Owners of Rolex Explorer 36mm that upgraded to the 39mm model.

[carfanatic991]

Anyone here upgraded their Rolex Explorer 36mm to the 39mm model. Share your thoughts. Any regrets?

[Daniel23456]

I wouldn't call it an upgrade? I mean why is it an upgrade? The better "clasp"? Or the movement? I actually prefer the older bracelet, much more light and comfortable, I rarely find myself adjusting it.
The 36mm works perfect for me, but each one has is own preference... Depends entirely on you...

[the_natural]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

I wouldn't call it an upgrade? I mean why is it an upgrade? The better "clasp"? Or the movement? I actually prefer the older bracelet, much more light and comfortable, I rarely find myself adjusting it.
The 36mm works perfect for me, but each one has is own preference... Depends entirely on you...

I agree that an "upgrade" can be somewhat subjective; but I also think it's pretty widely recognized that the bracelet is indeed an upgrade. I'd argue the movement is, too. Obviously for some people who want bigger, or prefer the full lume, these are also "upgrades."

OP I have no experience with the 36mm Explorer, but I'm very happy with my 39mm Explorer. The only thing I'd consider trading it for is a black dial Daytona ... maybe (but I still really don't like PCL's).

[eonflux]

If the 39mm Exp would fit you better, or you simply prefer the look of the larger size, go for it

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by eonflux

If the 39mm Exp would fit you better, or you simply prefer the look of the larger size, go for it

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this picture, but I love it! Large people???

[ajn3323]

Wondering about the photo above as well. WRT the OP, yes I "upgraded" to the 214270 MK2 from a 114270. Totally different watch and it worked better for me. No regrets other than my wife didn't like wearing the 36 which I thought looked stellar on her. Ended up selling to a friend who had a smaller wrist and he loves the watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carfanatic991]

Upgrade to the following items: case size, movement and bracelet.
I also have a 40mm Exp II and a 40mm Yachtmaster, after wearing both EXP II and YM for a while, the 36mm starts to look much smaller in comparison and starts to get less wrist time. So this got me pondering of possibly trading the 36mm for the 39mm. Was just curious if anyone here went through similar situation.

[douglasf13]

I've not owned the actual Explorer I (love the watch,) but I once sold my 36mm DJ, then I bought a Sub, Exp II and 39mm Aqua Terra...but I've quit all of those and happily gone back to 36mm. It's just so lithe and comfortable with more vintage style.

[mtgjr]

Originally Posted by carfanatic991

Upgrade to the following items: case size, movement and bracelet.
I also have a 40mm Exp II and a 40mm Yachtmaster, after wearing both EXP II and YM for a while, the 36mm starts to look much smaller in comparison and starts to get less wrist time. So this got me pondering of possibly trading the 36mm for the 39mm. Was just curious if anyone here went through similar situation.

What does upgrade to the case size mean?? Case size was increased, yes, but upgraded? I'm not following....

[faz]

OP,
A watch that is not seeing wrist time is a waste of investment. If you find that you are not enjoying the 36mm as much as you used to, and can remedy it by changing to the newer model, I say go for it.

I bought the MK1 version of the 39mm specifically due to the white gold 3/6/9, and my wife has been wearing it on and off, but it is not getting much wrist time due to her liking her white daytona more. As much as I love that watch, if it is not seeing wrist time, I might put it out for sale and get her something that she enjoys more.

[rph08]

Originally Posted by carfanatic991

Anyone here upgraded their Rolex Explorer 36mm to the 39mm model. Share your thoughts. Any regrets?

I went the other direction. I had a MK I Explorer 39mm. I rarely wore that watch for whatever reason, and I never used the easylink adjustment. I traded the 214270, and later purchased a mint m-serial 114270. IMHO, the 36mm reference just looks better, it gets lots of wrist time, and I wanted something that size in my collection so it worked out well for me. I know technically it's still a six digit reference, but it kind of has a five digit vibe.

[Thuilln]

Originally Posted by rph08

I went the other direction. I had a MK I Explorer 39mm. I rarely wore that watch for whatever reason, and I never used the easylink adjustment. I traded the 214270, and later purchased a mint m-serial 114270. IMHO, the 36mm reference just looks better, it gets lots of wrist time, and I wanted something that size in my collection so it worked out well for me. I know technically it's still a six digit reference, but it kind of has a five digit vibe.

Agree with this.
Also note that the 214270 is 50% heavier than the 114270, which is not exactly an upgrade IMHO.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by rph08

I know technically it's still a six digit reference, but it kind of has a five digit vibe.

+1 I'd probably choose the 114270 over any other six-digit reference.

[carfanatic991]

Thanks for the inputs. Might pay a visit to the AD and try on the 39mm for a fit and comfort test. Can’t imagine being less comfortable than the YM.

[GradyPhilpott]

I think that the term upgrade is not applicable here.

[subtona]

The 36 was too small for me.

I Switched to the 39 and like it very much. the size feels just right for me.

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this picture, but I love it! Large people???

I had meant to include more text in my post...

Something along the lines that fashion does change, and 36mm is considered small these days, like those shorts.

Also, wristwatches were arbitrarily small at first, I believe with small movements created as a contrast to pocket watch movements of the time, to demonstrate technical prowess in miniaturization.

But I think if wristwatches were invented today, those made for men would be more in the 38-40mm range, and complications such as dates and chronographs would be easier to read.

But regardless of fashion trends or what a mfr can achieve or not, what's most important is what the OP prefers wearing on his wrist.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by eonflux

I had meant to include more text in my post...

Something along the lines that fashion does change, and 36mm is considered small these days, like those shorts.

Also, wristwatches were arbitrarily small at first, I believe with small movements created as a contrast to pocket watch movements of the time, to demonstrate technical prowess in miniaturization.

But I think if wristwatches were invented today, those made for men would be more in the 38-40mm range, and complications such as dates and chronographs would be easier to read.

But regardless of fashion trends or what a mfr can achieve or not, what's most important is what the OP prefers wearing on his wrist.

Well, now that you expounded on it...I disagree.

I rarely buy things based on trends, especially things that are supposed to last a lifetime. The "classic" Rolex size is still 36mm for DJ/DD and 40mm for the sport watches.

The irony is, if watches were invented today, they wouldn't be mechanical. Mechanical watches themselves are an anachronism. Other classic things that would be different if "invented" today:

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Well, now that you expounded on it...I disagree.

I rarely buy things based on trends, especially things that are supposed to last a lifetime. The "classic" Rolex size is still 36mm for DJ/DD and 40mm for the sport watches.

The irony is, if watches were invented today, they wouldn't be mechanical. Mechanical watches themselves are an anachronism. Other classic things that would be different if "invented" today:

Hmmm, wouldn't those NBA shorts from the '80's go with those Jordans?


Those items you present are only "classic" as of the past 50 years or less, not 100 or 200. On the other hand, mechanical watches have been around a lot longer than those “classics”, so perhaps they are even less trendy!

Actually, I don't think watch sizes should be based on trends.
I think they should be sized according to what works with our anatomies and serves well functionally.
A perpetual calendar with a moon dial and chronograph on a 36 mm watch will be hard to read, vs putting that all on a larger dial on a 42 mm watch.

Do you believe that on a 7" wrist, the way a 36mm DJ/DD looks, and the way a 40mm Sub looks, is/are "classic"?
What about a 6.5" wrist? Or an 8" wrist?
Shouldn't watches be scaled for our wrists?

So perhaps a 34mm DJ/DD and a 38mm Sub for the 6.5" wrist,
and a 40mm DJ/DD and a 44mm Sub for the 8" wrist?

Perhaps it'd be useful to distinguish size from style.
The shoes you present are not modern classics not because of a size, but because of their style.
You would buy a pair that fits your feet, in the same way you'd buy a shirt, jacket, jeans, or suit based on what fits you, though with clothing, there are trends with looser vs tighter fitting, so that gets a bit complicated, though for each piece there will be specific sizes intended for different people.

Watches are one of the few things we wear on our bodies that come in generally 1 size. Would be great if mfrs would offer at least a S, M, and L versions of each model, but that's economically not practical.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by eonflux

Hmmm, wouldn't those NBA shorts from the '80's go with those Jordans?


Those items you present are only "classic" as of the past 50 years or less, not 100 or 200. On the other hand, mechanical watches have been around a lot longer than those “classics”, so perhaps they are even less trendy!

Actually, I don't think watch sizes should be based on trends.
I think they should be sized according to what works with our anatomies and serves well functionally.
A perpetual calendar with a moon dial and chronograph on a 36 mm watch will be hard to read, vs putting that all on a larger dial on a 42 mm watch.

Do you believe that on a 7" wrist, the way a 36mm DJ/DD looks, and the way a 40mm Sub looks, is/are "classic"?
What about a 6.5" wrist? Or an 8" wrist?
Shouldn't watches be scaled for our wrists?

So perhaps a 34mm DJ/DD and a 38mm Sub for the 6.5" wrist,
and a 40mm DJ/DD and a 44mm Sub for the 8" wrist?

Perhaps it'd be useful to distinguish size from style.
The shoes you present are not modern classics not because of a size, but because of their style.
You would buy a pair that fits your feet, in the same way you'd buy a shirt, jacket, jeans, or suit based on what fits you, though with clothing, there are trends with looser vs tighter fitting, so that gets a bit complicated, though for each piece there will be specific sizes intended for different people.

Watches are one of the few things we wear on our bodies that come in generally 1 size. Would be great if mfrs would offer at least a S, M, and L versions of each model, but that's economically not practical.

The Rolex 36mm/40mm style had a 50 year run of near exclusivity, thus my examples. That’s “classic” Rolex.

Still, you make a good point about shoe size, but I don’t see watches, like the Wayfarers or Stratocaster, as necessarily needing different sizes. The bracelet is what needs the size adjustment, not the size of the watch head. I’d need something like an 8.5” wrist to potentially desire something larger than the classics, although the 39mm Explorer is still a modest size, so it’s not that big of a deal.

I mean, if 36/40mm is so outdated, why is the vintage market thriving so much?

34mm:

[GarbanzoNegro]

I would not, since my 114270 was a present from my father and, regardless of any “upgrades”, I am sure I would regret it in the future.

Best regards,

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The Rolex 36mm/40mm style had a 50 year run of near exclusivity, thus my examples. That’s “classic” Rolex.

Still, you make a good point about shoe size, but I don’t see watches, like the Wayfarers or Stratocaster, as necessarily needing different sizes. The bracelet is what needs the size adjustment, not the size of the watch head. I’d need something like an 8.5” wrist to potentially desire something larger than the classics, although the 39mm Explorer is still a modest size, so it’s not that big of a deal.

I mean, if 36/40mm is so outdated, why is the vintage market thriving so much?

34mm:

There's a watch in that pic??
I don't think I'd even notice a 34 inch clock...

Vintage of everything is hot these days, as with the automotive market.
I bet the size of that 34mm has less to do with its value than its age. If it was 40mm and the same age, would probably be just as valuable.

I'm just glad there are more size options these days, with some newer offerings from other mfrs that are smaller since some mfrs went too far with larger models.