Too funny that is the first thing I noticed with some confusion! Great video. Love those explorers. I have been looking at the MK2 a bit but was confused they would put what seems to be too small a band on that wide of a watch. The Explorer 40 looks perfect. How to get one is the question. I have an Explorer 114270 with the rehault and simply marvel at its beauty. Keep the videos coming!
This guy nailed it. Everything he is saying I can attest too. 36mm was way too small. 40mm felt like a dinner plate. I was shocked. 39mm just finally tried on yesterday and was perfect.
@@JoeyJiggles Sorry, you like this "dinner plate"? I'm not sure I'm following. I have tried on the 40 and prefer it much more over the mk2 explorer 39.
Loads of people loved the original 36 and were upset when it went to 39. loads of people also loved the 39 so having 36 and 40 keeps both camps happy , apart from rolex cant measure size properly.
Whomen runined the mens size by stealing form us. Feminism caused this mess. Personally if a woman wears a mans watch men should avoid her, unless that man likes men too. I wear the 34mm and 36mm proudly.
@@user-yy9lg6gs4hwhy do you care what the average women wears or what kind of woman other guys go for? I’m sorry but what watch my gf wears I couldn’t care less. In fact my gf wears a large Apple Watch - it just means she works out and is super fit 😅
The 39 is more elegant than the 40 i tried.. The 39 wears really well with a grey suit or tux. A great dress watch. I find my Rootbeer to be more versatile believe it or not.
The lug-to-lug length is so important - more so that the 39MM to 40MM increase, because those fixed end-links translate to a 2MM increase across the wrist.
That’s cool about the new Tudors. They have negative / female solid end links, so the bracelet can drop straight down and wears smaller than the rolex ones.
It's interesting that by just looking at these 2 watches side by side, I feel like the new 40 is actually smaller than the 39 one, and slimmer. Maybe due to the glossy dial compared to the matt dial, or due to the wider lug width and bigger crown, to make the dial looks smaller.
Another thing to mention is the lugs and bracelet interaction. The 40mm model does this well as the lugs line up with the link. While the 39 has a bit of an overhang from the lugs.
Tried on both the 36mm and 40mm and was actually shocked at how small the 36mm looked. It also has a dainty bracelet and just felt like a kids/womens watch. I got the 40mm for my 6.5" wrist and love it. I think the online forums raving about the 36mm are either because they own the older one (or a different model in 36), which has larger proportions, or it's just purists who haven't realised the 36mm or 40mm are actually smaller than what they are. 38mm is going to look better than 35mm on most mens wrists. The bracelet is as important as the watch itself, and the 40mm is also better proportioned and more masculine. A larger watch is also more "sporty". The clear choice is 40mm, and I also expect that watch to retain its value, especially if Rolex discontinue it in the next few years.
Well said but I have a 7.5” wrist and I thought the 40mm was like a dinner plate. It just felt off. 100% agree with you with the 36” I laughed when they put it on my wrist. Insanely small. 39mm I finally tried on yesterday and it was perfect! But to each their own.
@@JoeyJiggles the 40mm has identical horizontal and watch face width, but is 2mm shorter lug to lug. Your perception it was larger was psychological. Spot about the 36mm though. It's a kids sized watch. The dainty bracelet just didn't feel right, especially for a sports/tool watch.
@@liquid_metal it’s not just the dial. It’s the whole presence which is why a mm makes a difference. The wider bracelet and how it is longer makes it way bigger on the wrist. Too big.
@@JoeyJiggles the 40mm is shorter lug to lug! They're basically the same size it's just to avoid confusion, Rolex had to name the latest model 40mm. Both are actually nearer 38mm in size, which is why it looks more masculine. The new 36mm is actually 35.5mm.
i went to my AD yesterday set on the 36, i ended up on the waiting list for the 40. 36 is way to small for anyone with normal sized wrists / hands. 40 is perfect, wears much smaller than you think.
I absolutely love this video, seeing both watches in different settings and light conditions, it really shows the watches in the wild… all the subtle differences that us watch nerds appreciate…Fantastic work!, Great editing the whole thing flows, your VoiceOver is perfect. Great work 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼.. your hard work is appreciated!… Your fan from London…❤
Thanks for the video! Very informative and great comparison! I do think that the 36 looks way better on your wrist, less beefy - as the explorer 1 should look.
Excellent video of one of the best watches of all time. I've had the mk1, mk2, new 36 steel, new 36 two tone and now I don't have an Explorer in the collection. I think I'm with you in that if the new steel one was a true 36 or even 36.5 it would be perfection, but instead it's really a 35.5! I think the one to go for is the mk2! The new 40 has a surprisingly long lug to lug. Plus the prices are coming back to earth on the mk2's, so that's likely the one I'll go for. Also, I'll add, this is a conversation only watch guys would love. To everyone else they are all the same watch!
While owning several Rolex models over the past 5 decades, The Explorer is the coolest and I have gravitated to only wearing the standard Oyster case models. My son and I currently have 2 39mm Mk-2, and he also has the 2021 36mm Explorer. I have 8" wrists and automatically thought I'd buy the 40mm also..... But now I may not and simply keep both 39's in the stable. Great review and much appreciated, thank you!
I got the call today for one after waiting a couple of months , and It’s just not the right time at the moment for me . I bought a IWC Mk XX in April and I’m happy with it. The perfect time to buy for me would be nearer the end of the year. I’ve tried the 40 on and I love it.
I agree with you, if the new 36 were actually a 36 it'd be in my collection. That being said the Mark 2 is one of my favorites ever but the proportions of the 40 push it over the edge for my eyes. I just wish the endlinks didn't stick out quite as far but I'm patiently waiting for one!
Biggest difference I see is the AR coating on the 40mm. You don't mention it at all but seeing them next to each other in the light is wild. I never really knew it made such a dramatic difference. I'd still go for the 39mm, though. Just a better fit for me.
Hmmm 39mm has a smaller and potentially more elegant crown. I would not be disappointed with the 40mm, but i do prefer the 39mm, especially as its thinner as well.
Thank you for comparing both. I really like the look of the new 40 with the gloss dial. I'll have to try it at the AD and hopefully get one, heard this model is not super popular so might have a chance.
The reason Rolex made the change will have been that the new Explorer 36 (which is 35.5mm and has a slimmer bracelet than the OP36) is now more geared towards women - hence the two tone option, and the 40mm is now the size of other Professional models like the AirKing and Milgauss. If it was a real 36mm I would want that size, history and all that. However the OP for men used to be 34mm.
Rolex’s decisions are pretty hard to figure out sometimes. The MK2 was absolutely perfect. They should have just updated the movement and been done with it.
@@ScaredCops going from matte to glossy black dial is a significant change. The lug to lug is also significantly longer, making the watch wear even bigger. The case is thicker and the bracelet and clasp are wider. These are all very noticeable changes that affect the wearability and overall esthetics of the watch. The only real upgrades are the longer power reserve and AR coating.
The 40 has weird proportions now because of the increase in lug width and lug to lug dimensions. Glad i found a used MKII in perfect condition…just paid more in this market than would have liked.
I prefer the EXPLORER wording position on the Mk2 as the dial layout seems more balanced. The text layout on the new 40mm Explorer seems top heavy 🤔 (IMHO).
After a long back and forth between 36 and 39, I decided on the 36mm 114270 and got it 1 month before the new 36mm was released. Considering that the new one was almost the same, yet “better” in many ways (and cheaper at retail) I ordered the new one as welland have since got it. I know own both of the 36mm and whilst I really want to believe that the new one is better and prefer the better lume, the lumed digits, the anti reflectant coating on the crystal and the sturdier bracelet, I still haven’t sold the old one, because I just dont like the 19 to 14mm bracelet and Might eventually sell it and keep the old one… or use it as a beater and use the old one every now and then.
Great review; I've just subscribed & liked. Love how you incorporated a dramatic, aerial oceanfront walk into the vlog. Real world watch wearing!! I previously owned a 39mm Exp Mk1. Kept it for 8 yrs, but finally moved it due to the short hands. I really like the new 40mm model! Hope to get one this year or next.
My main AD rep said that a lot of guys that come in won't even consider a watch with a diameter that starts with a 3. That's not me, but I've never found a 36 I liked on wrist, but plenty of 38 or 39mm watches are great. When I tried on the exhibition 40, that particular sales person said the 36mm Explorer sold more to women, which I found interesting. The new 40 wears great on my 7.25" wrist, but I do wish they would go away from the male end links. It would definitely fit a lot more wrists without that, though conversely somebody that's maybe got a large wrist and is used to bigger watches might consider a 40mm Explorer because of that.
I ve also similar wrist with 6.5 inch wrist. I m also hesitant about size of new exp 40mm (51mm incl. end link) on the other hand, proportions of 39mm also doesnt look right to me. Currently I ve IWC Mark XX on bracelet. I m considering to trade it with rolex exp 1
I have a 6.5" wrist as well. The new 36 feels just a bit too small, and the 40 feels just a bit too big. I have a 41 mm submariner and it looks good on my wrist, but I feel that the 40 mm explorer is just a bit too big. I wanted to buy a new explorer from my AD, but I might have to look for a 214270 instead, or the 114270, which is actually 36 mm with 20 mm lug width.
I tried one on @ my AD & compared it to my 39 . As you mentioned the glossy dial & the Explorer printing at the upper position looks not appealing to me … too shiny ✨ Anyway, I told them that I am interested in buying one . We will see . Luckily they had one BB 41 master chrono available with the jubilee bracelet and so bought that watch 😅
I actually like the 124270 on you. But the 40 def makes it look sportier! Now I wish I had a 40 too for a diff look alongside my 124270 hah. Same wrist size.
Nice review. I sold my Mk2 as it always felt a little small my wrist. The new 40 is probably perfect for me, but don’t know if I’ll ever get lucky enough to get one again.
The size difference between the 39 & 40 is hardly noticeable. In reality it’s a fraction of a mm. And if anything, the 40 looks smaller (less wide) in the flesh. In any case, good luck in acquiring one 👍🏻
36 wears 34. Nothing can match MKII. Movement is smooth as butter. Aesthetics and rugged elegance unmatched in the industry. You can only manage to get EXPII to complete the Explorer’s Club and compliment the 39. Lume on 39 is plenty. As for AR, I can't tell the diff btw my 226570 and 214270 - so AR argument is UTTER BS.
Hey man I have a question. I own the 124270 and am disappointed by it. In fact, I am thinking of selling it which really disappoints me. For me, the lack of lume on the 124270 is frustrating and it is not as legible as I had hoped. Does the 224270 have more Lume and is more legible then the 124270?
I believe that Rolex bringing back the 36 was a boardroom-driven response to the loss of purists, the exceptionally smaller-wristed, and the unisex watch-wearing crowd, when Rolex rather suprisingly discontinued the 36 in favour of the notably larger 39 around the year 2010. Frankly, it would have made more sense to expand the appeal of the Explorer line by updating but keeping the 36 alongside the 39, so folks would at least have an option. Rolex then coming out with the 40mm Explorer to replace the 39, I think, was its nod to further 'modernizing' the Explorer in keeping with the brand's move in recent years to upsize its Datejust and sport model cases, in order to stay competitive. All of this is of course speculation, but I find it difficult to explain in other terms.
Not sure about your L2L measurement, I own a 40mm Explorer and L2L from end to end of the case is less than 47mm ( less than Sub 40 and Sub 41 ), I think you are adding the center link as well. The same L2L is over 47mm on Exp-39 thats why to me new model wears a bit smaller.
Nice comparison video. I had the MK2 for some time and for some unknown reason, I saw it unbalanced in terms of proportions. In this case, I have to disagree with you and say that I like the new Explorer 40mm better. Still, I wouldn't buy it again.
Where do you rank the Exp1 in comparison to your other Rolex watches? Experienced collectors love the Exp but whenever I try it on it seems a bit plain and basic.
I personally own the MK2 Explorer and the 41mm submariner. If I had to choose between the two, I’d definitely take the Explorer all day long over the submariner. I’ve owned a good number of watches, and the Explorer is hands down my favorite one out of them all.
@@whereRbearsTeeth That's funny I'm waiting on a Sub Date and I find that to be my must have Rolex. I think it's a watch you probably have to own and wear to appreciate over time. My Hamilton Khaki is as basic as they come but I love the subtle details.
just traded the 39mm for a 114270. the 39mm is a better watch specs wise and no doubt the bracelet and clasp are better but 114270 looks so much better on my 7 inch wrist. I like 39mm/40mm watches but just didn't feel the explorer worked on the larger size
Wow, that’s a rare swap! I’ve been lusting after the 114270, the only thing that’s kept me from getting one is the lack of lumed arabics. But otherwise a near perfect watch!
changed my mind at last minute!i stand by the older 36mm is perfect in size but it just felt a bad trade long term and the lume, bracelet and clasp made me think twice about doing the deal. I think it's reading too many negatives on forums influencer me as if id never read them it felt like the perfect watch 😂
I had a 214270. Even though it was small on my 8.2" wrist, it still didn't look right in terms of the case/bracelet proportions. It looked "bulbous." The 224270 looks to be more integrated between the head of the watch and the bracelet. I believe that this watch is slightly thicker due to the new movement. And yes, I'm on a waitlist. In terms of values for the 214270, they went from just under 7K to nearly 11K and are now trending below 9K. Time will tell. Pun intended.
@@watchyourstyle Ah, OK. I tried the 40mm Explorer on two weeks ago, and I liked it all but that wide bezel, which is similar on the DJ 41, which is my main issue with the DJ as well. Something about that wider bezel puts me off. Oh well...
The “36” mm is only 35.3mm in reality. It looks ridiculous on most men’s wrist. Not to mention that the proportions are completely off on the new 36. The older 114270 looks much better. The 39 MK2 remains the overall best Explorer.
Too bad we can't find them anywhere in the US without going through a bunch of AD horse shit. Was in Switzerland 3 weeks ago and saw two of them new there but was an idiot and didn't buy one while there because I"m already on the list here. Now my AD is saying instead of 3 mos (Been on the list 4mos) That they don't know because they've only received one so far. So stupid. I'm about over these ridiculous games.
0:22 😅 exp40 is on the left, mk2 on the right. My b! That’s how similar they are 😂
Too funny that is the first thing I noticed with some confusion! Great video. Love those explorers. I have been looking at the MK2 a bit but was confused they would put what seems to be too small a band on that wide of a watch. The Explorer 40 looks perfect. How to get one is the question. I have an Explorer 114270 with the rehault and simply marvel at its beauty. Keep the videos coming!
The new internal AR coating alone makes it look so much better in so many lighting conditions. Picking my 40mm up today!!
This guy nailed it. Everything he is saying I can attest too.
36mm was way too small.
40mm felt like a dinner plate. I was shocked.
39mm just finally tried on yesterday and was perfect.
Mk2 is right in the pocket for most people!
That's odd because the 40 is 38.6 mm.
@@JacobLawrenceCanning this is exactly why you need to try it on. I’m telling you, I was shocked myself.
@@JoeyJiggles Sorry, you like this "dinner plate"? I'm not sure I'm following. I have tried on the 40 and prefer it much more over the mk2 explorer 39.
@@JacobLawrenceCanning I guess you like bigger watches then??
Got the 40 mm a few days ago from my AD. It felt like an old pal within an hour. Flies under the radar, wear it anywhere...
Picked up my 40mm 1 week ago from AD. My first Rolex. Beautiful piece that you can wear anywhere.
Did you have to play any games with the AD or wait a long time to get it?
Loads of people loved the original 36 and were upset when it went to 39. loads of people also loved the 39 so having 36 and 40 keeps both camps happy , apart from rolex cant measure size properly.
Whomen runined the mens size by stealing form us. Feminism caused this mess. Personally if a woman wears a mans watch men should avoid her, unless that man likes men too. I wear the 34mm and 36mm proudly.
@@user-yy9lg6gs4h whut??? haha you're funny dude.
@@user-yy9lg6gs4hwhy do you care what the average women wears or what kind of woman other guys go for? I’m sorry but what watch my gf wears I couldn’t care less. In fact my gf wears a large Apple Watch - it just means she works out and is super fit 😅
For me the best is also the 39 mk2, i own it and it is my favorite watch!
Very good comparison!! Love it
Congratulations for the watch!
Thanks a lot! I appreciate it
The 39 is more elegant than the 40 i tried.. The 39 wears really well with a grey suit or tux. A great dress watch. I find my Rootbeer to be more versatile believe it or not.
Rolex explorer 39mm ❤
yup. they really got the 39mm right. never was a need for the 40 as I think the proportions seem off
.
The lug-to-lug length is so important - more so that the 39MM to 40MM increase, because those fixed end-links translate to a 2MM increase across the wrist.
That’s cool about the new Tudors. They have negative / female solid end links, so the bracelet can drop straight down and wears smaller than the rolex ones.
It's interesting that by just looking at these 2 watches side by side, I feel like the new 40 is actually smaller than the 39 one, and slimmer. Maybe due to the glossy dial compared to the matt dial, or due to the wider lug width and bigger crown, to make the dial looks smaller.
Another thing to mention is the lugs and bracelet interaction. The 40mm model does this well as the lugs line up with the link. While the 39 has a bit of an overhang from the lugs.
Tried on both the 36mm and 40mm and was actually shocked at how small the 36mm looked. It also has a dainty bracelet and just felt like a kids/womens watch. I got the 40mm for my 6.5" wrist and love it.
I think the online forums raving about the 36mm are either because they own the older one (or a different model in 36), which has larger proportions, or it's just purists who haven't realised the 36mm or 40mm are actually smaller than what they are. 38mm is going to look better than 35mm on most mens wrists.
The bracelet is as important as the watch itself, and the 40mm is also better proportioned and more masculine.
A larger watch is also more "sporty". The clear choice is 40mm, and I also expect that watch to retain its value, especially if Rolex discontinue it in the next few years.
Well said but I have a 7.5” wrist and I thought the 40mm was like a dinner plate. It just felt off.
100% agree with you with the 36” I laughed when they put it on my wrist. Insanely small.
39mm I finally tried on yesterday and it was perfect! But to each their own.
@@JoeyJiggles the 40mm has identical horizontal and watch face width, but is 2mm shorter lug to lug.
Your perception it was larger was psychological.
Spot about the 36mm though. It's a kids sized watch. The dainty bracelet just didn't feel right, especially for a sports/tool watch.
@@liquid_metal it’s not just the dial. It’s the whole presence which is why a mm makes a difference. The wider bracelet and how it is longer makes it way bigger on the wrist. Too big.
@@JoeyJiggles the 40mm is shorter lug to lug!
They're basically the same size it's just to avoid confusion, Rolex had to name the latest model 40mm.
Both are actually nearer 38mm in size, which is why it looks more masculine.
The new 36mm is actually 35.5mm.
@@liquid_metal do you know how to read? Or am I just going to assume NO?
i went to my AD yesterday set on the 36, i ended up on the waiting list for the 40. 36 is way to small for anyone with normal sized wrists / hands. 40 is perfect, wears much smaller than you think.
I absolutely love this video, seeing both watches in different settings and light conditions, it really shows the watches in the wild… all the subtle differences that us watch nerds appreciate…Fantastic work!, Great editing the whole thing flows, your VoiceOver is perfect. Great work 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼.. your hard work is appreciated!… Your fan from London…❤
Glad you enjoyed it Dean! All the best
Excellent comparison video. Going to pick up my 40mm on Fri!
Thanks for the video! Very informative and great comparison! I do think that the 36 looks way better on your wrist, less beefy - as the explorer 1 should look.
Excellent video of one of the best watches of all time. I've had the mk1, mk2, new 36 steel, new 36 two tone and now I don't have an Explorer in the collection. I think I'm with you in that if the new steel one was a true 36 or even 36.5 it would be perfection, but instead it's really a 35.5! I think the one to go for is the mk2! The new 40 has a surprisingly long lug to lug. Plus the prices are coming back to earth on the mk2's, so that's likely the one I'll go for. Also, I'll add, this is a conversation only watch guys would love. To everyone else they are all the same watch!
36 too small, 40 slightly too big, 39 is perfect.
Like he said. The MK2 of Just about every product is the sweet spot. No different here. Agree on the fit it’s like a tailored suit
While owning several Rolex models over the past 5 decades, The Explorer is the coolest and I have gravitated to only wearing the standard Oyster case models.
My son and I currently have 2 39mm Mk-2, and he also has the 2021 36mm Explorer.
I have 8" wrists and automatically thought I'd buy the 40mm also.....
But now I may not and simply keep both 39's in the stable.
Great review and much appreciated, thank you!
do you think exp40 doesn't look too small on a lean (not round) 8"wrist?
I got the call today for one after waiting a couple of months , and It’s just not the right time at the moment for me . I bought a IWC Mk XX in April and I’m happy with it. The perfect time to buy for me would be nearer the end of the year. I’ve tried the 40 on and I love it.
I agree with you, if the new 36 were actually a 36 it'd be in my collection. That being said the Mark 2 is one of my favorites ever but the proportions of the 40 push it over the edge for my eyes. I just wish the endlinks didn't stick out quite as far but I'm patiently waiting for one!
Now my bad, I just checked and my 114270 indeed does not have lume at 3,6,9. But everywhere else. You clearly are the expert.
Biggest difference I see is the AR coating on the 40mm. You don't mention it at all but seeing them next to each other in the light is wild. I never really knew it made such a dramatic difference. I'd still go for the 39mm, though. Just a better fit for me.
Yes, that’s a great point! I meant to mention it but forgot. Makes a huge difference in legibility
Thank you for the great comparison between these 2 watches 👌
My pleasure! thanks so much for the kind words
Hmmm 39mm has a smaller and potentially more elegant crown. I would not be disappointed with the 40mm, but i do prefer the 39mm, especially as its thinner as well.
Thank you for comparing both. I really like the look of the new 40 with the gloss dial. I'll have to try it at the AD and hopefully get one, heard this model is not super popular so might have a chance.
Thanks for the support! And good luck 🍀
just got the call for my 36mm, scheduled the pick-up on my birthday, it's truly like being a kid waiting for Christmas...
Happy birthday! And congrats on the new watch
The reason Rolex made the change will have been that the new Explorer 36 (which is 35.5mm and has a slimmer bracelet than the OP36) is now more geared towards women - hence the two tone option, and the 40mm is now the size of other Professional models like the AirKing and Milgauss. If it was a real 36mm I would want that size, history and all that. However the OP for men used to be 34mm.
Rolex’s decisions are pretty hard to figure out sometimes. The MK2 was absolutely perfect. They should have just updated the movement and been done with it.
They kinda did
@@ScaredCops not really
@@whereRbearsTeeth still a 39, so…
They did change the dial slightly, widened the bracelets. Nothing major.
@@ScaredCops going from matte to glossy black dial is a significant change. The lug to lug is also significantly longer, making the watch wear even bigger. The case is thicker and the bracelet and clasp are wider. These are all very noticeable changes that affect the wearability and overall esthetics of the watch. The only real upgrades are the longer power reserve and AR coating.
The 40 has weird proportions now because of the increase in lug width and lug to lug dimensions. Glad i found a used MKII in perfect condition…just paid more in this market than would have liked.
Nice review, very needed 👍🏽. Rolex makes decisions years before they release pieces, imo they should’ve had 36mm , 39mm and 41mm for us larger gents.
The new 40 is just the 39 with the new movement. Going all out to a 41 would be a wild move, but I’d buy one!
@@ScaredCops you are f’ing clueless lol
Should have stuck with 36😅
I prefer the EXPLORER wording position on the Mk2 as the dial layout seems more balanced. The text layout on the new 40mm Explorer seems top heavy 🤔 (IMHO).
Both are just as good…good in different ways
After a long back and forth between 36 and 39, I decided on the 36mm 114270 and got it 1 month before the new 36mm was released. Considering that the new one was almost the same, yet “better” in many ways (and cheaper at retail) I ordered the new one as welland have since got it. I know own both of the 36mm and whilst I really want to believe that the new one is better and prefer the better lume, the lumed digits, the anti reflectant coating on the crystal and the sturdier bracelet, I still haven’t sold the old one, because I just dont like the 19 to 14mm bracelet and Might eventually sell it and keep the old one… or use it as a beater and use the old one every now and then.
the 114270 is god tier! Congrats on picking one up
They’re both beautiful. I like the smaller one.
Great review; I've just subscribed & liked. Love how you incorporated a dramatic, aerial oceanfront walk into the vlog. Real world watch wearing!! I previously owned a 39mm Exp Mk1. Kept it for 8 yrs, but finally moved it due to the short hands. I really like the new 40mm model! Hope to get one this year or next.
Much appreciated! Thanks for the support
My main AD rep said that a lot of guys that come in won't even consider a watch with a diameter that starts with a 3. That's not me, but I've never found a 36 I liked on wrist, but plenty of 38 or 39mm watches are great. When I tried on the exhibition 40, that particular sales person said the 36mm Explorer sold more to women, which I found interesting. The new 40 wears great on my 7.25" wrist, but I do wish they would go away from the male end links. It would definitely fit a lot more wrists without that, though conversely somebody that's maybe got a large wrist and is used to bigger watches might consider a 40mm Explorer because of that.
Finally! Great video and comparison.
Glad you liked it! I appreciate the support
I ve also similar wrist with 6.5 inch wrist. I m also hesitant about size of new exp 40mm (51mm incl. end link) on the other hand, proportions of 39mm also doesnt look right to me. Currently I ve IWC Mark XX on bracelet. I m considering to trade it with rolex exp 1
Thanks WYS, good summation.
Very welcome. I appreciate the support
40mm is the way to go. Just like the day dates. 36 is a classic but times have changed and 40 mm is in especially if you’re a bigger guy.
I like the 40mm with new movment 70H
plus all other improvments over older model
As mk2 owner, can’t be happier with it
Thanks for the video, both are pretty close indeed.
I have a 6.5" wrist as well. The new 36 feels just a bit too small, and the 40 feels just a bit too big. I have a 41 mm submariner and it looks good on my wrist, but I feel that the 40 mm explorer is just a bit too big. I wanted to buy a new explorer from my AD, but I might have to look for a 214270 instead, or the 114270, which is actually 36 mm with 20 mm lug width.
I think the 40 feels big because of how bare the watch is, without the sub’s bezel and less text on the dial, the larger case becomes more apparent
I tried one on @ my AD & compared it to my 39 .
As you mentioned the glossy dial & the Explorer printing at the upper position looks not appealing to me … too shiny ✨
Anyway, I told them that I am interested in buying one .
We will see .
Luckily they had one BB 41 master chrono available with the jubilee bracelet and so bought that watch 😅
Why would you be interested in buying one if you already have the 39 and the 40 doesn’t look appealing to you??
I actually like the 124270 on you. But the 40 def makes it look sportier! Now I wish I had a 40 too for a diff look alongside my 124270 hah. Same wrist size.
Crazy how in one scene the mark 2 looks bigger then the 40 and then the opposite..
Nice review. I sold my Mk2 as it always felt a little small my wrist. The new 40 is probably perfect for me, but don’t know if I’ll ever get lucky enough to get one again.
Why would you have to get lucky??
@@whereRbearsTeeth because I’m not a high roller, so a forever wait lost, or buying grey.
The size difference between the 39 & 40 is hardly noticeable. In reality it’s a fraction of a mm. And if anything, the 40 looks smaller (less wide) in the flesh. In any case, good luck in acquiring one 👍🏻
What is the lug-to-lug when you don’t include the end links?
How much does the Explorer 40mm weigh with all the links?
5 months later what’s the verdict? Still loving the 40M? I’m considering after I got my sub.
36 wears 34. Nothing can match MKII. Movement is smooth as butter. Aesthetics and rugged elegance unmatched in the industry. You can only manage to get EXPII to complete the Explorer’s Club and compliment the 39. Lume on 39 is plenty. As for AR, I can't tell the diff btw my 226570 and 214270 - so AR argument is UTTER BS.
Love this watch but wasn’t sure if many women buying the explorer….
Awesome review! Can you tell me which model is in the left side of your watch box? It looks very cool!
Love your content bro!
Thanks so much for the support!
@watchyourstyle in your opinion, what is the ideal wrist size for the 40 mm?
I think 7" is ideal, but definitely 6.5" +
Agreed that too bad the 36 isnt the true 36，its just a touch too small，mo womder its not selling amd they have to bring the larger size back
Hey man I have a question. I own the 124270 and am disappointed by it. In fact, I am thinking of selling it which really disappoints me. For me, the lack of lume on the 124270 is frustrating and it is not as legible as I had hoped. Does the 224270 have more Lume and is more legible then the 124270?
Yes, the lume on the 40 is stronger and the hands are bolder. Depends on how you like the fit of both though! Can’t really go wrong with either
I believe that Rolex bringing back the 36 was a boardroom-driven response to the loss of purists, the exceptionally smaller-wristed, and the unisex watch-wearing crowd, when Rolex rather suprisingly discontinued the 36 in favour of the notably larger 39 around the year 2010. Frankly, it would have made more sense to expand the appeal of the Explorer line by updating but keeping the 36 alongside the 39, so folks would at least have an option. Rolex then coming out with the 40mm Explorer to replace the 39, I think, was its nod to further 'modernizing' the Explorer in keeping with the brand's move in recent years to upsize its Datejust and sport model cases, in order to stay competitive. All of this is of course speculation, but I find it difficult to explain in other terms.
Great comparison ....
I appreciate it so much!
Would you say that the 39mm dimensions are better than the 40mm for your wrist size?
Yes definitely! I think the mk2 was spot on and more universal for more wrists
Not sure about your L2L measurement, I own a 40mm Explorer and L2L from end to end of the case is less than 47mm ( less than Sub 40 and Sub 41 ), I think you are adding the center link as well. The same L2L is over 47mm on Exp-39 thats why to me new model wears a bit smaller.
The word 'Rolex' looks bigger on the 39mm or is that an optical illusion because of the 3 line text at 12 o'clock on the 40mm?
I think it is bigger because the mk2 text had more room to breathe since it was only two lines versus three.
great review
Nice comparison video. I had the MK2 for some time and for some unknown reason, I saw it unbalanced in terms of proportions.
In this case, I have to disagree with you and say that I like the new Explorer 40mm better. Still, I wouldn't buy it again.
Anyone know what the MKII crown size is (in MM)? Also the new 40mm crown size?
The crown is much larger on the 40mm and a bit sharper, but I don't have exact measurements.
Is this the full review or is there a full review of the 40mm you mentioned in your unboxing ?
Sorry! Yeah this is what I was referring to but I still have to get around to doing a dedicated review
Surprise, Surprise, everyone thinks the model they own is the best... 36, 39, 40 it's all subjective...
MK2 is Mount Kinabalu 2 (Explorer version)?
Mark 2 - meaning it's the 39mm version with lumed arabics
Just for clarification, my 114270 (2007 with rehault) has lume at 3,6, and 9
no it doesnt
You can still get the 36.
Also, does wearing your watch on the bone not hurt?! Thanks for the comp vid!
on ratios, the new 40mm should have had 22mm lug width to be same ratio 1.8 as the old 14270 and 114270
Bs since the 40 measures 38.9mm, so 21 lugwidth is perfect
Where do you rank the Exp1 in comparison to your other Rolex watches? Experienced collectors love the Exp but whenever I try it on it seems a bit plain and basic.
I personally own the MK2 Explorer and the 41mm submariner. If I had to choose between the two, I’d definitely take the Explorer all day long over the submariner. I’ve owned a good number of watches, and the Explorer is hands down my favorite one out of them all.
@@whereRbearsTeeth That's funny I'm waiting on a Sub Date and I find that to be my must have Rolex. I think it's a watch you probably have to own and wear to appreciate over time. My Hamilton Khaki is as basic as they come but I love the subtle details.
Plain, basic, minimalistic… that’s the beauty of the Explorer.
@@nads7865I agree. I have had only a sub-date for years and it checks all the boxes.
just traded the 39mm for a 114270. the 39mm is a better watch specs wise and no doubt the bracelet and clasp are better but 114270 looks so much better on my 7 inch wrist. I like 39mm/40mm watches but just didn't feel the explorer worked on the larger size
Wow, that’s a rare swap! I’ve been lusting after the 114270, the only thing that’s kept me from getting one is the lack of lumed arabics. But otherwise a near perfect watch!
changed my mind at last minute!i stand by the older 36mm is perfect in size but it just felt a bad trade long term and the lume, bracelet and clasp made me think twice about doing the deal. I think it's reading too many negatives on forums influencer me as if id never read them it felt like the perfect watch 😂
I had a 214270. Even though it was small on my 8.2" wrist, it still didn't look right in terms of the case/bracelet proportions. It looked "bulbous." The 224270 looks to be more integrated between the head of the watch and the bracelet. I believe that this watch is slightly thicker due to the new movement. And yes, I'm on a waitlist. In terms of values for the 214270, they went from just under 7K to nearly 11K and are now trending below 9K. Time will tell. Pun intended.
Is that a white dial on the Rolex OP? Great video, thank you!
Thanks so much! Yep that’s a white dial
Op36 (previous gen)
1:42 I really appreciate the side-by-side dimension comparison. So the 40mm is actually not even 39mm, interesting...
Yeah I was pretty shocked when I saw that too! Thanks for watching!
The bezel is _slimmer_ on the 40mm? It looks the opposite to me.
As in thinner in profile, so I’ve read!
@@watchyourstyle Ah, OK. I tried the 40mm Explorer on two weeks ago, and I liked it all but that wide bezel, which is similar on the DJ 41, which is my main issue with the DJ as well. Something about that wider bezel puts me off. Oh well...
Wrist size aside, the dial just looks to big on the 40 no matter how big you make the markers.
Good to see the 36 mm up against your OP36. Why does the OP look so much better than the explorer..
It really does have better proportions eh?
Horology magazine predicts that by 2030 48mm will be modern sizing.
🤣 🤣
Is there any chance you can compare with air-king ?
I've been thinking about this! Thanks for the suggestion
36 all the way. Who wants a collection with only 40mm watches?
an explorer in 38 would be PERFECT
04:53: what I think too!
MK2
40mm+ is to big, too heavy and trying too hard. 36mm was and will always be the sweetspot.
36 too small. 45mm best sweetspot
@Lyinmyelin😂
Only for baby , yes
Horology magazine predicts that by 2030 48mm will be modern sizing.
Sounds like you may end up selling the 40…..yes?….wink wink?
🤣 🤣
It comes down to who you are....if you care about heritage and tradition...you are an explorer 36mm man....if you are not...go for the 40mm
This is one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen in a while
Wear a 36 like a real man!
My Rolexes are unsized as I am a bigger guy. The 36 looks ridiculous. Not my words, but the AD, GF and others
The “36” mm is only 35.3mm in reality. It looks ridiculous on most men’s wrist. Not to mention that the proportions are completely off on the new 36. The older 114270 looks much better. The 39 MK2 remains the overall best Explorer.
Too bad we can't find them anywhere in the US without going through a bunch of AD horse shit.
Was in Switzerland 3 weeks ago and saw two of them new there but was an idiot and didn't buy one while there because I"m already on the list here. Now my AD is saying instead of 3 mos (Been on the list 4mos) That they don't know because they've only received one so far. So stupid. I'm about over these ridiculous games.
Hi mate, im curious, how much do you wear you exp 1 (either one) vs your bat girl / explorer 2? Thinking about getting one myself ….
My explorer I has moved on to my dad and I no longer have the e2. These days I mostly wear my GMT, an aqua terra, and a Hamilton field auto