New Explorer!

[AdamW]

I could be persuaded to pick up one of the new explorers. 40mm is just the right size and I love the clean look and lines, plus lime on the numbers.

None of the others launched today are of interest to me and I'm a bit bummed we got no new DJ dials or combos. But, I think Rolex had one of their better roll outs overall.

[Bobcat Sig]

I'm in. I love the size and I'm glad to see a 40mm size.

[RyanJ]

I don't like that it is 21mm mainly because I have a lot of 20mm straps.

I am completely torn as I have my 39mm. I am going to have to see it in person and hold them both. I am just not sure it is worth the upgrade. I keep going back and forth.

[chronical]

I’m interested to see if it actually measures 40mm or if it’s more close to 39/38mm

[Lew Archer]

Looks fantastic and I think it's a great move. I have the first version of the 39mm Explorer and the current 36mm. So, I'm a fan of the model. I'm glad they kept the option of a 36mm--which is too small for some, but just right for others.

If I didn't own a single watch, and could have any Rolex in the 2023 production lineup, I think it would be this 40mm Explorer.

I don't think one is in my future, but I look forward to checking out a display model one of these days and comparing in person to its 39 and 36mm brothers.

[TimeAZ]

I'd like to see a side-by-side with the Exp 39.

It's funny all those criticisms about the 214270 being "out of proportion" and "dial too large", and what do we have here... an even larger Explorer.

[warrior]

All those anti 39mm people taking about too large, out of proportion? you know how the saying goes, right? “ It’s on the Internet, so it must be true” LOL

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

I'd like to see a side-by-side with the Exp 39.

It's funny all those criticisms about the 214270 being "out of proportion" and "dial too large", and what do we have here... an even larger Explorer.

[TimeOnHand]

EXPLORE is the perfect all around watch and at 40 mm ideal for most wrist sizes.

[Tbird]

For the dayejust 36 I saw one or 2 new options: one with the blue motif but with diamonds now

[SparklesMcgraw]

No videos of the new one yet?

[SAP7]

Originally Posted by TimeAZ

I'd like to see a side-by-side with the Exp 39.

It's funny all those criticisms about the 214270 being "out of proportion" and "dial too large", and what do we have here... an even larger Explorer.

Completely missing the point.
Out of proportion isn’t anything to do with size.
The 39 was on a strap that wasn’t ideal in size or taper, and made the whole thing unbalanced.
The dial size is irrelevant on its own, it’s the way the whole package works together. The 39 was more of a an amalgamation of parts rather than a package designed for ashteitics.
If this 40 scales up the 36 and keeps the ratios it will blow the 39 out the water.

[RogerOP]

Yep this is the one for me.

I own a silver/gold OP41 and the legibility had me wanting a black dial Rolex. I’m still waiting on a Sub but put this Explorer on my hit list. I’ll settle with which ever comes in first.

But the price creep is ehhhh

[JSolution]

I like it. I really do. For me though it’s kinda an argument as vs the sub (or sd43 in my case) as a daily. And the submariner wins.

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by SAP7

The 39 was on a strap that wasn’t ideal in size or taper, and made the whole thing unbalanced.

Huh? Do explain please

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

Huh? Do explain please

+1. I've never ever got all this stuff about the 39 being unbalanced or an aesthetic mess. Quite the contrary in fact IMO.

[brandrea]

It’s a good looking reference for sure, just not sure I’d add it at this point

[knighty88]

My 39 explorer is the one watch in my collection that I could never part with. It fits nearly any situation or outfit, and is bullet proof with anything moderately adventurous in my lifestyle.

39mm vs 40mm is almost irrelevant to the naked eye, but then again beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If we all liked the same thing life would be very boring indeed.

[SAP7]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

Huh? Do explain please

Google golden ratio.

It is why natural things have balance and look “right”. The 39 wasn’t even close to being balanced and that’s why it didn’t last. Rolex didn’t spend all that cash to add 1mm, they just designed a watch from scratch and followed the 36 blueprint.

[omar-rye]

Originally Posted by SAP7

Google golden ratio.

It is why natural things have balance and look “right”. The 39 wasn’t even close to being balanced and that’s why it didn’t last. Rolex didn’t spend all that cash to add 1mm, they just designed a watch from scratch and followed the 36 blueprint.

You did the math on the Explorer 39 and discovered that it didn’t equal 1.618?

Did the extra 1mm put it in the golden ratio? I’d love to see your calculations

[DJ2020]

Am am also happy to see the E40. It will wear similar to my favorites, the 41 DJ and 41 OP.

[1William]

I am going to give it a look.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SAP7

Completely missing the point.
Out of proportion isn’t anything to do with size.
The 39 was on a strap that wasn’t ideal in size or taper, and made the whole thing unbalanced.
The dial size is irrelevant on its own, it’s the way the whole package works together. The 39 was more of a an amalgamation of parts rather than a package designed for ashteitics.
If this 40 scales up the 36 and keeps the ratios it will blow the 39 out the water.

Originally Posted by omar-rye

Huh? Do explain please

Whether you liked the dimensions or not, the current 36mm Explorer has great proportions that make the watch head really stand out from the bracelet (which the 114270 never did). Also sort of took on the silhouette of an integrated bracelet watch, which typically has sharper lug and bracelet taper.

The old 39 looked thick all over (to me). The new 40, however, seems to maintain that sharper taper. It's the only 40mm Rolex with 21mm lug width, which I presume is to allow for more bracelet taper, that follows the lug taper.

[7enderbender]

Not for me. I feel now pressured into looking to get a 36mm before they may discontinue it. 40mm is just wrong for this classic. Rolex can’t leave a good thing alone and for my taste there is now no model left that I would want. All the nice releases in this larger category came from Tudor.

[SAP7]

Originally Posted by omar-rye

You did the math on the Explorer 39 and discovered that it didn’t equal 1.618?

Did the extra 1mm put it in the golden ratio? I’d love to see your calculations

The Golden Ratio is 1:1.618
when you average the 124270 ratio of case, to lug span, to bracelet taper on the 124270
Equals 1:1.625.
There is a mathematical reason this watch looks natural.

Don’t know for the 40 but I’m betting it’s closer than the 39 to that figure!

[nickscaps]

This is a home run for me. I've tried the new 124270 on a number of times and never liked the fact it wasn't the same case as my DJ 126200. I also liked the overall size (but not proportions) of the now departed 214270 so if this wears anything close to the OP41 or a BB58 I can't say no! Now I wait patiently...

[winst]

Originally Posted by SAP7

Completely missing the point.
Out of proportion isn’t anything to do with size.
The 39 was on a strap that wasn’t ideal in size or taper, and made the whole thing unbalanced.
The dial size is irrelevant on its own, it’s the way the whole package works together. The 39 was more of a an amalgamation of parts rather than a package designed for ashteitics.
If this 40 scales up the 36 and keeps the ratios it will blow the 39 out the water.

I agree, I had the 39 MK2 and it was the dial proportions for me, not so much the case and bracelet which I thought wore nicely. I have the 124270 and am far happier with it, but if they have indeed proportionately upscaled the 40mm it could be a tempting proposition for me. I am deliberately staying away from my AD!

[tifosi]

Gets a solid "meh" from me.

[DLRIDES]

My guess is it’s actually 38.7-39mm instead of 40mm.

Rolex sizes are usually intentions matter more than results.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by SAP7

The Golden Ratio is 1:1.618
when you average the 124270 ratio of case, to lug span, to bracelet taper on the 124270
Equals 1:1.625.
There is a mathematical reason this watch looks natural.

Don’t know for the 40 but I’m betting it’s closer than the 39 to that figure!

Ah, we’re talking Fibonacci here

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Whether you liked the dimensions or not, the current 36mm Explorer has great proportions that make the watch head really stand out from the bracelet (which the 114270 never did).

That’s actually a major reason why I bought the 114270 over the new 36 model. The slightly oversized bracelet is the classic and unique Rolex look going back to the 40s.
Many other brands use the “correct” proportions. Was hoping the 21mm bracelet on this new model would push the proportions back closer to the original.