I think I know what's wrong with 39 Exp

[Daniel23456]

I'll share my personal story,
3 years ago I wanted to but a Rolex Explorer after being in love with it for a couple of months. When I thought ok, it's time to to do something about it, you begin to look for reference numbers and so on... Then, discovered the whole 36 vs 39, 36SEL vs 36 HEL, 39WG numerals vs 39 lume filled numerals and so on.
After trying on both 39mm and 36mm I got two offers for a 36mm Y serial number and a pretty much brand new MkII (long hands, lume numerals). Ultimately decided to go with the 36mm without looking back. As some of you know, I recently acquired a Tudor Pelagos which I absolutely love. The watch, however, is big. At 42mm it looks like it can eat my 36mm Explorer. Made me consider again, flipping the 36mm to a 39mm Explorer. After trying on the 39mm again, I still don't like it (even though I still consider flipping and getting it).
In my opinion, Rolex should have gone 22mm lug width with that watch, or at least 21. The whole watch flared up, the lugs became huge and maxed out but the transition to the bracelet stayed the same. Now, I know, the sub has gone through the same thing, and it looks fine, to me. But I believe that the sub looks better, because in the first place there are fundamental differences between the two. The bezel isn't empty and there's no slope, the face of the watch is smaller, and the bezel adds bulk. The explorer is basically just face.
Anyway, wanted to share my thoughts on that, because I am in a very weird position now, I really, really like the Explorer. It represents exactly what I am trying to achieve. I even like the 36’s glossy black dial, transitions, simplicity, lightness. I just can't get it out of my head that it might is too small. Makes me frustrated with the bigger one, cause it doesn't attract me as much as the 36mm one does. Maybe I should just get a 39 OP

[Snow-Dweller]

I spent many years ignoring the Explorer. I now consider its latest iteration to be pretty close to horological perfection.

[javier]

Which is the diameter of your wrist ? That answer would probabily solve the issue

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by javier

Which is the diameter of your wrist ? That answer would probabily solve the issue

I am a 7.2-inch wrist guy. The problem in my opinion, is that pictures just don't do justice. I will attach a picture of it on my wrist anyway.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-i0...w?usp=drivesdk

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by Snow-Dweller

I spent many years ignoring the Explorer. I now consider its latest iteration to be pretty close to horological perfection.

Glad you found it! The Explorer tends to be ignored... But when you find it, all of your other watches are in danger:)

[Charm City]

+1 for the 39mm being perfect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Igor01]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I am pretty much of the same opinion and as much as I keep telling myself that the Explorer 39 (mine is the latest lumed numerals and longer hands version) is a perfection, I just can't get the "looks too small" thing out of my mind. I think you nailed it - the empy slanted bezel, dainty case and relatively large dial make it appear smaller and more boring than it should be.

I absolutely love the watch in pictures but as soon as I put it on my wrist, it just melts into a drab impression of a generic early 90's watch with a bland dial and non- descript bezel. I also realized that the horisontally stretched numerals as well as the jarring mix of three different visual hour marker styles rub me the wrong way.

This is really weird - the modern Explorer is the only watch that I absolutely love admiring in pictures but don't like enough in the metal to actually wear it.

[IR201]

Personally I never bonded with the 39mm mark 2 but did with the mk1, despite the majority opinion of t-rex hands etc (and sad to say i am normally susceptible to opinion, so i must have really liked it if i still went with it).

[Vince KSA]

That's a hell of a strong statement and vote of support for the Explorer Clive considering your collection which includes 2 x 5711s.

I think sometimes less is more, and as you say the 39mm Explorer is simplicity and style personified.
Colour, size and proportions make this watch close to perfection. I'm really warming to this watch and might just add it as a daily.


[QUOTE=Snow-Dweller;9664101]I spent many years ignoring the Explorer. I now consider its latest iteration to be pretty close to horological perfection.

[/QUOTE]

[Fat_ninja]

Love the watch

[kohe321]

Nah, it's perfect.



Increasing lug width by even 1mm would ruin it. I have owned the 36mm and it's great, but the 39mm is also fantastic. Both are proportionally spot on in my opinion.

[Saaci]

The problem with all the modern Explorer variants is that none of them are a 1016.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Page]

Originally Posted by kohe321

Nah, it's perfect.



Increasing lug width by even 1mm would ruin it. I have owned the 36mm and it's great, but the 39mm is also fantastic. Both are proportionally spot on in my opinion.

That's a great photo, and why I keep wanting to pick one up....

[2nastie]

Originally Posted by kohe321

Nah, it's perfect.



Increasing lug width by even 1mm would ruin it. I have owned the 36mm and it's great, but the 39mm is also fantastic. Both are proportionally spot on in my opinion.

Have to agree with this photo! It's perfect. Increasing the lug width would only make the watch look a lot squarer.

I love my modern MK2 214270!

[Litflynt912]

The exp 1 was also the step child I didn’t even look at. I must have went through 5-6 different subs and once I decided to give the explorer a chance I haven’t looked back. Literally the perfect everyday watch. An explorer and a 5067A is the two watch combo one needs
Personally I prefer the MK1 dial because it’s classier and you can always have RSC update it. You can’t go back.

[Tom5518]

I love everything about it.

[ppalasthira]

Originally Posted by Snow-Dweller

I spent many years ignoring the Explorer. I now consider its latest iteration to be pretty close to horological perfection.

I think I get what you mean. It is the best non-date, non-Sub, three hand Rolex imho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moggo]

I always ignored it in favour of bigger bolder Rolex.

Had one in the window a year back and decided to take a look, even after trying it on was a bit underwhelmed but bought it anyway.

Now a year down the line I love it, so simple but classic, wears so well.

My favourite watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Snow-Dweller

I spent many years ignoring the Explorer. I now consider its latest iteration to be pretty close to horological perfection.

Minute hand is too long. Makes the hand set unbalanced (loss of symmetry). The MKI had the hand set right.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Snow-Dweller

I spent many years ignoring the Explorer. I now consider its latest iteration to be pretty close to horological perfection.

Glad you’re enjoying it Clive, looks great on you

[emtee]

Personally I think the lugs to bracelet taper on the 39mm are the best of all modern Rolex along with the Daytona.

Side by side with the 36mm I much prefer the new one. But then again I mostly prefer newer things.

[Art 1]

I had the MK2 one for about a year. I really liked it. Comfortable and easy to read. It has a flip lock and I insist on that. Actually it might be the best and most sensible watch that Rolex makes.

[nick800]

It’s perfect

[elcabo]

I agree with OP- the explorer just doesn’t do it for me in the metal. I too thought it was the perfect combination of rolex DNA, ruggedness, and elegance. But on the wrist it doesn’t have the wow factor for me. At least not like some of the pictures I see.

[Snow-Dweller]

Originally Posted by Vince KSA

That's a hell of a strong statement and vote of support for the Explorer Clive considering your collection which includes 2 x 5711s.





[QUOTE=Snow-Dweller;9664101]I spent many years ignoring the Explorer. I now consider its latest iteration to be pretty close to horological perfection.

[/QUOTE]


...and the 5711s have been getting almost all the wrist time. But when I go to put on a Rolex, it seems to inevitably be the Explorer

[vicsdca]

36mm Explorer next to Sub 14060.

Which one has the larger dial ?

IMG_0720.JPG

IMG_4268.JPG

To my eyes (because actual measurements don't matter), the dial of the 36mm Explorer looks slightly larger than the dial of the 40mm Submariner.

This is why I strongly believe that the 36mm Explorer is better proportioned than the 39mm version.

Once you get the numbers out of your head (36 vs 39) and focus on the visual only, the choice becomes easier.

[Art 1]

I believe the dials are the same size. At times I felt that I was looking at a Sub with the bezel missing.

[CamSLC]

Extremely versatile and elegant at the same time

[RichM]

I had it and really enjoyed it during the time I owned it. My only complaint is they should have keep the Mk1 (short hands) on it. For me, that would be perfection.

My everyday watch is now it’s bigger brother the Exp II.

[Gimoozaabi]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

Maybe I should just get a 39 OP

The OP39 has the exact dimensions as the modern 39mm Explorer.

The Explorer dimensions are perfect in my opinion.