Thank you for watching and support to my videos for many years. To support my channel and efforts, please consider purchasing your next luxury watch through my watch store at www.calibre24.com.au/shop You can also support my work by simply watching my videos as you do, or by visiting the watch store and spreading the word with your friends and collectors community. Thank you.
Great comparison. I’ve got a 39 and mostly prefer it because I swap straps all the time and I like the Explorer placement above the 6 more than the placement below the 12 on the 40. Having said that, the AR coating, jet black dial, slightly larger handset and larger crown are all points in favor of the 40 (for me). Thanks again!
For me the 40mm. Only minus is the Explorer text at 12. It was better balanced at the 6 a clock position, but not a dealbreaker for this versatile and timeless watch. Next Saturday will get my. Thanks for your excellent reviews all the time.
@@JoeyJiggles I don’t walk just in and buy one! I have a good shopping and contact history there, and I ordered this watch in April after watches and wonders. It’s a present to me self to my round birthday. My AD call me this week and told me the watch is arrive for me.
I'm curious why you think that it was better balanced at 6 o'clock? Given that there are 5 lines of text in total, there will always be an 'imbalance' (either 3 lines at top and two at bottom, or 2 at top and 3 bottom). My view is that if I have to choose one I would go with the format it was first released in the 1950s (3 at top)
Great comparison. The 40mm was smoking the 39mm until the comparison reached the lug width. 20mm lug width is the sweet size for playing with watch straps and most watches in most collectors have this size so it’s kind of a deal breaker for me.
I have the 40 and love it. Went this route for better lume, updated movement, ar coating, the wider bracelet and a Bigger crown you forgot that one 😊. Love you videos keep up the great work you do! 🍻
Agree, just got my 40 and also own a Mk2. Personally, I prefer the 40 over Mk2. Better legibility, more refined case and bracelet. It is 40mm (2/8pm) and it wears better due to the wider end links and thinner lugs. That being said, I will still keep my Mk2 .
@@Mister_Hu What size is your wrist and does the 40 actually wear/look smaller on wrist?? This video says it does but other reviewers say the 39 still feels and looks smaller on smaller wrists when taking into consideration the bracelet being thinner, etc.
My you must have the wrists of a little boy. Have you actually tried the 40mm? It wears and looks like a dream. Seriously, please try it at an AD you will be pleasantly surprised.
Maybe I'm missing it but shouldn't we also compare end link to end link measurements? Those truly define the 'fixed' edges of the watch - and thus the size of the watch as it sits on a wrist.
Thanks Hafiz for doing these brilliant videos for the community. Can I request adding EndLink-Endlink as a new type of measurement (especially for watches with Male endlinks) to your already wonderful breakdowns... 🙌🏻
Hi, thanks very much. I have answered this question in my blog linked below. A short answer is that end link to end link dimension really adds no value, rather causes more confusion. Please read the blog and feel free to comment in the blog if you'd like to discuss further. Thanks. www.calibre24.com.au/post/what-if-i-told-you-that-the-all-new-explorer-40-wears-smaller-than-the-previous-model-explorer-39
@@HafizJMehmood - Thanks will do. It does make the watch wear larger if it is a Male Endlink that extends beyond the lugs. But I will definitely read your writeup my friend.
Thank you. You didn’t miss - I did :) I forgot to mention that the crown is much bigger on the new model - I even took a clip to show side by side but forgot to include unfortunately. Thanks for filling me in.
Great vid as always Hafiz! One point that has not been mentioned yet here in the comments is the issues with the new 32 series movement. The long proven 31 series movement plus the slightly smaller dial size makes me lean towards the 39mm.
I love the 36mm. Sometimes I do feel like it's a bit small when viewed through a mirror, but it's perfect when I look down on my wrist, and that's the most important thing. I wear a watch for me, not someone else's eyes. If you want to get noticed, there are plenty other models more suited for that.
I get the opposite effect. It appears to be small when looking at it but in the mirror looks spot on. I’ve always thought when looking at it appears small was due to regularly wearing a 40mm.
Fantastic side by side comparison. Only (minor) negative is moving EXPLORER from the 6 to 12 position on the dial. But as someone else commented, this is not a dealbreaker.
Thanks Hafiz, for the very detailed and accurate description of the differences. The text is really too cluttered in the upper half of the dial of the Explorer 40, and the size of the letters goes from big (rolex) to small (oyster perpetual) to something in between (explorer). Looks like an eye chart you have to read if you visit an optometrist to check your sight.
I just purchased the Explorer40 from my AD, and I love your review, it matches my own decision making... I personally found exactly what you have described in the slight differences. For me, it meant I get the perfection that is the history of the Explorer, but with some timely updates. Best of all, it delivers on the quality and consistency that we expect of Rolex. Which was most suitable for me? As you note, it is personal, and the Explorer fit me best, and the Explorer40 was the right next step.
I appreciate your attention to detail, Hafiz. So many reviewers say these watches have a diameter of 39 & 40mm respectively, without actually checking across the 3-9.
Thanks for doing this comparison. It's helping me lean to the 40mm, like I mentioned in your other video, I need to go back and retry this on. What I like about the 39 better... the Explorer text placement and the 20mm bracelet, and the thinner case (not the longer lug to lug though). I think in the end, the slightly thicker case is worth the trade off for the shorter lug to lug. I'd bet you wouldn't notice the thickness difference, but the lug to lug should be noticeable. I think I prefer the gloss dial, and certainly the clarity of the anti reflective coating. HATE the idea of the 21mm bracelet though. One other thing I seem to notice is the 5 minute hash marks are not as think on the 40mm. I think I like that even better. Another point for the 40. Great video!
Thanks much for providing this data. Rolex calling it 40mm is quite misleading… I was hoping for at least 39.5mm (ideally 40mm) but alas it’s basically the same as 214270.
What size is your wrist and does the 40 actually wear/look smaller on wrist?? This video says it does but other reviewers say the 39 still feels and looks smaller on smaller wrists when taking into consideration the bracelet being thinner, etc.
Amazing job Hafiz ! Sapphire with anti reflective treatment + movement improvement + lug to lug decreasing good for the new version ! But prefer the narrow buckle of the old version .
@@CraigG21 The bracelet centre link actually doesn't matter at all. On the inner side of the bracelet, the bracelet, including the centre link doesn't flare past the lugs. If the lugs fit inside your wrist, the outer dimension of centre link doesn't matter.
@HafizJMehmood I dont agree, the center link potrude the lugs and thus make the watch wear longer than If the watch had pivoted endlinks to the bracelet. And another thing is the 21mm lug width that gives the watch a wider stance.
The centre links protrude the lugs only externally but the bracelet itself is 5mm thicker and that’s why internally (on the inner side), where the bracelet sits on the wrist, they centre links/bracelet drops down towards the wrist before the lugs. I will reiterate that the longest dimension in a Rolex that is critical for wrist wear is lug to lug and not the outer dimensions of centre links.
You make the absolute best watch review videos on CZcams and it's not even close. Great photography and great insight as usual. Keep up the great work! Always look forward to your reviews.
Another difference is the cut-out between the lugs on the 40mm Explorer to integrate the bracelet. A pro if you never intend to take the bracelet off, but a pretty big con if you might want to use a strap in the future.
Great watches both the 39 and 40. The visual difference is minimal unless pointed out. Personally I prefer the Matt dial on the 39, but do prefer the slight thicker hands and bracelet. Great comparison 👍
I'll keep the 39. More svelte on wrist and the dial in matt blk is the business. The 40 definitely feels larger, thicker to me on wrist. It is a sportier watch than the 39, which isn't a bad thing.
I prefer the 39 just for the lug width and bracelet size. I have owned the newest ref Explorer II and Submariner and I find them unwearable because of the wider bracelet and clasp.
The placement of "EXPLORER" at 12 is a bad mistake. it makes the dial busy and unbalanced. I wonder what;s the reason for the change. The other negative is the jet-black dial which makes it look cheaper, like a fake watch. And the last undesirable part is the pairing of a slimmer lug size with a wider bracelet width which are incongruent. New is not always better.
To me, size 39 is perfect with the explorer at the bottom near 6 which gives an overall better symmetrical feel of the dial. The other shortcomings are the shorter hour hand and the clearer dial look that provides richer contrast.
@HafizJMehmood Great comparison review. Can I only suggest that you keep which is on right and left for all side by side views please? I got confused during the lume shots :-D I also like to compare ratios, the new 40mm should have had 22mm lug width to be same ratio 1.8 as the old 36mm 14270 and 114270 models
In my experience anti-reflective coating is more important for youtubers and instagrammers who need to take photos of their watches. I like that they only put it on the inside on the new one though. The text is less balanced on the new one. Moving the "Explorer" text was a strange move. The changes to the size looks ok to me. The only thing that is noticeably different is the clasp, but I can't say it's a bad size; and the crown. The crown is quite a lot bigger. I'm not sure why they did that. The old crown is very easy to use and feels solid and precise. That been said, it somehow does not really impact the look of the watch, so I don't really mind. I guess the result of the new one is a bit of a shrug, but that's really the best result since the 39 is a great watch.
Thanks for being aesthetic…. no fat arms, no chewed fingernails and always with good fashion. I think when people debate the looks of watches, often they should start with their own aesthetics. The best looking watch looks quite awful on a fat wrist with an ugly shirt and not looked after nails and hands…🤷🏻♂️
I enjoy the 39. Ideal size IMO. The 40 would be fine on my 7.5” wrist but I believe the proportions are better than the 40. I also prefer the Explorer text above the six.
Honestly doesn’t make much difference 39mm versus 40mm. The the 36mm is big change.Have to try on to ensure it isn’t too small. 39 for me was perfect for standard wrist!
Thanks for the review. Are you able to explain how you measured on the 40 model how you got the 38.6mm I can't see to get how that was measured. Maybe if you can add a colored line to show how that is measured
For what it’s worth, another CZcams video measured the new Air King 126900 as follows: Diameter: 41mm Lug to lug: 47.1mm Thickness: 11.9mm Clearly the Air King will have much greater presence compared with the Explorer 40. It’s quite misleading that Rolex displays both of these as “40mm” watches.
The bigger lug width and crown are big improvements for me. I think the 'Explorer' text at 12 would look better if the hands were at a different time and not crowding the text.
That’s the problem for having the Explorer on the top, when hands are gathering above 3 and 9, it look so imbalance and busy. That’s why in terms of design, having Explorer at 6 preferable, it’s well balanced visually.
@@Touyoujin I think they both look a bit odd and could be improved dial wise, but overall the 40 is a better looking watch than the 39 (but both great) IMO. If you are buying one at list then it would have to be the 40 anyway.
The old explorer has become a contraversial watch in recent years....do you go for the modern preference for larger watches, or stick with the traditonal 36mm explorer size....ah its a tough one
The 40mm looks too crammed under the 12. Why even put 'oyster perpetual'? Rolex with explorer under it would be perfect. The 39mm dial looks better, but still too much writing on it.
![[4K] Rolex 2021 GMT Pepsi Vs the Submariner 41, differences beyond the obvious | Hafiz J Mehmood](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eCQw-19RgJQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![[4K] The All-New 2023 Rolex Explorer 40 Hands-On Review & Wrist Shots | Hafiz J Mehmood](/img/n.gif)
Thank you for watching and support to my videos for many years. To support my channel and efforts, please consider purchasing your next luxury watch through my watch store at www.calibre24.com.au/shop
You can also support my work by simply watching my videos as you do, or by visiting the watch store and spreading the word with your friends and collectors community.
Thank you.
The most objective and no shtick reviewer on CZcams - great Job as always Hafiz
Great comparison. I’ve got a 39 and mostly prefer it because I swap straps all the time and I like the Explorer placement above the 6 more than the placement below the 12 on the 40. Having said that, the AR coating, jet black dial, slightly larger handset and larger crown are all points in favor of the 40 (for me). Thanks again!
For me the 40mm. Only minus is the Explorer text at 12. It was better balanced at the 6 a clock position, but not a dealbreaker for this versatile and timeless watch. Next Saturday will get my. Thanks for your excellent reviews all the time.
you just walking in and buying one at the AD?
@@JoeyJiggles I don’t walk just in and buy one! I have a good shopping and contact history there, and I ordered this watch in April after watches and wonders. It’s a present to me self to my round birthday. My AD call me this week and told me the watch is arrive for me.
@@fudog73 oh hell yeah!!! Congrats!!
I wonder if they'll switch the names to 12 oclock with other models
I'm curious why you think that it was better balanced at 6 o'clock? Given that there are 5 lines of text in total, there will always be an 'imbalance' (either 3 lines at top and two at bottom, or 2 at top and 3 bottom). My view is that if I have to choose one I would go with the format it was first released in the 1950s (3 at top)
So, so happy to have you back doing this series, Hafiz!! Your comparison and analysis videos are the gold standard.
Great comparison. The 40mm was smoking the 39mm until the comparison reached the lug width. 20mm lug width is the sweet size for playing with watch straps and most watches in most collectors have this size so it’s kind of a deal breaker for me.
I have the 40 and love it. Went this route for better lume, updated movement, ar coating, the wider bracelet and a Bigger crown you forgot that one 😊. Love you videos keep up the great work you do! 🍻
Agree, just got my 40 and also own a Mk2. Personally, I prefer the 40 over Mk2. Better legibility, more refined case and bracelet. It is 40mm (2/8pm) and it wears better due to the wider end links and thinner lugs. That being said, I will still keep my Mk2 .
Got to have a lot of spare cash to own the 39mm and justify the 40mm.
@@Mister_Hu What size is your wrist and does the 40 actually wear/look smaller on wrist?? This video says it does but other reviewers say the 39 still feels and looks smaller on smaller wrists when taking into consideration the bracelet being thinner, etc.
I've read the movement sn't much of an upgrade. Newer doesn't seem to be better
I think I'll stick with my Explorer 39!
Great job as always!
Yeah it's still too big. New 36mm should have gotten a 20mm bracelet & it would be perfect. Great review Hafiz!
My you must have the wrists of a little boy. Have you actually tried the 40mm? It wears and looks like a dream. Seriously, please try it at an AD you will be pleasantly surprised.
Maybe I'm missing it but shouldn't we also compare end link to end link measurements? Those truly define the 'fixed' edges of the watch - and thus the size of the watch as it sits on a wrist.
Thanks Hafiz for doing these brilliant videos for the community. Can I request adding EndLink-Endlink as a new type of measurement (especially for watches with Male endlinks) to your already wonderful breakdowns... 🙌🏻
Hi, thanks very much. I have answered this question in my blog linked below. A short answer is that end link to end link dimension really adds no value, rather causes more confusion. Please read the blog and feel free to comment in the blog if you'd like to discuss further. Thanks.
www.calibre24.com.au/post/what-if-i-told-you-that-the-all-new-explorer-40-wears-smaller-than-the-previous-model-explorer-39
@@HafizJMehmood - Thanks will do. It does make the watch wear larger if it is a Male Endlink that extends beyond the lugs. But I will definitely read your writeup my friend.
Great review, very happy that I bought the 39mm. The Matt dial for me is more Explorer like..
With the 40,,, it looks so crammed with all that writing and coronet under the 12 o'clock marker.
Very informative for all of us 39m owners, thanks. Did you not mention the increased crown size or have I miss something?
Thank you. You didn’t miss - I did :)
I forgot to mention that the crown is much bigger on the new model - I even took a clip to show side by side but forgot to include unfortunately.
Thanks for filling me in.
Great vid as always Hafiz! One point that has not been mentioned yet here in the comments is the issues with the new 32 series movement. The long proven 31 series movement plus the slightly smaller dial size makes me lean towards the 39mm.
I love the 36mm. Sometimes I do feel like it's a bit small when viewed through a mirror, but it's perfect when I look down on my wrist, and that's the most important thing.
I wear a watch for me, not someone else's eyes. If you want to get noticed, there are plenty other models more suited for that.
I get the opposite effect. It appears to be small when looking at it but in the mirror looks spot on. I’ve always thought when looking at it appears small was due to regularly wearing a 40mm.
Fantastic side by side comparison. Only (minor) negative is moving EXPLORER from the 6 to 12 position on the dial. But as someone else commented, this is not a dealbreaker.
Thanks Hafiz, for the very detailed and accurate description of the differences. The text is really too cluttered in the upper half of the dial of the Explorer 40, and the size of the letters goes from big (rolex) to small (oyster perpetual) to something in between (explorer). Looks like an eye chart you have to read if you visit an optometrist to check your sight.
I just purchased the Explorer40 from my AD, and I love your review, it matches my own decision making... I personally found exactly what you have described in the slight differences. For me, it meant I get the perfection that is the history of the Explorer, but with some timely updates. Best of all, it delivers on the quality and consistency that we expect of Rolex.
Which was most suitable for me? As you note, it is personal, and the Explorer fit me best, and the Explorer40 was the right next step.
One other thing is that the crown looks much bigger on the new model. The crown on the 39 was way too small in my opinion. Great video.
I appreciate your attention to detail, Hafiz. So many reviewers say these watches have a diameter of 39 & 40mm respectively, without actually checking across the 3-9.
I like the smaller clasp, and “explorer” at 6 oclock. The 40 is nice also.
This is the best video I've seen on the new 40mm. Love this new version.
Thanks for doing this comparison. It's helping me lean to the 40mm, like I mentioned in your other video, I need to go back and retry this on. What I like about the 39 better... the Explorer text placement and the 20mm bracelet, and the thinner case (not the longer lug to lug though). I think in the end, the slightly thicker case is worth the trade off for the shorter lug to lug. I'd bet you wouldn't notice the thickness difference, but the lug to lug should be noticeable. I think I prefer the gloss dial, and certainly the clarity of the anti reflective coating. HATE the idea of the 21mm bracelet though. One other thing I seem to notice is the 5 minute hash marks are not as think on the 40mm. I think I like that even better. Another point for the 40. Great video!
Thanks for doing this as someone requested on your last video. I was curious too.
Thanks much for providing this data. Rolex calling it 40mm is quite misleading… I was hoping for at least 39.5mm (ideally 40mm) but alas it’s basically the same as 214270.
I have also seen a change in the rehaut. The new model has a much bigger rehaut with bigger laser engraving on it.
Great video, thank u for that :)
36mmが1番良いです！
39mmも40mmも文字盤の間伸び感がありますね。
This is the best comparison video on CZcams, thanks for posting. 🙏
The gap between the lug holes and the case is much wider on the 39mm, and more suitable for strap change. Not to mention the 20 mm lugs width.
Plus there's a cut-out between the lugs on the 40mm that the bracelet slots into, like a jigsaw piece.
I have both now. Deciding which one to keep and sell. Very similar but definitely leaning toward the 40.
What size is your wrist and does the 40 actually wear/look smaller on wrist?? This video says it does but other reviewers say the 39 still feels and looks smaller on smaller wrists when taking into consideration the bracelet being thinner, etc.
YES!!! The Sultan of Time returns
I’ve been searching for this comparison for a long time. Thank you for this video. Greetings from Puerto Rico.
Amazing job Hafiz ! Sapphire with anti reflective treatment + movement improvement + lug to lug decreasing good for the new version ! But prefer the narrow buckle of the old version .
But the L2L including the center link of the 40mm model is longer: ~51mm to ~49mm.
@@CraigG21 The bracelet centre link actually doesn't matter at all. On the inner side of the bracelet, the bracelet, including the centre link doesn't flare past the lugs. If the lugs fit inside your wrist, the outer dimension of centre link doesn't matter.
@HafizJMehmood
I dont agree, the center link potrude the lugs and thus make the watch wear longer than If the watch had pivoted endlinks to the bracelet.
And another thing is the 21mm lug width that gives the watch a wider stance.
The centre links protrude the lugs only externally but the bracelet itself is 5mm thicker and that’s why internally (on the inner side), where the bracelet sits on the wrist, they centre links/bracelet drops down towards the wrist before the lugs. I will reiterate that the longest dimension in a Rolex that is critical for wrist wear is lug to lug and not the outer dimensions of centre links.
Please make a video explaining this. I think I understand what you're saying but visuals would help everyone be on the same page. @@HafizJMehmood
my personal taste - the grayish dial is king - so i would never change my 39 to the 40
The Explorer 36 & 39 is for the corporate executive, the CEO.
The Explorer 40 is for his wife’s boyfriend.
You make the absolute best watch review videos on CZcams and it's not even close. Great photography and great insight as usual. Keep up the great work! Always look forward to your reviews.
Another difference is the cut-out between the lugs on the 40mm Explorer to integrate the bracelet. A pro if you never intend to take the bracelet off, but a pretty big con if you might want to use a strap in the future.
Is that not present on the 39mm? I thought Rolex has been doing that cutout for a while now with the Explorers.
@@lsmjake Nope the 39mm doesn't have a cut-out (source - I have one and have changed onto a strap many times).
Got the 40 last week from the AD, prefer it than the 36 has the Bracelets too narrow
Great watches both the 39 and 40. The visual difference is minimal unless pointed out. Personally I prefer the Matt dial on the 39, but do prefer the slight thicker hands and bracelet. Great comparison 👍
I'll keep the 39. More svelte on wrist and the dial in matt blk is the business. The 40 definitely feels larger, thicker to me on wrist. It is a sportier watch than the 39, which isn't a bad thing.
The taper bracelet has better geometry in 39mm
I prefer the 39 just for the lug width and bracelet size. I have owned the newest ref Explorer II and Submariner and I find them unwearable because of the wider bracelet and clasp.
The reason for the 40 is that people liked 39 more, so 40 comes not as “ sorry we go back” but as a innovation😂
Really like my Explorer 39 mm.
The placement of "EXPLORER" at 12 is a bad mistake. it makes the dial busy and unbalanced. I wonder what;s the reason for the change. The other negative is the jet-black dial which makes it look cheaper, like a fake watch. And the last undesirable part is the pairing of a slimmer lug size with a wider bracelet width which are incongruent. New is not always better.
That's so funny, all the things that you don't like are things that I do like 😂 I guess that's why they made both
To me, size 39 is perfect with the explorer at the bottom near 6 which gives an overall better symmetrical feel of the dial. The other shortcomings are the shorter hour hand and the clearer dial look that provides richer contrast.
@HafizJMehmood Great comparison review. Can I only suggest that you keep which is on right and left for all side by side views please? I got confused during the lume shots :-D
I also like to compare ratios, the new 40mm should have had 22mm lug width to be same ratio 1.8 as the old 36mm 14270 and 114270 models
Can't say how much I appreciate this video. Thank you!
In my experience anti-reflective coating is more important for youtubers and instagrammers who need to take photos of their watches. I like that they only put it on the inside on the new one though. The text is less balanced on the new one. Moving the "Explorer" text was a strange move. The changes to the size looks ok to me. The only thing that is noticeably different is the clasp, but I can't say it's a bad size; and the crown. The crown is quite a lot bigger. I'm not sure why they did that. The old crown is very easy to use and feels solid and precise. That been said, it somehow does not really impact the look of the watch, so I don't really mind. I guess the result of the new one is a bit of a shrug, but that's really the best result since the 39 is a great watch.
Thanks Hafiz. Much anticipated video. Keep them coming.
Great review. I bought my new Rolex Explorer 40 a few days ago. I love it.
Thanks for being aesthetic…. no fat arms, no chewed fingernails and always with good fashion. I think when people debate the looks of watches, often they should start with their own aesthetics. The best looking watch looks quite awful on a fat wrist with an ugly shirt and not looked after nails and hands…🤷🏻♂️
Great, no nonsense and technical comparison. Your videos are non-hyped and love watching and enjoying tryout videos.
I enjoy the 39. Ideal size IMO. The 40 would be fine on my 7.5” wrist but I believe the proportions are better than the 40. I also prefer the Explorer text above the six.
This is the review I’ve been waiting for. Thank you!
Really nice review and video quality. Thanks. May i ask what size is your wrist please? Thank you
Isn’t the end link to end link 2mm more on the 40? It felt larger than the 39 when I tried it on.
Also the wider bracelet make it wear bigger/chunkier
Rolex Explorer 1 40mm 2.0 by Hafiz J Mehmood - Greatnes!!! Thanks for the pictures
I retired my date- just after 30 years and made the Explorer 39mm my daily wear, I miss the date, but it's a near perfect watch.
thanks for your sharing. The most complete comparison video online!
love your videos man! nice review as always.
Both equally as stunning. I prefer the taper on the 39mm though!
the crazy taper makes it almost a women's watch
Honestly doesn’t make much difference 39mm versus 40mm. The the 36mm is big change.Have to try on to ensure it isn’t too small. 39 for me was perfect for standard wrist!
the face on the 39 is just ...better balanced. the Text at 12 is jsut a bad call.
Thanks for the review. Are you able to explain how you measured on the 40 model how you got the 38.6mm I can't see to get how that was measured. Maybe if you can add a colored line to show how that is measured
Great comparasim, is it possible to make comparasim explorer 40 vs Air King 126900 (new).
For what it’s worth, another CZcams video measured the new Air King 126900 as follows:
Diameter: 41mm
Lug to lug: 47.1mm
Thickness: 11.9mm
Clearly the Air King will have much greater presence compared with the Explorer 40. It’s quite misleading that Rolex displays both of these as “40mm” watches.
great video, thanks Hafiz.
Got my 40mm a couple of months ago and love it
Outstanding comparison & analysis,
Thank you 🙏
i tried the 39mm, it feels almost perfect except the bracelet which was too dainty
Best comparison ever on watch videos !!
Does the Explorer 40mm have a slightly wider bezel than the 39mm version?
The 40 is definitely a larger sized watch all around. Much improved.
Great review! If you take off the bracelet, does the case have the indents like the 36 which are seen when putting it on a nato?
It does. Most likely going to be kept on the bracelet,
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?
Lume "considerably better" on thr 40?? My eyes are sharp and I noticed little if any diff.
Excellent review and comparison. Great work! Thank you!)
...speaking of 39... I've been waiting for a Pelagos 39 review from you! Did I miss it or is this something you'll be doing in the future?
Cant go wrong with either. Both are awesome watches.
You make incredible videos. Keep it up.
I agree if I owned the 39mm first then I would have not purchased the 40
Excellent review, thank you!
Great review, incredible the 39mm actually wears bigger!
Does the 40 wear bigger or smaller?
Smaller due to lug to lug
Perfect comparison! Thanks!
Thanks for very detailed & informative review
If it is not noticeable in size and dimensions, why is a 40mm offered?
Just typical Rolex with minor incremental changes.
Great video comparing the two
The bigger lug width and crown are big improvements for me.
I think the 'Explorer' text at 12 would look better if the hands were at a different time and not crowding the text.
That’s the problem for having the Explorer on the top, when hands are gathering above 3 and 9, it look so imbalance and busy. That’s why in terms of design, having Explorer at 6 preferable, it’s well balanced visually.
@@Touyoujin I think they both look a bit odd and could be improved dial wise, but overall the 40 is a better looking watch than the 39 (but both great) IMO.
If you are buying one at list then it would have to be the 40 anyway.
39 for me
Great video! Thanks!
Great review!
I think the jet black dial gives the 40mm the win for me
39 all day long over the 40. The 40 offers virtually no improvement over the 39 other than a longer power reserve, and plenty of drawbacks.
Oof the placement of the “Explorer” on the dial now bothers me on the 40mm 😂. Looks unbalanced to me now.
Awesome video👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
The old explorer has become a contraversial watch in recent years....do you go for the modern preference for larger watches, or stick with the traditonal 36mm explorer size....ah its a tough one
The 40mm looks too crammed under the 12. Why even put 'oyster perpetual'? Rolex with explorer under it would be perfect. The 39mm dial looks better, but still too much writing on it.
My experience with NKUWAN was fantastic. The watch arrived quickly and was exactly as described.