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

[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.

[Shadow Play]

Originally Posted by ciceroyeah

They made a mistake and then corrected it.

I think the 39 looks better than the 36 so I can’t personally agree it was because 39mm was a mistake.

To me it is more likely that Rolex brought back the 36mm to accommodate all those that want it smaller. In a few years time they will likely bring out a 41mm as well to accommodate all those that want it bigger.

It also means the 39mm can no longer be bought from an AD so anyone who thinks 36 is too small and is determined to own an Explorer will have to pay the increased grey prices.

As we all know higher grey prices makes selling your brand of watch far easier than if they drop 50% the moment you walk out the AD.

[Nairn1980]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

I cannot fathom why Rolex decided it was time to retire the 36mm Explorer back in 2010. Upgrade it to 39mm. Then refine the 39mm with the MK 2 dial. You have arguably the perfect modern Explorer!!

Then out of the blue, with this release, throw it all out the window and go back to 36mm!!

Can someone please explain what they are thinking or what their intent is? I am baffled.

I bet they’ll add a 41mm next

[StackLexus17]

36mm for the purists.

Also because they can.

[dchernikoff]

I hope hope hope this means that the fashion shift is going away from Ginormous hubcap-sized watches and back to more reasonably sized watches that actually fit the wrist and don't slop over. Oops, is my small watch bias showing? lol

[007_Omega]

I think it will largely be a test case for how well it sells. It will be an excellent case study for how it appeals to both men and women, if the transition to a smaller size would actually lower sales.

I don't doubt that Rolex will release a larger option in the future.

Personally, I think the 36mm is superior. Not that 36mm>39mm in general but that this particular watch was designed as a 36mm watch and that the 39mm looks a bit bloated.

[nicon]

It's the same reason they slimmed down the Submariner lugs, they admitted it was a mistake, it usually takes Rolex 10 years to apply a fix :).

[DJ39]

41 mm is too large without having a fluted bezel Also a lot of space on the dial Which could make the watch look disproportionate

39 mm needs to be discontinued because there are no other 39 mm watches In other words they need to save production money

36 is the perfect size for a flat bezel and they could cross market the 36 mm to females

Then they can also brand their market by producing a 36 mm two-tone which they can market to females and males to normalized two tone in the sport model ranges

Also keep in mind that when Rolex goes too large size they get the proportions off because of the large lugs, The watch loses some of its elegance

Then there’s the fact that the explorer two is already 42 mm so it might be too close to that size

There’s also the Hodinkee crowd which loves their 36 mm Watches not say anything about the DINK I think they’re amazing but they do love there’s 36 mm watches at least in theory

Also Rolex gets criticized for going large and all their watches so to certain extent they’re moving the needle down on certain watches and moving the needle up on some others to deflect some of the criticism

I hope that helps


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DFC45]

The unspoken elephant in the room is China. They account for the shortages, as well as the move to updated 36mm in DJ and the new Explorer. I own a 114270 and a 214270 MK 1 and love them both. The new Explorer with solid links and new movement is awesome. If I have the chance I will add it to my collection

[fogarata]

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.

I don’t think the new Explorer will share the same case as the OP, it looks slightly bigger

[Montremoi]

Now imagine if a few years on they released a 39mm Sub and GMT

[Crazy Lugs]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

The lugs of the 114270 are much thinner than on the DJ36 of the same period.

Incorrect comparison- the 14270/114270 case was shared with the 16220 DJ36, not the 116200 version with the fat lugs.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Crazy Lugs

Incorrect comparison- the 14270/114270 case was shared with the 16220 DJ36, not the 116200 version with the fat lugs.

I said that the comparison was between two references of the same period. I bought the 114270 in 2008 and the 116200 about a year later in 2009. Both were current models. That was the question, as I understood it.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[Sailman]

I own both 36mm and 39mm mark II. Rolex has been trying to fix the 39mm since it came out. First the short hands , then the mark II dial upgrade and it still wasn’t quite right .... I think they are getting lazy as the right design in 37mm could be perfect, but let’s see how the new 36mm wears (36mm 2.0).

[JimSnyder]

They made it right. Good job, Rolex

[Rebel]

Originally Posted by ciceroyeah

They made a mistake and then corrected it.

This.

[Plant]

Now we just need a white dial 36mm explorer and were perfect. Would be a nice combo with my black DJ 36

Rolex can add a 41mm version too if they want for the people who insist anything under 40mm is for women. However, when I tried the 39mm on it looked too big and awkward so the change back to 36mm seems good to me

[drblowfin]

41 would be too large for me. Tried OP 36 and 41.
36 OP was too small.

So I got the 214270Mk2 and found it was the perfect size for me!
In fact the most comfortable watch I have ever owned!
Way more comfy than my 116710BLNR or various Tags & Seikos.

[fania123]

Originally Posted by llvhhui

I'm excited and pissed off at the same time. Now there is finally a perfect explorer, but I just bought a 114270 a few months ago.

I’d rather have the 114270 so in my opinion you did the right thing.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by ciceroyeah

They made a mistake and then corrected it.

This!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jas55]

I like the return to the 36mm. I would consider one now. I don't like the two toned version though.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

They realised the error of their ways. The 39 never looked quite right to me.

Have to agree Adam.

There’s been some narrative from Rolex on returning proportions to those of the earlier references.

The new 36 looks to be perfectly proportioned, as does the new Exp 2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S.Explorer]

Glad the 36mm has returned, the 39mm wasn't as well proportioned in my view.

Rolex could have differentiated the 124270 a bit more from the 114270 though, e.g. matt dial, 1016 style 3-6-9 markers, quick set hour hand, etc.

[1William]

I think Rolex got tired of the incessant whining of those individuals who think 36 mm is the only way to go on this watch. I think 36 mm works and it is a classic size. I also think that the 39 mm was nice but I would like to see it in 41 mm. I do not think on most watches it should be an either/or but options. Somethings do not work for me that work for others and I say great for them. No need to criticize.

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by fogarata

I don’t think the new Explorer will share the same case as the OP, it looks slightly bigger

Based on the pictures from Rolex.com you seem to be correct - the cases are very similar, but the proportions are not quite identical (which surprised me).

[Crazy Lugs]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I said that the comparison was between two references of the same period. I bought the 114270 in 2008 and the 116200 about a year later in 2009. Both were current models. That was the question, as I understood it.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

No worries- you are indeed correct the 114270 and 116200 were offered concurrently. My point was that the 114270 continued to share the 16200 mid case for the entire production run starting with the 14270.

[904VT]

I think it's a parts bin move (besides additional benefit of having a smaller professional watch for the Asian markets and ladies that want to participate). IMO the cost cutting measure was so they could share cases probably with the OP36 now that the OP39 has been discontinued. For that reason, I don't think it is too far fetched for Rolex to introduce an Explorer 41 in the future, though I think the result would be a messy model line.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by fogarata

I don’t think the new Explorer will share the same case as the OP, it looks slightly bigger

May not be exact, but synergies are still there regardless of the final case shape from what I can tell.

[braveheart09]

i guess, it’s more of a statement from Rolex.. ‘that while other brands tend to popularize bigger size watches, 36mm is not outdated but remains a classic’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[904VT]

Originally Posted by braveheart09

i guess, it’s more of a statement for Rolex.. ‘that while other brands tend to popularize bigger sizer watches, 36mm is not outdated but remains a classic’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not being difficult to be difficult, but Rolex just made a different statement 6 months ago with the Sub/Sub Date and the OP 41. Upped (at least on paper) from 39mm and 40mm to both 41mm. Pretty inconsistent for Rolex if you ask me. Let's not even get into the YM line jk