Explorer 36 vs 40 PHOTO comparison

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

You conveniently ignore the many ongoing strident posts over many threads relating 36mm case size to questionable manhood. In fact there is one between our posts. If the long established standard of 36mm was indeed an objective measure of manhood as these posts imply then by that logic millions and millions of men once considered admirable were indeed pussies.

“Fashion changes, style never changes.” —Coco Chanel

Larger watches have been the fashion of recent decades. Like all fashion trends the size of watch cases will cycle back to the established standard and in fact it has already started. Like all fashion trends some people will carry on with the style that links them to a point in time through their preference. Like exaggerated shoulder pads or men in capri pants or harness boots these sartorial choices will forever link a person to a brief window in time while time marches forward and leaves them behind.

Nothing ignored. Just an additional view given.

The "logic" you have applied is assumptive and therefore flawed. As you have pointed out, fashions change and therefore to conclude that someone suggesting today 36mm is a "woman's size" is therefore suggesting the millions of men who wore 36mm or smaller were "pussies" is somewhat of a stretch

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by mykii

It's just wrong in 40mm. At 39mm it already wore like a plate. It's simply a 36mm watch.

Do you think a person's wrist size should have anything to do with their choice in watch size?

[sportsmaven20]

I moved my comments to another thread

[Anthony808]

I owned the 39 but sold it because it didn't quite look right on my 7.5" wrist. Not sure if 1mm will make a difference but I'm eager to try it on.

[JTL31]

Originally Posted by Cr_Zeek

Thanks for sharing these photos. 40mm looks brilliant and 36mm looks like a ladies' watch. No offense to the ladies, you are just as much admired ;)

Just an FYI… Jody from “Just One More Watch” YT Channel has the measurement of the TT Explorer at 35.3 mm. This particular model does wear small but I love it on my slightly under 6” wrist. Female here to note.

Adrian from YT “Bark & Jack” does a good review comparing the 36 & 40 w/pics along with wearability.

[Brich436]

To understand this watch you have to wear it for at least a week. Then you realize the beauty and simplicity of the size and design. When I go skiing the watch slides beautifully under a ski glove. Zero drama. Also slides perfectly under a dress shirt.

My Submariner feels like a clunky brick sliding around on wrist in comparison.

36mm for non Oger sized mortals.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Law52]

I find the 39mm to be as close to perfect for a everyday wear watch. Comfortable to wear and for me not as concerning of getting bumped around. Out of my collection of Rolex’s, Omega, Tudor etc…. It currently is getting somewhere around 80% of wrist time.
If I do get a desire for a 40mm sport, I’ll add the new AK.

[5thLegion]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

Man, the Explorer crowd is a tough crowd to please

They really should have done a 38mm!

JK - 36mm for me.

[Dr. Robert]

I have the 114270 & 214270…….I dig them both.

[Bulldozer]

Sadly, both are too small.

[CPZorro]

Originally Posted by logo

I prefer the 36. Photo from Worn and Wound.

Honestly, I like the dial organization on the 214270 39mm explorer compared to the new 40...

[Hems]

I prefer the 36mm, it actually wears small but it's perfect and simple.

[Bozack90]

Originally Posted by cerendigit

This thread makes me want to buy my 36mm back.

Same here I now regret selling it years ago

[simon101]

To me size is more about dial size than case size. I don’t have the measurements, but I would bet the 36 Explorer has a very similar dial size to say the 41 Sub (or at least the same as the 16610). But the Sub has a large bezel an hence needs a larger case, and looks the right size.

I had the 39 Exp and the dial size just looked off, irrespective of wrist size. I now have the 36 which looks perfect.

But hey, we have a choice and should respect people’s decisions.

Play nice!

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by simon101

To me size is more about dial size than case size. I don’t have the measurements, but I would bet the 36 Explorer has a very similar dial size to say the 41 Sub (or at least the same as the 16610). But the Sub has a large bezel an hence needs a larger case, and looks the right size.

I had the 39 Exp and the dial size just looked off, irrespective of wrist size. I now have the 36 which looks perfect.

But hey, we have a choice and should respect people’s decisions.

Play nice!

Correct. I cannot comment on exact dial dimensions today, but in the five-digit era, all 36mm Classic watches (DJ, DD) and the Explorer had the same size dial as all of the 40mm Professional watches.

That was back when watch size was largely determined by a need to accommodate specific attributes, vs. determined by fashion trends.

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by logo

The number of men here insecure in their watch size is hilarious. Preference for 40 or more is fine if that’s your thing, but the absolute conviction some have on what constitutes a men’s watch is curious. Fortunately, these comments can’t rewrite history. Many great men have worn a 36 over the past 75+ years.

If it was 75 years ago, I'd go for the 36.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by gaheris

Here is some guy named Ernest Hemingway looking plenty manly with his dainty 31mm bubbleback. I have always thought it is the way people carry themselves that make them look masculine or feminine amongst many other things, more so than the size of their watch.

Looks small on him, I really doubt he’d be wearing a 31 today.

Too much real estate between the lugs and edge of the wrist reminds me of a guy wearing flood pants.

The larger watch trend has been going on a long time, look at women’s watches from 100 years ago, they looked to be about the size of a dime. I’m sure many great women wore them, so what?

[cv5]

For a small wrist the 36mm will be preferable but for a big wrist then 40mm will be a good one. I'd go with the 36.

[zengineer]

Originally Posted by cv5

For a small wrist the 36mm will be preferable but for a big wrist then 40mm will be a good one. I'd go with the 36.

Wait a minute....are you suggesting that larger people should wear larger watches???? I suppose you think they need bigger shirts and hats too??

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[amphr1]

At first the 40 looks huge. But putting it on the wrist and looking from the mirror it looks perfect even for my slim wrist.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

[pavinc]

I personally prefer the bigger 39mm or 40mm.
They’re all
Beautiful reference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Doyle]

Explorer 1 = 36
I would go Explorer 2 for a bigger watch. 39 or 40mm Explorer is an overkill IMO.

[TickTockChuck]

I prefer the 39mm which was the sweet spot for me, but I understand there's a suitable size for everyone. The 36mm seemed rather small when I saw one a few months ago. There is an interesting article (link below) where they compare the 36, 39 and 40mm versions. Cheers!

https://monochrome-watches.com/revie...0-specs-price/

[Kreyzhorse]

I prefer larger watches, the sweet spot for me is 40 to 42. Nothing bigger. But, I do have some smaller vintage watches that are 34 to 36. I also wear them often so I'm not against smaller watches, but with my hand and wrists, 40 and 42 just look better to me.

[sherrill]

Originally Posted by Brich436

To understand this watch you have to wear it for at least a week. Then you realize the beauty and simplicity of the size and design. When I go skiing the watch slides beautifully under a ski glove. Zero drama. Also slides perfectly under a dress shirt.

My Submariner feels like a clunky brick sliding around on wrist in comparison.

36mm for non Oger sized mortals.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks great on your wrist! Can I ask what your wrist size is?

[worldofoyster]

now the 39 may become more and more desired

[machlo]

Originally Posted by worldofoyster

now the 39 may become more and more desired

Probably not

[Stromness]

Originally Posted by worldofoyster

now the 39 may become more and more desired

I'd been thinking that -- maybe.

I never really bonded with the 39. Owned it for several months, enjoyed it at times but eventually moved it on to a mate who really loved it and still does to this day. Excellent piece with some standout features, but I never found it to work properly on my 6.75 wrist -- had similar experiences with an IWC XVIII and 2018 Seamaster. All fine watches, but didn't love 'em.

I love the 36. Perfect proportions, wears like a dream. I think the 40 would also work fine, but likely wears quite differently for me. So it goes. Horses for courses with these explorers. Fortunately, there's now more horses (or courses?) to choose from. In any guise it's very close to a perfect one-watch collection for me. Not, of course, that I'm anywhere near managing that feat.

[TXT]

I never thought I would even consider liking a 36mm. I’m used to wearing between 38-42mm. Even when trying one odd, it seem small. But once your eyes adapt, it really wears well. Like many have said, end of the day, wear what you love. At least there are options with the Explorer. If the 36mm is too small for your liking, give 40mm a try.

[cmoray]

I recently purchased the 40 mm versiton. Like many people here, I prefer classics. I've tried 36 and 39 before but to me this new 40 mm verison is incredible. I have small wrists but the watch still looks good.