The lack of smaller size was the only thing stopping this from being a perfect watch for me, and now that they have 36 back but with the newer specs...yeah this is my ultimate grail watch.
It's the most perfect Explorer ever made & I believe, the most perfect watch ever made. The slight enlargement of the numerals finally gives the dial perfect balance. Hoping to buy pre-owned/unworn within 2 years...after the hype subsides & before Rolex change back to 39mm.
The 36mm size is my favorite. With a 7.75" it doesn't seem to make sense to others. But I find it sits so unobtrusively on my wrist. It doesn't beg for attention. It is relatively light. I have just two watches nowadays: a 1016 and a new Datejust 36. Life is damn good.
As a fellow owner I agree. I had tried on 36mm DJs and a 40mm Air King and knew that the 36mm was closer to the preferred size. Another reviewer indicated that this model wears like a 38-38.5, which is a good sweet spot. Congratulations on your purchase!
Love the look of the Explorer 1 but when I tried on the older 36 and 39, neither felt right as the 36 was too small. The 39 was a smidge too big which was odd to me as 39-40 is my sweet spot. This one looks too small and the 19mm lug width is a turn off. Maybe 38 would be the perfect fit for me (and more universal) but I doubt they’ll stray from 36 again.
36mm for my 7.9" wrist is far too small. Nice enough watch though not worth close to the asking price in my opinion. Nice review by the way, good to hear the specs explained so well.
@@timemycollection they had a delivery in of stock and i was in the area and called in. It wasn't in the window. It was to be allocated. I was shown a lot of their stock and went for the date just. Ive turned down hot watches in the past. I'll only buy a watch if i know I'll love it. I hope the ADs trust me, and that's why they showed me the stock. I hope who ever gets it loves it. I love a 36mm but that didn't match me at all. It's a tough market for the genuine ADs out there...
@@JLGoldman5 they wear totally differently. I wear a 36 with a suit. The fluted bezel is bigger. The cyclops is present that adds bulk. And a watch without the date just feels wrong to me personally. It's a lovely watch, but the size struck me as small straight away. I may just pick up a 39mm in the future if the prices are reasonable
@@JLGoldman5 indeed it is. I don't follow, even with the reasoning given that looking at 2 watches of the same size, one of and the other too small. The exp js an excellent watch - bit in my view its only for the true enthusiast who appreciates what it stands for. If your someone who's only interested in showing off or making a statement...or who subliminaly wants to shout...hey I'm wearing a rolex...this certainly isn't for you
I have the 114270 and it is my favourite watch (even though it is my smallest watch) - This looks like the perfect update of the Explorer. Thank you for a great review AB 😊👍 I will definitely check out DavidSW when I am visiting my parents in Orlando 👍
I have an Omega Speedmaster 42mm. It fits my wrist very well. How would look the Explorer 36mm on me? I think the discontinued 39mm would look better, but the prizes are ridicilious now!
A quick correction re: the dimensions. I own the new Explorer and the lug to lug is more like 43.5. The 45mm number is if you measure endlink to endlink. Lug to lug, it is a bit less than 1mm shorter the 114270… endlink to endlink measurements are about the same.
'The new Explorer 36 was one of the most anticipated updates in Rolex current lineup' Based on the snoozefest Rolex rolled out this year, hardly a distinction ;-) Nice review and it was good to see the differences.
“those who knew Rolexes history knew it was only a matter of time”...what in their history suggested they would ever reduce the size down to 36mm? When have they ever done this before? Also, while the links at the clasp are 14mm, the clasp itself is 16mm wide.
It seems Rolex usually eliminates to go larger. The sub, the Explorer II, the OP. Even the smaller Yachtmaster went from 35 to 37mm. On the Rolex website the only remaining 39mm watches are Cellini variants and a couple of Pearlmasters. I guess if you want a steel sports at 39mm they want you to go to over to Tudor.
@@davidr2802 if size thresholds are important, make sure you know what a watch actually measures, not just how it’s marketed. The “OP 41” is actually 39.1mm. www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=772661
@@edwardo737 Fair enough but the OP41 is larger lug to lug than the OP39 47.35 to 44.06 and if one takes into account the effect of the solid end links I suspect it is pushing 50mm as opposed 47mm so it was in fact an upsizing of a discontinued size watch and my point stands.
I love this watch, but 19mm lug width... I get that it looks clean and it works with the overall case design and wearability. However IMHO 20mm would have been perfect. Keep up the great work AB!
DavidSW is awesome, bought many watches from him in the past decade, always shipped down to Australia fast and no fuss! Not sure about the watch though. I had 114270 and 214270 before. The bezel still looks too wide on this new one, same as the 39. My favourite Rolex at the moment is still my 16610
Great review. On the waitlist and in the meantime enjoying the heck out of the original 36 mm, the 1016. That said, the greater power reserve, better bracelet, more reliable water resistance, scratch resistant sapphire crystal, and cool rehaute are welcomed changes. One question though: is the crystal anti-reflective? Just wish the lume glowed green instead of blue. Otherwise, perfection! 🤩
Personally I dont think the Two tone variant is controversial because it's not going to be used for exploring if anything the two tone is the reality that most watch enthusiasts won't admit 🙊
True, actually this Instagram page guy made a artistic rework of the watch itself, and honestly it looked amazing with different handsets abd numerals. The numerals to me are too rounded and polished and lost the actual tool watch aesthetic. I dislike how blingy rolex has become.
Not the Rolex for me. If I wanted something this simple I’d just buy a Hamilton field watch. For a Rolex I’d rather go with another model if I could only have 1 Rolex.
Nice as a dress watch but not as an all rounder or one watch collection, the new release isn't as versatile as the old one, the redesign of lug width and spring bar position make it almost impossible to put on a strap, you risk either damaging the strap or scuffing the case.
@@maitrehg apparently just about every service man in the 2nd world war, the actual people who had the watch historically named after their ascent to the top of Mount Everest, and pretty much everyman prior to the advent of the 80s action hero and the Panerai dinner plates of this world, keep rocking it though bro
@@maitrehg or, someone that actually likes a comfortable watch as an everyday "explorer" that doesn't snag on anything or dig into the wrist, and shock of shock a sports watch that could actually be worn doing some kind of sport?
RUINED! I was very interested when i learned that Rolex had deleted that Badly Designed 39 mm Travesty & gone back to 36mm with A New Release. But this is WORSE! WHY make the lug width 19mm? HUH? WHAAA??? 45 mm wingspan! They have RUINED the Beautiful Architypical Design of the Original 36mm, 20mm lugwidth of The Iconic 1016, 14270 & 114270! That Classic Design WITH the 20mm Lugwidth makes the Watch so Unique, so Endearing out of ALL the Rolex Designs. This New Iteration Ruins that Design Entirely! RUINED!!!
You say with the strap off this watch is a bit too small on you ?! You son are deluded if you believe that, it’s bordering on the large for you. You are hilarious fella 😅
