before meeting the clasp.

[dannyp]

I think this was all a very deliberate way to make a 36mm watch wear ever-so-slightly larger than 36mm. Overall size is important, but even if the 9-3 measurement is the same on both of these, I suspect they wear slightly differently. Important now that Rolex seems to be eliminating 39mm options and it goes from 36 to 41.

[t60]

19mm lug width is not a big deal. It's mostly the mind that wants it as a 20, but if you look at the watch head design, 19mm suits it much better. Most folks haven't even seen it in the flesh and are already forming strong opinions.

[Juggernaut]

The best solution would be for Rolex to kindly replace my 114270 dial and hands to these new Chromalite ones when I send it in for service. Maybe if I put an extra $20 bill in the box, they’ll do it?....

[GarbanzoNegro]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

The best solution would be for Rolex to kindly replace my 114270 dial and hands to these new Chromalite ones when I send it in for service. Maybe if I put an extra $20 bill in the box, they’ll do it?....

Sure! Let me know when you do it, so we can send our watches at the same time and negotiate a better price. ;-)

[JRique]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxtpmcVj580

Not the best angles but the tapper and 19mm size looks ok.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by GarbanzoNegro

Sure! Let me know when you do it, so we can send our watches at the same time and negotiate a better price. ;-)

Your avatar just became that much more fitting...

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by CagKaly

Current DJ and OP 36 both have 20 lug width. The Explorer is 19mm and tapers down to a thinner clasp. This is the best photo of the clasp so far.

Makes me wonder whether there was another reason for the taper: The flip-lock. It has to be wider than the links above it, so that it sits more flush when open. Perhaps part of the motivation here was not wanting to have what appeared to be a ridiculously wide clasp?

Originally Posted by vlps

they didn't ruin it with the bracelet. theyre just targeting women with the watch.

I tend to think not, for two reasons:

1. Confirmation bias. I want one, and therefore it is intended as a men's watch.

2. If this were being marketed towards women, the TT version introduced would not have been YG/black dial. Can't think of a TT combo less on-trend right now.

In fact, my belief is that the proportions were largely intended to give the watch a bigger look/feel than its 36mm would otherwise have. I also think that the outer tip to outer tip measurement on the lugs is a little narrower than on the 36mm OP, meaning that the lugs taper more.

Here's what led me to that: Go to the Rolex website and pull up each watch. Then pull out a credit card and line it up with the outer edge of each lug, and see what minute marker it aligns with. Assuming the two have the same size dial, you'll see that the OP's lug interiors and exteriors align with outer-more minute markers.

[Lithographica]

Originally Posted by davidevo

This pic from Hodinkee Japan is a fantastic side by side, I have to say I'm loving the new maxi dial. The lug width is undeniably smaller though, has to be 19mm.

I measured the lug widths in this photo using a program called ImageJ. Using the lug width of the 114270 as the reference, it does indeed appear that the new 124270 Explorer has a lug width of 19mm.

[gnuyork]

Wow, after my initial disappointment of the discontinuation of the 39mm (after waiting nearly 8 months to no avail), seeing the new 36mm side by side with the 5 digit model makes me want to at least try it. I even called my AD today to express my interest when they get one in.

I have no problem with a 19mm lug width (except I will need to find 19mm NATOs). When I see the 20mm lug width on the 36mm DJ and Explorer, I often think it's too wide proportionately... So a tad thinner is welcome (in my opinion).

As far as the taper, I would welcome it...maybe. I have the new Speedmaster and a lot of people gripe about the new bracelet taper, but I happen to like it very much. I cannot stand a bulky clasp. The new bracelet on the new Speedmaster is a game-changer for me.

[Rollieo]

Anyone get one yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk