36mm - how can it be so polarizing?

[GMT Aviator]

I wear 42, 40, 39 and 36mm watches all in rotation.

I’m comfortable with all of them.

A lot depends on the style of watch as to how it looks on the wrist.

No wrong answer, wear what you like.

[matthew P]

iPhones have done a lot to answer for when it comes to distorting the size people are comfortable looking at for wrist shots.

I own a MKII and a 124270 explorer
I wore and loved the MKII for years before buying the 124270 which I now much prefer for my 7 inch wrist.
I just think the watch looks better proportioned at 36 and I prefer that style of watch in a smaller rather than larger style.




That being said the modern 36mm explorer feels acceptably small to me with the proportions of the 19mm lug where as the lighter / older 36mm explorer with 20mm lugs always felt too small when I was able to try them on. The modern 36mm explorer just works better for my wrist and my taste/ style ….. but only on its stock bracelet….. on after market straps I suspect I’d think it too small for me.

My dive watch however feels appropriate at 44mm and on aftermarket rubber it’s my large watch



I initially thought I would be uncomfortable sharing wrist time with them both as my two daily wear watches but these days one feels light and comfortably small where as the diver feels substantial and comfortable as well.

It’s like the difference between wearing heavy boots and tennis shoes….. each has their purpose/ comfort / fit.

The noise about 36mm seems to come from people whose opinion I do not value.


….Save the drama - I’m just here for the photos….

[subprimero]

I rarely see watches that look too small for the wearers on this forum. I often see watches that look too large.

[zapokee]

I'm a big guy and basically wear only 34 or 36. They're just so elegant.

[Daniel23456]

Originally Posted by matthew P

iPhones have done a lot to answer for when it comes to distorting the size people are comfortable looking at for wrist shots.

I own a MKII and a 124270 explorer
I wore and loved the MKII for years before buying the 124270 which I now much prefer for my 7 inch wrist.
I just think the watch looks better proportioned at 36 and I prefer that style of watch in a smaller rather than larger style.




That being said the modern 36mm explorer feels acceptably small to me with the proportions of the 19mm lug where as the lighter / older 36mm explorer with 20mm lugs always felt too small when I was able to try them on. The modern 36mm explorer just works better for my wrist and my taste/ style ….. but only on its stock bracelet….. on after market straps I suspect I’d think it too small for me.

My dive watch however feels appropriate at 44mm and on aftermarket rubber it’s my large watch



I initially thought I would be uncomfortable sharing wrist time with them both as my two daily wear watches but these days one feels light and comfortably small where as the diver feels substantial and comfortable as well.

It’s like the difference between wearing heavy boots and tennis shoes….. each has their purpose/ comfort / fit.

The noise about 36mm seems to come from people whose opinion I do not value.


….Save the drama - I’m just here for the photos….

You are right. I had 114270 along side the new 124270. Although the 124270 has 19mm lug width, it wears bigger and thicker.

The 214270 doesn’t justify its size. It is a simple watch and a hybrid between sports and elegant. The 39mm asks for a bigger dial which is not justify in such a watch. I have a Sea dweller that is thicker and bigger and does justify its size while maintaining the same dial size as the EXP. It goes to show that there’s only so much you can do with a dial.

[1978]

Same! :)

Originally Posted by Rebel

I am a petite framed man. Small wrists and all. The 36mm is the sweet spot for me.

[twalt77]

The 124270 is the only 36mm sports watch in the line up. There’s so much history, it is understated and perfectly proportioned. My Dad’s 16220 always looked the right size (been looking at it for nearly 40 years) so it’s 36 all the way for me.

I do get annoyed when people say 36mm is a woman’s size, I think mine looks ace and I certainly won’t be telling any woman what size of watch to wear.

Tried to take a distance pic for correct proportions:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Apwillard1986]

It is polarizing because ten or fifteen years ago when the enormous cuff-busters started trending many manufactures started selling traditional sizes as unisex or mid-size.

Watches are somewhat unique in that there are folks who don’t find it odd projecting their preferences on others without regard for the different sizes of humanity. Imagine telling someone in the boardroom that their size 9 Brogues are a women's shoe…

Like any worn article from shoes to jewelry it is most important to wear what fits that is comfortable.

[Zuger]

There is a place and time for a 36mm and there is a place and time for a 41mm. That’s why many of us have a collection.

[matthew P]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

You are right. I had 114270 along side the new 124270. Although the 124270 has 19mm lug width, it wears bigger and thicker.

The 214270 doesn’t justify its size. It is a simple watch and a hybrid between sports and elegant. The 39mm asks for a bigger dial which is not justify in such a watch. I have a Sea dweller that is thicker and bigger and does justify its size while maintaining the same dial size as the EXP. It goes to show that there’s only so much you can do with a dial.

Yep…… I was a huge fan of the 114270 on photographs and other people wrists….. it was the explorer I initially fell for. Then the MKII came out and I initially thought it would be too small as I was used to 44mm divers.

When I first tried on the MKII the case size felt perfect…. In a lot of ways it still does….. on my wrist it just felt like too much dial and too thick/ flat a bezel.
The MKII always felt perfect when I first put it on but by the end of the day all I could see was the larger dial on my smaller wrist.

I still think the mk II is a fantastic watch and I love the way it looks on larger wrists than mine…. It just didn’t end up working for me with my wrist style and smaller watch preferences for a three hander.
Surprisingly the 114270 always felt too small for the 20mm lug width. I was used to seeing bigger watches with that lug size and it never felt right on wrist….. not even the solid end link later versions
When they down sized the bracelet on the new 36mm explorer I thought I’d hate it but it’s a big part of what makes a small watch feel perfectly proportioned for me.

It’s been a revelation how used to the smaller size I’ve become and how much I enjoy the watch on wrist as well as how much greater the range of wear time is….. it travels for sporty daily right up to dress wear for me and right now it’s covering that usage as well.




….Save the drama - I’m just here for the photos….

[Tqmb79]

36 works for many wrists. However, as others have said, if you are used to 40-41 they look very small and why I can’t ever wear a 36. The larger sizes have ruined it for me. 39-41 is the sweet spot IMO

[seabreeze60]

The 124270 changed my view of 36mm Rolex. Once I purchased the majority of my collection became obsolete and was sold.

[Boopie]

I disagree that the 36mm size is somehow controversial. I think some posters who refer to a 36mm as a “woman’s watch” are erroneous and just looking to be inflammatory. The contemporary trend is for people, both men and women, to be wearing larger watches than we did 25+ years ago (check out the early 1990s “The Larry Sanders Show). Some women are leaving behind the 29-33mm range to wear 36mm, and some men prefer the classic 36mm size to the 40mm+.

Both of my sons are very athletic and fit; they boxed, lift weights, and played high school tackle football. They have two totally different builds, reflected in their football positions. My wide receiver totally rocks a 36mm, whereas my linebacker needs a minimum 40mm.

[Cambo]

Purely taste now. Like hair styles, there was a time when short was “in”, then long was “in”….now everything goes, including watches, and the world is better for it.

[HogwldFLTR]

In general, 39 to 40 is perfect in my eye. With a 6.5in wrist a 36mm should be perfect but I just don't click well with watches that size.

[PO 2500D]

The size of the watch makes no difference to anyone other than the person wearing it, 36/40/43 or larger or smaller, just wear what you like.

Nothing is better per se just what you prefer, I really don't get people who try and tell you that smaller/larger is better etc...you wear what you like.

Although fish eyed lens equipped smart phones make the 40mm Rolex sports watches appear much larger than they are as compared to most sports watches they are on the small side (I'm not saying that's a bad thing)

[Stan Cooper]

Originally Posted by GMT Aviator

I wear 42, 40, 39 and 36mm watches all in rotation.

I’m comfortable with all of them.

A lot depends on the style of watch as to how it looks on the wrist.

No wrong answer, wear what you like.

Ditto here.

[George58]

Originally Posted by subprimero

I rarely see watches that look too small for the wearers on this forum. I often see watches that look too large.

bingo bango

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by matthew P

iPhones have done a lot to answer for when it comes to distorting the size people are comfortable looking at for wrist shots.

I own a MKII and a 124270 explorer
I wore and loved the MKII for years before buying the 124270 which I now much prefer for my 7 inch wrist.
I just think the watch looks better proportioned at 36 and I prefer that style of watch in a smaller rather than larger style.




That being said the modern 36mm explorer feels acceptably small to me with the proportions of the 19mm lug where as the lighter / older 36mm explorer with 20mm lugs always felt too small when I was able to try them on. The modern 36mm explorer just works better for my wrist and my taste/ style ….. but only on its stock bracelet….. on after market straps I suspect I’d think it too small for me.

My dive watch however feels appropriate at 44mm and on aftermarket rubber it’s my large watch



I initially thought I would be uncomfortable sharing wrist time with them both as my two daily wear watches but these days one feels light and comfortably small where as the diver feels substantial and comfortable as well.

It’s like the difference between wearing heavy boots and tennis shoes….. each has their purpose/ comfort / fit.

The noise about 36mm seems to come from people whose opinion I do not value.


….Save the drama - I’m just here for the photos….

Originally Posted by subprimero

I rarely see watches that look too small for the wearers on this forum. I often see watches that look too large.

Originally Posted by George58

bingo bango

As shown above perspective does much to affect perception. The same ways one can photograph a person btween two fingers, one can image a watch as much larger that it appears in comparison to a wrist. Mostly people are interested in showing off the watch in their photography as opposed to showing the size in correct proportion to the wrist that's wearing it.

[jimcameron]

A DateJust 36 is the most popular Rolex ever. Still number 1 in sales worldwide.

[noshame]

Originally Posted by subprimero

I rarely see watches that look too small for the wearers on this forum. I often see watches that look too large.

I couldn't agree more with this.