Don’t understand. Why go from 36 to 39 then back to 36mm

[Watch Rob]

The Yachtmaster comes in 37, 40, and 42. Why not an Explorer in 36 and 39? They should make both sizes.

[mykii]

Originally Posted by Watch Rob

The Yachtmaster comes in 37, 40, and 42. Why not an Explorer in 36 and 39? They should make both sizes.

I'm sure they eventually will.

[Ensign]

Fashion trends?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by zengineer

Yes, I understand why you think what you think.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So then you understand why north history and probability are on my side.

Originally Posted by Watch Rob

The Yachtmaster comes in 37, 40, and 42. Why not an Explorer in 36 and 39? They should make both sizes.

Originally Posted by mykii

I'm sure they eventually will.

First, that’s been a YM “thing” from the beginning (29, 35, 40). Secondly, while YM has always been part of the Pro line, it’s never been quite as purpose-built as others. It was the original “glitzy” Pro series watch and that was part of its character. So I don’t see the Explorer following its precedent.

There’s just nothing besides trends/wants to indicate Rolex would do this.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by moting

Possible to have a 41mm Explorer down the line as they share the same case than the OP which are now available in both 36 and 41.

And measure about 39.5mm not 41mm.

[shaunylw]

36 is a terrible size for me, but i get it. It brings in a sport watch for men with smaller wrists along with ladies that want to wear something a little larger and sporty. I thought the 39 with the full lume vs the white gold 3,6,9 was just about perfect.

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by dannyp

So then you understand why north history and probability are on my side.











First, that’s been a YM “thing” from the beginning (29, 35, 40). Secondly, while YM has always been part of the Pro line, it’s never been quite as purpose-built as others. It was the original “glitzy” Pro series watch and that was part of its character. So I don’t see the Explorer following its precedent.



There’s just nothing besides trends/wants to indicate Rolex would do this.

Yes, you may well be right

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by zengineer

Yes, you may well be right

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I should also say, in the interest of full disclosure, I prefer the 36mm version and think it should have always stayed that way. So perhaps there is some bias to my prediction.

What I see as much more likely is using the 41mm case for a new AK, that is available with a 3-6-9 dial. I think a shrinking to 36mm for the AK is more probable (sharing the Explorer case). But, a new AK that for all intents and purposes is a larger Explorer (rather than a brushed, rebadged, MG) is far more likely. Far more historical precedent for large pilot watches vs field watches, too.

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I should also say, in the interest of full disclosure, I prefer the 36mm version and think it should have always stayed that way. So perhaps there is some bias to my prediction.



What I see as much more likely is using the 41mm case for a new AK, that is available with a 3-6-9 dial. I think a shrinking to 36mm for the AK is more probable (sharing the Explorer case). But, a new AK that for all intents and purposes is a larger Explorer (rather than a brushed, rebadged, MG) is far more likely. Far more historical precedent for large pilot watches vs field watches, too.

I have the 39mm, it's the right size for me so it's all academic really. The only Rolex watch I may be interested in downstream would be a redesigned Milgauss.

.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[AndyS]

Originally Posted by knighty88

In your opinion… in mine, it’s the perfect watch and will never leave my collection.

If we all liked exactly the same things, life would be boring.

Plus 1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mquarter]

At 36 vs 39 they’re never going to please everybody.

[t65tampa]

I personally really like the Explorer in 39mm. The 36mm never really clicked with me. I have a Mk II dial version. Beautifully simple watch with the size that fits me best.

It’s nice to have options - vintage, late model, or newest version. Something for everybody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[7enderbender]

Came across a case full of pre owned Rolex watches in Boston. The only one that sparked my interest was a 36 mm Explorer. Classic design and very functional. No bling. It remains on my list. Of the current models it’s the only one I would want.

[rusty427]

I thought the 36 DJ and OP were a good size, so I was surprised when Rolex thinned the Explorer down even more with 19mm bracelet.
Like others, wondering if a larger model is in pipeline for next year.

[Verdi]

Vintage Explorer 36mm-yes

Modern Explorer....I prefer the 39mm model.
For a modern 36mm Rolex....I'd rather go for Datejust or OP.

[Giantpact]

Originally Posted by ciceroyeah

They made a mistake and then corrected it.

+1, Spot on!

[stevecv]

Agreed they made a mistake then corrected it. I hope it stays this way. The oversized watch trends are a thing of the past. It's not that 39mm is 'oversized', but in a time only watch the proportions don't work for my eye.

As far as offering two size options for the same model all I can say is I certainly hope not. I believe it would dilute the model.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by rusty427

I thought the 36 DJ and OP were a good size, so I was surprised when Rolex thinned the Explorer down even more with 19mm bracelet.
Like others, wondering if a larger model is in pipeline for next year.

What's interesting is comparing wrist presence of the two. Yes, the Explorer is a bit smaller in absolute terms. However, the watch head is more prominent relative to the tapered lugs and bracelet.

In fact, that Rolex chose to design a case/bracelet specifically for the Explorer suggests that Rolex is looking to further distinguish the Explorer line from similarly styled watches in the Classic range.

[azs.77]

The 36 was pretty fantastic. 39 seemed to be a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack T]

I have a MkI, short hands and it is darned near perfect

[1665fan]

36 is too small….easy pass, if I wanted something that small I would get a 1016

[S.Explorer]

Much prefer the 36, glad Rolex went back. So much nonsense about it being a ladies' watch. You only have to look at the incomings that many wear watches too big for their wrists.

[eskiserkan]

Perfect marketing strategy making 36mm upset and people
with big wrist happy. Than making 39mm more scarce and 36mm lovers happy.

[Brny11]

Seems their 32xx movements are restricted to 36 and 41 mm (as seen on OP, DJ and Sub). Given the options, I think Rolex made a wise decision going 36 on Explorer.

People yapping on about correcting a “mistake” I personally feel are wrong in their assumption of Rolex’s intentions. I think it’s a shame they now have an option that works only for my wife on one of their purest sport models in the lineup.

Glad I got my mk2 when I did!

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Brny11

Seems their 32xx movements are restricted to 36 and 41 mm (as seen on OP, DJ and Sub). Given the options, I think Rolex made a wise decision going 36 on Explorer.

People yapping on about correcting a “mistake” I personally feel are wrong in their assumption of Rolex’s intentions. I think it’s a shame they now have an option that works only for my wife on one of their purest sport models in the lineup.

Glad I got my mk2 when I did!

1. 32xx also forms base for YM*, DD and GMT/Explorer II, so a variety of pieces between 36 and 42. If Rolex still made 39mm watches, the 32xx would work and the introduction of one had nothing to do with the discontinuation of the other.

2. It’s ironic you speak of “purity” in reference to the Explorer but lament the loss of the return to 36 and think of it as a women’s-only version. Purists should be thrilled by the change and prefer it for that reason alone.


*Except the 37, which uses 22xx because the interior of the watch is actually smaller than the 36 OP/DJ

[NYG1121]

Because it is rolex. They do whatever they want.

[rusty427]

Originally Posted by dannyp

What's interesting is comparing wrist presence of the two. Yes, the Explorer is a bit smaller in absolute terms. However, the watch head is more prominent relative to the tapered lugs and bracelet.

In fact, that Rolex chose to design a case/bracelet specifically for the Explorer suggests that Rolex is looking to further distinguish the Explorer line from similarly styled watches in the Classic range.

It definitely looks well proportioned in pictures, l saw a side by side with a 114270 and the 20mm bracelet was noticeably larger proportionally to the head.

It is nice that the Explorer is a stand alone from the other similar sized models.

There does seem room for a larger model in the line up, I hope it is unique too and as well proportioned.

[Brny11]

Originally Posted by dannyp

2. It’s ironic you speak of “purity” in reference to the Explorer but lament the loss of the return to 36 and think of it as a women’s-only version. Purists should be thrilled by the change and prefer it for that reason alone.

I do agree with this statement. The 36mm was an excellent release. However, 36mm is not for everyone. 1016 is possibly my favorite ref of all time, but it would look odd on me. Tried on the new 36 display only at AD and it was more of the same. Also, my wife comment was based on my situation and was not intended as a broad statement indicating “woman’s” reference.

I also meant the purest of the modern lineup, based on ceramic and shiny materials incorporated on most of the current sports references (not a bad thing but I just feel that exp 1 was the closest modern iteration respective to its predecessors). IMO and purely subjective, the 39mm Exp does not stray to far from “traditional” and was a great addition for people with larger wrists.