Explorer 36 or 40?

[HarryTimes]

I've just put my name down for the new Explorer 40 after trying the 36mm on briefly (short of time, at AD, should've taken photos) and at that time I felt it was small, but perhaps that is because I'm used to my Tudor GMT as seen below. Should I go 36mm and get used to it, I know it's a classic so I want to love it. My current smallest watch is a Hamilton field khaki 38mm so have never spent time with something a lot smaller on my wrist. Will the 40 be too big... The other thing is I know I can get a 40 much quicker. Attached a couple pictures of my Tudor on wrist for reference, let me know what you think

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[WatchTimes]

I say 40 all day everyday

[robinmgb]

Originally Posted by WatchTimes

I say 40 all day everyday

Me too, no contest, 36 is way too small

[seabreeze60]

For the extra $500 the Explorer 40mm is appealing.

I think it depends on the purposes of the purchase and the size of your wrist.

I own a new 36mm on a 6.75 inch wrist. For me it’s the right choice.

However, had I been given the option when I purchased my 124270 I would have had to make a tough decision.

The 36mm will always be the classic and wear well with a long sleeve shirt. The 40mm probably is more sporty. But just an opinion.

[HarryTimes]

Originally Posted by seabreeze60

For the extra $500 the Explorer 40mm is appealing.

I think it depends on the purposes of the purchase and the size of your wrist.

I own a new 36mm on a 6.75 inch wrist. For me it’s the right choice.

However, had I been given the option when I purchased my 124270 I would have had to make a tough decision.

The 36mm will always be the classic and wear well with a long sleeve shirt. The 40mm probably is more sporty. But just an opinion.

Yeah I get what you mean about the 40 being more sporty and the 36 fitting better under a shirt. I want it as a 'do it all' watch, which I think the explorer does really well. I suppose I won't really know until I try the 40 on whether it's too much to be that watch for me!


Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[LA_LEC]

I am going to suggest getting the 39mm version as the "Goldie-locks" size IMO.

[HarryTimes]

Did try one on and it fit well. Prefer the gloss dial though and don't want to pay over retail... Personally I love the explorer in all versions but trying to decide which to commit to myself isn't easy. Certainly leaning towards the 40 though.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[HarryTimes]

I think it will take me trying the 40 on to really know for sure... Easier said than done

[MJZRolex]

The 40 would be fine. My wrist is a flat 6.5" and I have the Tudor GMT and feel it still looks okay. I sure would like to try a 36 sometime just to compare.

[watch3r]

I would go with the 40, would likely fit better.

Even better if you have somehow cracked a code to find it sooner....!!!

[Stromness]

I prefer the 36 on my 6.75 inch wrist. I dive with much larger watches in the MM300, PloProf and a few others, and have owned the EXP 39mm, and later the Big Pilot 43, but one of the key qualities of the 36 is the way it wears so discreetly, like nothing at all -- until you see it, and then it steals the room.

When I want to wear a larger three-hander I grab something like the Longines Spirit Ti. Fine watch, super-light and legible, but even at 40mm it takes up a lot of space on the wrist, and is far less discreet than the EXP 36.

But it's a matter of preference in the end. Good to have choices, especially with an Explorer.

[HarryTimes]

Originally Posted by Stromness

I prefer the 36 on my 6.75 inch wrist. I dive with much larger watches in the MM300, PloProf and a few others, and have owned the EXP 39mm, and later the Big Pilot 43, but one of the key qualities of the 36 is the way it wears so discreetly, like nothing at all -- until you see it, and then it steals the room.

When I want to wear a larger three-hander I grab something like the Longines Spirit Ti. Fine watch, super-light and legible, but even at 40mm it takes up a lot of space on the wrist, and is far less discreet than the EXP 36.

But it's a matter of preference in the end. Good to have choices, especially with an Explorer.

Ty I appreciate the insight. Need to try both I think.

Sent from my SM-T870 using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

40 will wear huge on you in my opinion. It’s all dial and will probably wear bigger than that Tudor. Out of curiosity, why do you say you’ll be able to get the 40 faster?

[HarryTimes]

Originally Posted by dannyp

40 will wear huge on you in my opinion. It’s all dial and will probably wear bigger than that Tudor. Out of curiosity, why do you say you’ll be able to get the 40 faster?

Massive waiting list for the 36 at my AD. Im number 4 in line for the 40mm I believe.

[faz]

go with 40

[waxy88]

I recently collected my 36mm Explorer and think it is perfect
For reference, I don’t know my wrist size, but can comfortably wear a 46mm Navitimer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seabreeze60]

Called my AD and inquired about an Explorer 40. He said that they haven’t received one yet, and don’t anticipate getting inventory until September-October.

I didn’t ask about a wait list as I already have a 36mm and am pleased with it. However, I will check it out once they have at least a display model to try on.

[7enderbender]

I’m planning on a 36mm Explorer next year. Nothing to do with wrist size or fashions. It’s the classic size and the proportions check out. It’s frankly the only current Rolex model that they got right and still links to the historic lineage. The 40 is a diversion. And so is pretty much everything else they make now.

[Hems]

Go get the 40.

[biza]

Go with the 40

[Clockmeister]

In terms of choosing a classic size watch, I wouldn’t wear a classic Calatrava which is 33mm; how many people would? I would choose the size that I’m comfortable with regardless of what was classic.

[Ny325]

I have a 7 1/2 inch wrist. My 36mm white dial DateJust looks good. Doesn’t look small at all. However, I tried on the 36mm Explorer, and it looks smaller than my DateJust. I would go with the 40mm.

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by Ny325

I have a 7 1/2 inch wrist. My 36mm white dial DateJust looks good. Doesn’t look small at all. However, I tried on the 36mm Explorer, and it looks smaller than my DateJust. I would go with the 40mm.

I concur. Recently tried on a 36 Exp on my 7.25” wrist, I was disappointed, despite my DJ looking fine.
Glad I have my 39mm MkI

[nickscaps]

Originally Posted by Jack T

I concur. Recently tried on a 36 Exp on my 7.25” wrist, I was disappointed, despite my DJ looking fine.
Glad I have my 39mm MkI

That's my problem with the current 'smaller' Explorer - it's really a 35mm, and with the aggressive bracelet taper it is much more diminutive than a modern 36mm DJ or OP. I'm more inclined to the new 40 - I want a field watch to be bigger than my Datejust, not smaller. That being said I respect the older 36mm models.

[boring_sandwich]

Originally Posted by nickscaps

That's my problem with the current 'smaller' Explorer - it's really a 35mm, and with the aggressive bracelet taper it is much more diminutive than a modern 36mm DJ or OP. I'm more inclined to the new 40 - I want a field watch to be bigger than my Datejust, not smaller. That being said I respect the older 36mm models.

The 19mm lugs and aggressive taper on the bracelet actually makes the head of the watch appear bigger than its dimensions. I have found it wears much nicer than the DJ36 or OP36's I have owned.

YMMV.

[Mick006]

It’s a personal choice. Everyone will tell you some reason why their choice works best. In the end, look at them both and decide for yourself. There not really a wrong answer.

I have several 36mm watches, the Hamilton you mention, the exp 36, and I had a Tudor gmt. All work well. As they say: buy what sings to you.

[White Collar Boy]

Hi Harry. Love your Tudor BBGMT. I am in the 36mm camp for Explorer, but reckon if you felt it was too small, trust yourself; I would guess the 40mm version will feel just right for you because the lug length is reportedly 46.5mm (not the stated 48mm), which is fractionally shorter than your Hamilton. I think it will be more balanced than your Hamilton too.

[HarryTimes]

Originally Posted by White Collar Boy

Hi Harry. Love your Tudor BBGMT. I am in the 36mm camp for Explorer, but reckon if you felt it was too small, trust yourself; I would guess the 40mm version will feel just right for you because the lug length is reportedly 46.5mm (not the stated 48mm), which is fractionally shorter than your Hamilton. I think it will be more balanced than your Hamilton too.

Cheers mate I think that's what I needed to hear. Just go with what I feel is right. I know I shouldn't be influenced by others but can't help but let some opions on creep in when there are so many!

[White Collar Boy]

Originally Posted by HarryTimes

Cheers mate I think that's what I needed to hear. Just go with what I feel is right. I know I shouldn't be influenced by others but can't help but let some opions on creep in when there are so many!

Yes, and the 36mm Explorer is so beloved that it’s understandable to question the gut feeling. It was probably even slightly smaller than 36mm really, with a more tapered bracelet than the older ones.

[Tzachi]

40.
36 will feel small