The 36mm Explorer wears big for its size

[Daniel23456]

Folks,

Despite many people’s saying that the Explorer wears small, I find it wearing pretty large for its size due to the big font & no bezel design. I tried a new Submariner (supposed to get the call any day now) and even next to my older 16660 the new explorer wears very substantially. It doesn't feel much smaller at all. Now I know I always said that because the dials are the same size it feels almost the same size, but I find it very weird that many people tried on the Explorer at 36mm and it was too small for them. When I tried the 39mm Explorer back when I still had my 16610 it felt bigger than my sub.

Anyways, thanks for listening

[SaddleSC]

I certainly enjoy it...6.75" wrist here:)

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

I certainly enjoy it...6.75" wrist here:)

Tailored fit on you!

[GradyPhilpott]

No bezel?

[TomInNJ]

I have a 7.5 inch wrist, and the two tone Explorer is my favorite watch. No one in the real world has ever said, “That looks two small on your wrist.” Many people, have said, “That’s a beautiful watch.”

[pinkpiano]

Wow I’ve heard the opposite from so many people!

It does suite you well though, looks great!

That’s probably my second watch in line after I get a Datejust (waitlist: 15 days so far)

[Kenny G]

The new 36mm explorers are great and look perfect on wrists up to 7.5”…imo, once your wrist is larger than that I think the older 39mm usually (but not always) looks better.

I do feel the older 36mm look slightly larger on wrist though due to the wider bracelet to case ratio…especially from certain angles that accentuate that.

[buzzroll]

I tried the current 36mm Explorer and it looked smaller on my wrist than my 36mm Date Just. I prefer the previous 36mm Explorer with the wider bracelet.

[pessoa00]

I love my exp 36mm, but it definitely wears smaller than a dj36

[Harry-57]

It does wear small. But it's all relative. Each to our own.

[Daniel23456]

This watch is dividing the watch community in half... Either people love it and think its size is great, or not... Interesting

[travisb]

I love this watch but for my taste it is a tad small.

[zengineer]

One of the great mysteries of this forum is reading a thread full of 6 inch wrists convincing each other that their SkyDwellers and DeepSeas fit just fine...followed by threads insisting that the 39mm Explorer needed to be 3mm smaller to fit even average size wrists.

I like the 39mm size on my 7.25" wrist. I don't disagree that the 36mm is better on small wrists...it just seems to go against the wave of what I see as many wearing watches that are comically too large.

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

[JayHantz]

Originally Posted by zengineer

One of the great mysteries of this forum is reading a thread full of 6 inch wrists convincing each other that their SkyDwellers and DeepSeas fit just fine...followed by threads insisting that the 39mm Explorer needed to be 3mm smaller to fit even average size wrists.

I like the 39mm size on my 7.25" wrist. I don't disagree that the 36mm is better on small wrists...it just seems to go against the wave of what I see as many wearing watches that are comically too large.

I tend to agree with this. I have a 7" wrist and anything 40 mm is my personal sweet spot, however I tend to go for watches that are smaller, like my 37 mm Grand Seiko or my Santos Medium.

[S.Explorer]

Personally at <7in wrist size, I think a 36mm Explorer is perfect.

To me, the current Explorer does look a bit larger than the previous 36mm Explorer due to the slightly thicker case, wider lugs and bolder dial.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by S.Explorer

Personally at <7in wrist size, I think a 36mm Explorer is perfect.

To me, the current Explorer does look a bit larger than the previous 36mm Explorer due to the slightly thicker case, wider lugs and bolder dial.

I think it’s more the increased lung taper making the head appear wider relative to the bracelet.

[Chester01]

36 was the standard for decades until the internet made up peoples mind that they need led larger….they don’t. Modesty is not something society does well with these days. The news, internet, cars, and watches have to be big, loud, and in your face because god forbid one isn’t noticed. One has to be noticed these days.

[Calatrava r]

Perhaps the 36mm just seems small compared to the discontinued 39mm model. The trend is slightly turning to smaller watches. There has been a big uptick in demand for the vintage 32-35mm watches, so it will be interesting to see where styles go.

[HiBoost]

I have both in hand at the moment and find the 39 to be a visually perfect fit for my 7" (2.25" wide) wrist. That said, the 36 (mine is the 114270, not the latest) is quite comfortable and completely disappears on the wrist. For some this is a pro, for others it's a con.

I really feel like Rolex should have kept both sizes in production. Cartier makes a Medium and a Large Santos. Samsung and Apple make a regular and a "plus" size for their phones. I just don't get the premise behind "the entire world needs to make this one size work". So whether you are a 100 lb female or a 300 pound male, one size fits all? That's absurd at face value.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I have both in hand at the moment and find the 39 to be a visually perfect fit for my 7" (2.25" wide) wrist. That said, the 36 (mine is the 114270, not the latest) is quite comfortable and completely disappears on the wrist. For some this is a pro, for others it's a con.

I really feel like Rolex should have kept both sizes in production. Cartier makes a Medium and a Large Santos. Samsung and Apple make a regular and a "plus" size for their phones. I just don't get the premise behind "the entire world needs to make this one size work". So whether you are a 100 lb female or a 300 pound male, one size fits all? That's absurd at face value.

Attachment 1317846

I actually think that the 36mm works on you better… plus, it is very apparent, especially in your photos that the 36mm is the better proportioned watch

[NachoNeal]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

I actually think that the 36mm works on you better… plus, it is very apparent, especially in your photos that the 36mm is the better proportioned watch

Very apparent?

[TimeAZ]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

I actually think that the 36mm works on you better… plus, it is very apparent, especially in your photos that the 36mm is the better proportioned watch

What on Earth are you talking about??? That 35mm diameter explorer "36" looks like a small button on that wrist... maybe works if you are looking for a dress piece or wanted to capture the vintage spirit. Whereas the 39mm is literal perfection, perfectly sized and sporty.

If the 124270 were marketed at 36, but actually measured 37 and came with a 20mm bracelet, then it would have been the perfect happy medium between the arguments "36 too small" and "39 too big". Guess we will have to wait until the 224270 gets released

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

I actually think that the 36mm works on you better… plus, it is very apparent, especially in your photos that the 36mm is the better proportioned watch

Which you feel looks better is entirely a matter of opinion. But on the topic of proportions specifically, I have to strongly disagree. I feel this is more a matter of math than of opinions. It would be really hard to argue that there is a more iconic and classic look than a traditional (pre ceramic) Rolex GMT or Daytona. These watches basically defined "the" look of men's sport watches for multiple generations. They consist of a 39-40mm case and a 20mm bracelet. As such, the 39mm Explorer with the 20mm bracelet is holding up this golden ratio (1.95:1) more closely. The 36mm Explorer on the 20mm bracelet presents a decidedly diminutive case look (1.8:1). For further proof of this concept just look at the latest 36mm Explorer. Rolex dropped the bracelet size to 19mm to make the new 36mm case look proportionally bigger and in doing so restored the ratio back to 1.9:1.

[LA_LEC]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I have both in hand at the moment and find the 39 to be a visually perfect fit for my 7" (2.25" wide) wrist. That said, the 36 (mine is the 114270, not the latest) is quite comfortable and completely disappears on the wrist. For some this is a pro, for others it's a con.

I really feel like Rolex should have kept both sizes in production. Cartier makes a Medium and a Large Santos. Samsung and Apple make a regular and a "plus" size for their phones. I just don't get the premise behind "the entire world needs to make this one size work". So whether you are a 100 lb female or a 300 pound male, one size fits all? That's absurd at face value.

Attachment 1317846

IMHO that the 39mm fits you perfectly.

[Watchsprings]

I love my 36mm, I wish the bracelet was 20mm for more strap options.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

My 36mm Exp1 indeed wears larger than the DJ36 I traded in on it. I marvel at that every time I wear it. And I often think that if I could only have just one watch (that’s not gonna happen) it would be the Exp1. In fact if the Exp1 was the first Rolex I bought I probably wouldn’t have as many watches as I do now.

[Baiv]

It fits perfectly on my wrist

[2loaded]

The wife has several in 36, I sneak links in and wear. Great size and fit.

[GST15]

For me personally, with a 7" wrist I felt it was a bit small on me, so I will opt for finding a 39

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by GST15

For me personally, with a 7" wrist I felt it was a bit small on me, so I will opt for finding a 39

I agree.
I used to have a 114270 and it wore on my >7" wrist like a boys watch size. Alas, there was no 39mm size.
It ran beautifully but it had to go to a new home where it was better loved.