I agree, the 39mm is my favorite one. 39mm is perfect, except not having the 70 hrs, I’m good with my 39mm. Adrian never liked it, but he also said the explorer II 42mm was too big…now owns one.
@@mg8571 .. something that he didn’t mention either was that the 39 mm Explorer has a flat black, almost dark brown dial, which I hope will fade more with time. This new Explorer seems to have a dark glossy black dial
I’m still delighted with my 124270 on my 17cm wrist. I love the way it flies under the radar. It’s worn regularly, and carries the scratches with style.
Rolex - adds 1mm to a watch bracelet and case Adrian - They have just done it right, I absolutely love this watch, I feel like they have captured the essence that is the explorer
Hey Adrian great vid as always! One idea to make reviews like this even better would be to indicate during the b-roll showing two very similar watches which is what. Hard to tell in this video every time you show side by side if we are looking at the 36, 39, or 40mm version of the Explorer. A simple subtle legend next to each would greatly help. Thank you!
@@samlee3056 Nope, it's 38.5mm. What two points on the case do you feel could be 38.5mm on a 40mm watch? Everyone seems in denial of this! Watch the short I did of it and the OP41 (which measures 39.5mm).
@@samlee3056 The explorer 40 has a shorter lug to lug than the 39 and measures 38.6 mm across. It''s not a larger explorer than the 39, they just tinkered with the proportions a little bit and gave it a wider bracelet.
The Explorer 39 (MK2) will be a future classic! It wears lovely on the wrist and the matte dial and the Explorer font at the bottom make ist very unique. The new Explorer 40 looks great though!
I just love my 39mm grail version, its perfect size, matt dial and the fact that it is discontinued ;-) Although classic but not necessarily boring in its aesthetics, the Explorer 1 is directly recognizable for collectors and simply perfect in its execution. Whatever the diameter of this timepiece, 36, 39 or 40mm, the Explorer 1 is a cult watch 🙂
There's such a huge variety of watches, it must be true that people like different takes on the art. It's good that you've found something that speaks to you.
Hate to say it Adrian, but something's off about your channel, in recent months I've hardly felt like watching your recent content, and you was my favourite watch content creator by far! Think things have felt different on your channel since you started doing that podcast thing on the other channel. Take this video for example, it's so odd that you used so many clips and photos of your old 36mm explorer rather than "hands on" with the new 40mm, like you showed the specs over a clip of your 36mm, just bizarre! I have to say I was underwhelmed by this video pal, I thought you actually were "hands on" with the 40mm, as in worn it for a few days and were able to give a solid review. Rather you wore it for a very brief moment at watches and wonders and then gave a "review" based those photos and videos at watches and wonders. Hope you don't take my criticisms to harshly. You were one of my favourite watch content creators, and guess I'm just hoping for the old vibe. Been a subscriber since your very first video's (pre the skx bleaching days).
Thanks a lot for the detailed thoughts. Always happy to listen when people like you take the time to share their criticisms in such detail. I can see how the title can be a little misleading. There seems to be an unwritten rule for titles: - Introducing: read the press release and saw the press shots. - Hands-on: actually got to experience the watch and put it on the wrist. - Week on the wrists: detailed review having spent significant time with the watch I had to hustle to get this Rolex appointment at W&W after being told I wasn't allowed to record, so I couldn't capture good shots. So typically this video would sit between introducing and hands-on, however, because I'm so experienced with the Explorer range, I'm confident in my analysis, despite the short time spent with the watch. It's always odd around W&W because the channel focuses on new watches, rather than "stories", experiences, or thoughts. I hope that adds more context.
@@BarkandJack I think you inserted pics of your 36mm at times when you were describing the 40mm bay accident… even the spec rundown text for the 40mm is overlayed on top of an image of your 36mm watch. I think you may have inserted the wrong footage at certain spots.
I believe that 39mm is the perfect size. The 36 is a bit too small and the 40mm a tiny fraction too big. Which ever size you choose you can’t really go wrong - it’s an explorer.
Been wearing the 40mm for one month now and I thought you were exaggerating a bit, turned out you were not: it is a amazzzzzing watch - so elegant yet simple and under the radar!
Huge errors in this video: in the parts when you list the specs, you show your old 36mm rather than the new 40mm... Also when you say "this is the 40mm on my wrist, this is the 36mm on my wrist" you are wearing the same 36mm watch.
Good to hear your take on it but it was quite annoying/confusing when you’re talking about the 39mm or 40mm Explorer and at the same time you’re constantly showing shots of your 114270. I even believe both shots are of your 114270 at 8:10-8:15 when you’re supposed to be comparing both of them.
Should be noted for viewers the watch shown @2:49 & @3:52 when the specifications come up do not match. The watch shown is Adrian's 36mm 14270, so keep that in mind as you read the specs for the new 40mm 224270.
I apologize, but I must respectfully disagree with the sentiments expressed in this video. As an owner of the 214270, I find its 39mm size to be perfect. There was a time when the 36mm size was widely regarded as ideal, regardless of wrist size, but I believe that the 39mm size has surpassed it in terms of suitability. With the recent release of the 40mm Explorer, which does not boast any major innovations, it seems arbitrary to declare it the nearly perfect size. I do not believe that you are expressing your genuine opinion and suspect that you may be receiving compensation for promoting this view in the video. Nevertheless, I appreciate your content and your contributions to the watch community.
I'm sure the 40mm variation is great. I love my 39mm 214270. I have well over a dozen Rolexes and often default to the 214270. I also have OP 114300's because they pretty much share the case size. Never could bond w the 36mm version but that's not unusual if you've never bonded w that size.
@@vianouche1 It's been called "The Collection Killer' for good reason! Everything about the 214270 is right for me. On some of my other Rolexes I put on Rubber B bands but the bracelet and clasp especially is just perfection on the 214270. Great on the wrist.
Love the 39mm and like the Explorer text at the bottom, feels more consistent with the sport watch series and fills the lower dial better. Not sure how the 1 mm bracelet width difference makes the 40 mm perfect and the 39 crap 😅.
Great video, as always. Definitely disagree on the 39mm Explorer though! The proportions on the 39 were spot on. Also the “Explorer” text at the bottom of the dial on the 39 balanced nicely with the Rolex OP text up top.
.. something that he didn’t mention either was that the 39 mm Explorer has a flat black dial, which I hope will fade more with time. This new Explorer seems to have a dark glossy black dial.
I’m very happy with my discontinued 39 mk2, FOR ME it is the perfect watch, the sweet spot for my 16,5 wrist, FOR ME nothing wrong with it dimensions, how it tapers oooh 😍 and i absolutely prefer the “ Explorer “ text at the bottom and the matte dial. If i could only have one watch that would be my choice , it is by far the watch that i wear the most , I love the 40 mm? Yes of course , it looks great! But i wouldnt change my 39 for it
Adrian, thank you for the review. One comparison you didn’t mention is the lug to lug width comparison between the 39 and 40mm watches - surely that is a better indicator of how large it will wear (rather than the bracelet to case size ratio). Perhaps it could also be confirmed that the 40 is in fact thicker than the 39mm - 11.6 vs 11.2mm (depending on source)
@@mdns-1017 ANYBODY!!!! even the "wrist guys" always talk about the thickness and extend of the wrist but not the width :D I always have to laugh when I hear them talk about the extend.
Another important indicator of the wearing experience is dial size. For instance the dial on the Explorer 39 is larger than the Sea Dwellers. I can wear an SD42 but an Explorer 2 (42mm) wears too large for my taste. It's dial is huge.
I still prefer the 39 which is almost perfect in my opinion. I especially prefer its dial with the 'Explorer' at the bottom over the 36 and the 40 with the 'Explorer' at the top.
Sorry Adrian but this video is a misleading. The only footage of the 40mm is the repeated under-the-cuff shot from W&W. The rest of the clips are the two 36mm models you’ve shown in the past, overlayed with specs for the 40mm. Don’t mean to hate, virtually no-one has the new releases yet so you had to work with the footage you already had. But this might mislead prospective buyers of the 40mm.
The 39mm case with a 20mm bracelet is actually equally proportional to a 40mm case with a 21mm bracelet. The 20mm bracelet on the 36mm is what looks off. For me, the 39mm hits the sweet spot.
@@edrader which makes it aesthetically pleasing. I’m talking about older references with a 36mm case and 20mm bracelets. The 39mm one looks aesthetically proportional too but not sure what Adrian is talking about here, he doesn’t make any sense.
But they are different 20/39 does is not the same as 21/40. And the lugs on the 40 blend into the case farther up/down the sides so the 39 does look more bulbous - by a little bit. I like certain things about the 39mm better for sure (Explorer at 6 o'clock), 20mm spacing, etc but the case shape of the 40mm is slightly "better" IMO.
Yeah i held up my 214270 to the screen of my computer while watching this and I have to bring up the point that the Explorer text at 6 o'clock just makes that watch so much more better balanced ( for me) I don't know why more people aren't talking about this feature. Too much negative space on the bottom of this dial ( IMO )
Oh good… I’m glad I caught you before you made the mistake of a lifetime… Whatever you do, don’t trade that 214270 for a 1016… The 1016 has the Explorer text at the top side of the dial… what a piece of 💩… what were the designers thinking? 🤣 how on earth did it ever become an icon with such an “imbalanced” dial 🙄🙄🙄
I'm very confused about what I am seeing in this video. You put up graphics for the 40mm Explorer on video that shows the 14270. Was any of your b roll footage of the new 40mm (besides the marketing clips?) or was it the 124270 that we are seeing? When you say "This a 40mm watch is on your wrist..." again that's an older Explorer 5:09. Something is off here.
I'm in the same boat, 7.5" wrist but it's relatively flat and wide. I've got a couple of vintage Seiko's that are 37mm but my usual rotation is currently between 40mm and 43mm.
@@khaaaaaaaaaannn Big wrists unite! I also have that flat/wide thing going on. While some struggle with lugs hanging off their wrists we can cover the whole lug to lug length with room to spare. Some channels bash larger watches and I agree that you shouldn’t wear a hub cap if you have more svelte wrists, but those of us with gorilla wrists need bigger sizes.
I believe the 39mm is the best overall model as it is the one that has the best balanced text on the dial. All the others appear to be too top heavy. Just my opinion.
I like it. I definitely prefer the matt dial of the 39 and the much hated wider spacing but its nice to be able to get a medium size option. The 36 is a totally different but equally valid experience. Great watches
They should just have kept the 39 mm. version and could have made a "face lift" now if they wanted. I have a 214270 MK2 and don't think the 36 mm. was big enough
Boring watch doesn’t mean bad watch, it’s a matter of opinion and perspective. For me it just means under the radar and one that I can wear without being afraid of being mugged, or cataloged as rich or pouch. I owned the Tudor Ranger and I absolutely love it, when I tried it on, I fell in love, its wearability, the T-Fit clasp, the MT5402 COSC movement, the perfect watch for me. Despite that many people and RUclipsrs called it boring. Even on an episode of AET Andrew said it was overhyped and George wanted it out. I don’t get it. And I paid €2930 in November 2022 so just before the price increase, I don’t call that boring I call that a bargain (and I’m not being condescendant, I just mean compared to the watches market). Even more when the Rolex Explorer 40mm is priced at €7750. If the watch is not the one for you because you don’t like the dial, the size, the bracelet, the colour, then just move on. Don’t waste your energy on hating on a watch that you won’t buy and won’t change anyone else’s mind if they like it. I’m totally with you Adrian or should I say Captain Boring (I’m still shocked Andrew came up with that tee-shirt at W&W and you were not aware of it, it should’ve been yours), but I’m on your team 😊 One’s boring watch is to the other one the perfect watch. Do you and don’t listen to others’ opinion.
Great comment! I got my Ranger in February this year and absolutely love it. It has all the things that I like in watches. I don't care about others calling it boring. For me, it's perfect!
I have the 39mm version and disagree completely. To me, the proportions are perfect. I've never noticed any "bulbousness" of the case. And sorry, but I'll take a 20mm lug width over 21mm any day. I feel that the 40mm Explorer is like a 41mm OP, the size of the face becomes too big and makes it look more bare and spartan than the 39mm. My 39mm is one of the only two watches that I will never sell (Other is Pelagos 39... also perfect in its dimensions IMO). I also love the matte black 39mm dial over a glossy black.
Love the explorer in 36 and 40 absolutely timeless stunning. I declared an interest about a year ago for the 36mm but sadly no watch. I would like to say I have now bought a Tudor Ranger and am more than happy with my perches and less than half the price
If you think a 20mm bracelet looks odd on a 39mm watch head you won’t like it on the 40mm Submariners maxi case..or indeed the GMT’s. 21mm on the 44 Deepsea and 44 yachtmaster. Not forgetting Omegas entire catalogue. 2Omm on 42-43 cases a-plenty. How about Grand Seiko’s 19mm lug widths on 40 heads.. the list goes on. I agree, my new Sub 41’s 21 mm bracelet looks far more balanced than the previous reference and so does any wider bracelet on any watch..but to dismiss the Ex 39 because it looks unbalanced doesn’t make sense. Great vid btw
The 39mm was my grail watch. Was very disappointed when they discontinued it. I tried (really tried) to like the 36. Even went to the AD and tried it on multiple times. Even my SA suggested I try on a different watch. He commented "You seem to like a lot of other watches ( Even the E2) far more than the 36". He was right. Now I want that 40.
Great video. However, I find it rather confusing when you talk about the 39mm and then show the 40mm (or the 36mm). In fact I haven’t seen the 39mm anywhere in the video. Did I miss it? This may seem a bit odd in a comparison video (based on your Insta post). In fact, the 21mm bracelet to me looks too wide for the case, there’s not enough tapering. Anyway, you need to see them in real life in order to judge.
I don't think you can generalise that a 20mm lug width is wrong for a 40mm watch. Rolex sports watches have been 40mm with 20mm bracelet for eons and the 5 digit refs in particular have always looked perfectly balanced. I admit a rotating bezel is thicker, making the dial and crystal smaller, and thus the watch wears smaller. But in the case of the new explorer, I still think a 20mm bracelet would have been the right size. I certainly never felt the 39mm explorer was visually unbalanced on a 20mm bracelet. I do agree that overall the 40mm explorer is a marginally better design than the 39 - the subtle tweaks to the hand sizes and shaping of the lugs, the larger crown etc, but it's certainly not a chalk and cheese comparison. But to be fair you have handled both, and the digital experience will never compare with getting metal on the wrist.
Absolutely agree with your analysis on this, Adrian. Understated elegance, a true sense of purpose, and a lack of flashiness for the sake of it makes this a lovely watch. I own a Rolex Datejust 41mm black dial smooth bezel, oyster bracelet, and a Tudor BB58 in Navy and I like to feel like both achieve their original intentions extremely well. Nothing is added that doesn’t need to be there.
I have the 36mm Explorer followed by getting a 40mm Air King, and discovered I did like the 40mm size better on my wrist (my wrist is small to average), but preferred the face of the Explorer. I think the 40mm Explorer will hit the sweet spot. I agree size does not matter, but I find I do prefer a slightly larger watch than the 36mm. Finally, I know there has been a lot of hate on the 39mm Explorer, but I rather like that "Explorer" is moved to the bottom half of the face on the 39mm, and I prefer the matte black over the gloss. The awkwardness of the bracelet is solved with a leather strap instead.
The images in this video are all over the place, they don't match the watch version Adrian talks about, even the part when the text summary of the 40mm specifications come up the image is of the old 36mm
Picked up the new Explorer 40mm yesterday and you’re absolutely right! The proportions are just… perfect. The 21mm bracelet and the slimmer lugs make all the difference. I’m over the moon with it 🤩🤩🤩
I have a mk1 39mm, I have to say the new 40mm looks great. I do however prefer the Explorer text location on the 39mm. Looks like the crown on the 40mm might be bigger than then the 39mm? I won't be changing my watch but hopefully rolex will keep the 36mm and 40mm in the range for many years.
@BarkandJack Adrian, can you let us know the width of the 1st link after the lug please? Asking because on the new 36mm it's only 18mm. Also on ratios, the new 40mm should have had 22mm lugs to be same ratio 1.8 as the old 14270 and 114270
Reminds me of my Aqua Terra. In my collection (Speedmaster in Hesalite, pre-wave dial Seamaster) it gets noticed the least. But with a 72 hour power reserve, display caseback, METAS certified, twin barrel, silicon balance spring, etc it has the far superior motor under the hood. I would love to add this Explorer to my collection (or an Air King) but the nonsense you have to go through to even get on a list with an AD has put me off the brand. They are great watches for sure, but I'm weary of having to prove I'm worthy enough to own one. I sell a luxury product (wine) and some limited editions sell for several hundred dollars a bottle. I have never once treated a customer like they were doing me a favor buying our wines.
Modern 39 Explorer 1 is a keeper for me, needless to say that it is well known for being a strap monster, love that i could wear the watch with any strap that pleases me. It is such a shame that the current 36 and 40 aren't strap friendly anymore with Rolex turning them into a strap chewing monster. i love how 39 explorer 1 being a reiteration of classic explorer with a touch of vintage by having a matte dial, the lumed 369 for MKII perfected it knowing that 369 in vintage explorer are lumed too. My OCD also could not overlook the concave on the center of the dial for the current explorer 1, just seem like a flaw in production method to me.
It seems to me that the proportions of the new 40mm (with 21mm lug width)are similar to the ones of the older 36mm models whereas the 39mm has similar proportions to the new 36mm in terms of the relation of case size to lug width and tapering. So if you say it doesn‘t work for the 214270, how can it then work for the 124270?
Had the 124270 for about a year and I did love the watch but, from time to time, I felt it just didn't look right on my 7.25 inch wrist. So I'm very interested in seeing the 40mm in the metal.
Really glad to see some different size offerings finally instead of everything getting bigger or everything getting smaller. The proportions of this new 40 seem better executed than the 39. I have small wrists and bought the 124270 when it came out and It has since become my favorite watch. I’m glad the folks who need or like a bigger watch can experience the Exp1 magic again.
This is my favorite release of W&W, I can't wait to see it in the metal. Any lug to lug measurements? - I don't mind how big it is, I always thought the new 36 (35mm) was a bit too diminutive compared to the true 36s of DJ and OP varieties.
Nah, still love my 39 over this 40. The 21mm bracelet/lug width looks visually oversized to me. I would love to see the new 40mm Explorer on one of your nato straps to see the contrast of stainless steel case and a fabric strap to see if I still think so.
Explorer - indeed for the person who likes watches, versus just wants luxury stuff. The Explorer is the perfect go anywhere, stand up to anything, watch. I just got the Explorer40, and it is just right.
I have a 36mm explorer (124270) and absolutely adore it. Haven’t seen the 40mm in the flesh but my instinct suggests it’s too big for my taste and will start to wear like a clock on my 6.75 inch wrist. Understand it for a much larger wrist, but to me the explorer is best as an under the radar, vintage-sized tool watch that doubles as a nice dressy watch - not a larger statement piece (or clock 😂)
I agree....that watch is supposed to 36mm....thats was always part of the character of the explorer...I feel like they are crapping all over the heritage of this watch by messing about with the size...
Always enjoy your reviews. It's not that I think size matters, but rather I believe proportions matter. For one person a 36mm will be just fine. I tried it and it was just too small. I've dumped 45mm watches for being too big. For me, personally with my size wrists, 39-42mm generally is the sweet spot. So waiting lists aside I am looking forward to getting my hands on a 40mm Explorer to see how it'll feel. Keep up the great content.
Hi Adrian - all of the 40mm videos are the 36mm watch, you can tell by the hollow end link connection to the case, rather than the solid end link connection. Please fix.
hmm. generally i really like your reviews adrian, but i was confused during this video which watches we were looking at, whether the 36, 39 or the 40. subtitles might have helped! also it's nice to know the lug to lug, the dial diameter, and the bezel diameter. these matter so much but are never published by the brands. it's nice to get actual calipers on a watch.
Having got the updated Air King, I’d suggest a comparison video with this explorer… both being 40mm, with similar designs but also with distinct features that set each one apart. I can’t tell you how pleasantly surprised I was by the Air King, and I think you might be as well!
The new Airking is only slightly less hideous an eye full than the old model. Yes you get a splash of Rolex green and even a yellow crown thrown in. But the thing is a horrific dog’s breakfast of a design and an insult to the senses.
@@bobbydazzler1780 funny that… “horrific dog’s breakfast of a design” and “insult to the senses” is precisely how I would describe a shocking pink IWC… but hey, to each, their own! Lucky we’re all free to enjoy whatever we like :)
@@bobbydazzler1780 at least it has character unlike the same old boring watch now released in 36, 39 and 40 all in the space of a few years. Selling near retail as well so not too popular either
Hi Adrian I'm one of the converted, totally agree with you I ,fell in love with the explorer in 2010 and saved and saved and in 2018 I pulled the trigger on a new 2018 version 214270 when they were available in the window , remember those days ?? I have never really taken it of and I won't wear anything else
Love my 39mm It’s the ultimate explorer . Love it’s aesthetics and size . The 36 looks extremely odd on my 6:75 wrist . The 36 looks great on some ladies
The great quality of the Explorer, is that you love the model you own. I’m certain the 40mm is better than the 39, but as I own a 39 for the last 5 years and love it! Only wearable Rolex that doesn’t ooze bling.
That's one huge Explorer I 😅. Like the DateJust and the OP, the Explorer I should always be a 36mm watch (IMO). Some Rolex models work well in the larger sizes, but the classics just look better in the small 36mm size
@@conradcoolerfiend I have a 7.5" wrist, not small, not massive and I prefer a 36mm Explorer I and DateJust. A Rolex 36mm wears like a 38-39mm, because of the male end-link. A 40mm wears like a 42-43mm for the same reason. All that aside, wrist size really has nothing to do with it, that's just personal taste and style IMO. The Explorer I 40mm just still looks strange to me. I think it has something to do with the thickness of the bezel, that looks chunky and oversize...a little off, just as it did on the 39mm. I respect Adrian's opinion, God knows he loves an Explorer 😂. I just see it slightly differently
My 39mm Explorer 1 is my favorite Rolex, but I would love to get hands on with this 40mm version. Is the crown on the 40mm much larger than past iterations? That would be welcomed, because I find the crown very small on my watch. Cheers.
![[4K] The All-New 2023 Rolex Explorer 40 Hands-On Review & Wrist Shots | Hafiz J Mehmood](/img/1.gif)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 39 mm discontinued version of the explorer. I love mine. Cheers to all the 39 mm owners!
Yeah but this is 1mm more Rolex! 😂
I agree, the 39mm is my favorite one. 39mm is perfect, except not having the 70 hrs, I’m good with my 39mm. Adrian never liked it, but he also said the explorer II 42mm was too big…now owns one.
39mm Explorer is perfect
@@mg8571 .. something that he didn’t mention either was that the 39 mm Explorer has a flat black, almost dark brown dial, which I hope will fade more with time. This new Explorer seems to have a dark glossy black dial
@@slater1949 nobody notes that. My favorite quality. Same for thee Sea Dweller rolesor. Looks vintage cool....
I’m still delighted with my 124270 on my 17cm wrist.
I love the way it flies under the radar.
It’s worn regularly, and carries the scratches with style.
Did you buy direct or pay a premium?
@@lordmclovin3694 Bought mine from an AD
@@lordmclovin3694 bought from AD - Goldsmiths
@@nigelh8985 i want to buy one as well😢
Me too, but it’s made anything above 39mm feel large and cumbersome!
Absolutely love my 39mm Explorer- to me its perfect. Doesn't matter the size, the Explorer is a noble timepiece.
In my opinion, the 39mm is absolutely perfect. I’ve not noticed any disproportionate dimensions. Thanks for pointing out the differences.
Agreed
It's my favorite Explorer and that matt black dial is super cool.
Agreed
You are correct
@@jeremydahm2124 100% agree on the matte dial,it made it feel more like a true tool watch
Rolex - adds 1mm to a watch bracelet and case
Adrian - They have just done it right, I absolutely love this watch, I feel like they have captured the essence that is the explorer
I like 40mm diameter watches. However, if I ever went for an explorer, I would go for a second hand 39mm.
There’s literally no discernible difference.
Hey Adrian great vid as always! One idea to make reviews like this even better would be to indicate during the b-roll showing two very similar watches which is what. Hard to tell in this video every time you show side by side if we are looking at the 36, 39, or 40mm version of the Explorer. A simple subtle legend next to each would greatly help. Thank you!
This ⬆
Pretty sure at 5:10 he shows his old 36 and calls it a 40 even
Yes, he does it many times in the vid. Made in a hurry?
I don't understand why they got rid of the 39. It was an is perfect, and is my only Rolex now. It does everything.
Hi, have you actually measured the 39mm?
Picked up a 40mm yesterday and it measures under 39mm with my callipers!
@@wristopia4101 you're probably measuring the size with the wrong reference points
@@samlee3056 Nope, it's 38.5mm.
What two points on the case do you feel could be 38.5mm on a 40mm watch?
Everyone seems in denial of this!
Watch the short I did of it and the OP41 (which measures 39.5mm).
@@samlee3056 The explorer 40 has a shorter lug to lug than the 39 and measures 38.6 mm across. It''s not a larger explorer than the 39, they just tinkered with the proportions a little bit and gave it a wider bracelet.
The Explorer 39 (MK2) will be a future classic! It wears lovely on the wrist and the matte dial and the Explorer font at the bottom make ist very unique. The new Explorer 40 looks great though!
I just love my 39mm grail version, its perfect size, matt dial and the fact that it is discontinued ;-) Although classic but not necessarily boring in its aesthetics, the Explorer 1 is directly recognizable for collectors and simply perfect in its execution. Whatever the diameter of this timepiece, 36, 39 or 40mm, the Explorer 1 is a cult watch 🙂
if you actually loved it, you wouldnt be hanging around yt justifying it 😂
@@doperdr Justifying what? He's saying that the 36, 39, and 40 are all perfect in their execution.
Got the 39mm. No complaints. Absolutely love it. Total Perfection!!
There's such a huge variety of watches, it must be true that people like different takes on the art. It's good that you've found something that speaks to you.
Hate to say it Adrian, but something's off about your channel, in recent months I've hardly felt like watching your recent content, and you was my favourite watch content creator by far! Think things have felt different on your channel since you started doing that podcast thing on the other channel.
Take this video for example, it's so odd that you used so many clips and photos of your old 36mm explorer rather than "hands on" with the new 40mm, like you showed the specs over a clip of your 36mm, just bizarre! I have to say I was underwhelmed by this video pal, I thought you actually were "hands on" with the 40mm, as in worn it for a few days and were able to give a solid review. Rather you wore it for a very brief moment at watches and wonders and then gave a "review" based those photos and videos at watches and wonders.
Hope you don't take my criticisms to harshly. You were one of my favourite watch content creators, and guess I'm just hoping for the old vibe. Been a subscriber since your very first video's (pre the skx bleaching days).
Thanks a lot for the detailed thoughts. Always happy to listen when people like you take the time to share their criticisms in such detail. I can see how the title can be a little misleading. There seems to be an unwritten rule for titles:
- Introducing: read the press release and saw the press shots.
- Hands-on: actually got to experience the watch and put it on the wrist.
- Week on the wrists: detailed review having spent significant time with the watch
I had to hustle to get this Rolex appointment at W&W after being told I wasn't allowed to record, so I couldn't capture good shots. So typically this video would sit between introducing and hands-on, however, because I'm so experienced with the Explorer range, I'm confident in my analysis, despite the short time spent with the watch.
It's always odd around W&W because the channel focuses on new watches, rather than "stories", experiences, or thoughts.
I hope that adds more context.
@@BarkandJack it did add context. Appreciate the detailed reply. Look forward to your new videos bro.
@@HandsomeSmells I’ve taken your feedback and removed the “hands on” from the title. 👍🏻
@@BarkandJack Well done for dealing with this in an honest, non-narcissistic manner.
@@BarkandJack I think you inserted pics of your 36mm at times when you were describing the 40mm bay accident… even the spec rundown text for the 40mm is overlayed on top of an image of your 36mm watch. I think you may have inserted the wrong footage at certain spots.
I believe that 39mm is the perfect size. The 36 is a bit too small and the 40mm a tiny fraction too big. Which ever size you choose you can’t really go wrong - it’s an explorer.
Been wearing the 40mm for one month now and I thought you were exaggerating a bit, turned out you were not: it is a amazzzzzing watch - so elegant yet simple and under the radar!
Huge errors in this video: in the parts when you list the specs, you show your old 36mm rather than the new 40mm... Also when you say "this is the 40mm on my wrist, this is the 36mm on my wrist" you are wearing the same 36mm watch.
Good to hear your take on it but it was quite annoying/confusing when you’re talking about the 39mm or 40mm Explorer and at the same time you’re constantly showing shots of your 114270. I even believe both shots are of your 114270 at 8:10-8:15 when you’re supposed to be comparing both of them.
YES, this video from Adrian is not really a "hands-on" review.
The two watches are both 36 mm LOL
Should be noted for viewers the watch shown @2:49 & @3:52 when the specifications come up do not match. The watch shown is Adrian's 36mm 14270, so keep that in mind as you read the specs for the new 40mm 224270.
YES, this video from Adrian is not really a "hands-on" review.
The two watches are both 36 mm LOL
Was really hoping to see the 40 version. Reckon the 21mm lugs will make it bit too chunky. 39mm version is perfection imo
So as 5:09. What are you doing Adrian!
Seriously he says this is a 40mm watch on my 6inch wrist but literally it’s showing his 36mm….
It took ten months to get my 124270 and it was worth every waiting day to end up with a stunner of a watch, 36 mm Explorer rules!
I don’t get all the hate now for the 39. I own one and it looks fine. If loving you is wrong I don’t want to be right! 😂
39mm is perfect
40mm lug is just too wide
Not elegant at all
I apologize, but I must respectfully disagree with the sentiments expressed in this video. As an owner of the 214270, I find its 39mm size to be perfect. There was a time when the 36mm size was widely regarded as ideal, regardless of wrist size, but I believe that the 39mm size has surpassed it in terms of suitability. With the recent release of the 40mm Explorer, which does not boast any major innovations, it seems arbitrary to declare it the nearly perfect size. I do not believe that you are expressing your genuine opinion and suspect that you may be receiving compensation for promoting this view in the video. Nevertheless, I appreciate your content and your contributions to the watch community.
When I saw the 40mm Explorer, it made me very happy that I have a 39mm Mark 2 as part of my watch collection.
Just picked the 40mm from my AD and absolutely love it on my 7 inch wrist.
I'm sure the 40mm variation is great. I love my 39mm 214270. I have well over a dozen Rolexes and often default to the 214270. I also have OP 114300's because they pretty much share the case size. Never could bond w the 36mm version but that's not unusual if you've never bonded w that size.
Same here. I always wear the 214270 despite having several other nice watches...
39mm is lovely on the wrist
@@vianouche1 It's been called "The Collection Killer' for good reason! Everything about the 214270 is right for me. On some of my other Rolexes I put on Rubber B bands but the bracelet and clasp especially is just perfection on the 214270. Great on the wrist.
@@payperview714 I can not agree more! 😊
Love the 39mm and like the Explorer text at the bottom, feels more consistent with the sport watch series and fills the lower dial better. Not sure how the 1 mm bracelet width difference makes the 40 mm perfect and the 39 crap 😅.
Sorry not your best review. The constant cutting between watches made it impossible to judge what was the 36mm and what was the 40mm.
One of the ultimate watches and one of the most understated icons out there. One of my grail watches.
I actually think it's the most overstated understated watch in the world.
@@alectang1614 Fair opinion.
I own the 39mm and I absolutely love it.
Great video, as always. Definitely disagree on the 39mm Explorer though! The proportions on the 39 were spot on. Also the “Explorer” text at the bottom of the dial on the 39 balanced nicely with the Rolex OP text up top.
Nice you pointed out the “Explorer” text on the bottom on the 39mm. Perfect balance.
Oh right I didn’t notice that, now I can’t unsee it lol, strange that Rolex put the Explorer text back to 12 o’clock
.. something that he didn’t mention either was that the 39 mm Explorer has a flat black dial, which I hope will fade more with time. This new Explorer seems to have a dark glossy black dial.
Adrien, we need a side by side video of the 39 vs 40 mm! ❤
I’m very happy with my discontinued 39 mk2, FOR ME it is the perfect watch, the sweet spot for my 16,5 wrist, FOR ME nothing wrong with it dimensions, how it tapers oooh 😍 and i absolutely prefer the “ Explorer “ text at the bottom and the matte dial.
If i could only have one watch that would be my choice , it is by far the watch that i wear the most ,
I love the 40 mm? Yes of course , it looks great! But i wouldnt change my 39 for it
Agreed 💯
Adrian, thank you for the review. One comparison you didn’t mention is the lug to lug width comparison between the 39 and 40mm watches - surely that is a better indicator of how large it will wear (rather than the bracelet to case size ratio). Perhaps it could also be confirmed that the 40 is in fact thicker than the 39mm - 11.6 vs 11.2mm (depending on source)
The lug to lug, imho, is THE indicator in combination with thickness.
@@SirBender which ironically are the two stats which most manufacturers do not mention in their marketing fluff!
@@mdns-1017 ANYBODY!!!! even the "wrist guys" always talk about the thickness and extend of the wrist but not the width :D I always have to laugh when I hear them talk about the extend.
Another important indicator of the wearing experience is dial size. For instance the dial on the Explorer 39 is larger than the Sea Dwellers. I can wear an SD42 but an Explorer 2 (42mm) wears too large for my taste. It's dial is huge.
@@jeremydahm2124 ? What? 😅 that’s not an indicator. It’s the personal taste 😃
I still prefer the 39 which is almost perfect in my opinion. I especially prefer its dial with the 'Explorer' at the bottom over the 36 and the 40 with the 'Explorer' at the top.
Prefer my 39mm all day. That said happy for the people who wanted a 40mm
One day when I can afford one I will probably get a 40mm
I’m confused. At 5:10 you say, “This is a 40mm watch on my 6.5 inch wrist”, but its clearly your 14270. Thats a bit misleading.
Exactly. This video is pretty misleading tbh, there's not really much 'hands on' with the actual 40mm watch.
Sorry Adrian but this video is a misleading. The only footage of the 40mm is the repeated under-the-cuff shot from W&W. The rest of the clips are the two 36mm models you’ve shown in the past, overlayed with specs for the 40mm.
Don’t mean to hate, virtually no-one has the new releases yet so you had to work with the footage you already had. But this might mislead prospective buyers of the 40mm.
The 39mm case with a 20mm bracelet is actually equally proportional to a 40mm case with a 21mm bracelet. The 20mm bracelet on the 36mm is what looks off. For me, the 39mm hits the sweet spot.
the new 36 has 19mm lugs
@@edrader which makes it aesthetically pleasing. I’m talking about older references with a 36mm case and 20mm bracelets. The 39mm one looks aesthetically proportional too but not sure what Adrian is talking about here, he doesn’t make any sense.
But they are different 20/39 does is not the same as 21/40. And the lugs on the 40 blend into the case farther up/down the sides so the 39 does look more bulbous - by a little bit. I like certain things about the 39mm better for sure (Explorer at 6 o'clock), 20mm spacing, etc but the case shape of the 40mm is slightly "better" IMO.
Yeah i held up my 214270 to the screen of my computer while watching this and I have to bring up the point that the Explorer text at 6 o'clock just makes that watch so much more better balanced ( for me) I don't know why more people aren't talking about this feature. Too much negative space on the bottom of this dial ( IMO )
IMO its the total opposite, the 39mm just looked busted in every way, including the text move. But to each his own!
Agreed! The Explorer text at 6 looks so much better on the 39mm.
Oh good… I’m glad I caught you before you made the mistake of a lifetime… Whatever you do, don’t trade that 214270 for a 1016…
The 1016 has the Explorer text at the top side of the dial… what a piece of 💩… what were the designers thinking? 🤣 how on earth did it ever become an icon with such an “imbalanced” dial 🙄🙄🙄
I'm very confused about what I am seeing in this video. You put up graphics for the 40mm Explorer on video that shows the 14270. Was any of your b roll footage of the new 40mm (besides the marketing clips?) or was it the 124270 that we are seeing? When you say "This a 40mm watch is on your wrist..." again that's an older Explorer 5:09. Something is off here.
I have a 8" wrist. 40mm is about the smallest I can wear without looking like a kids watch so happy to have this size option.
I'm in the same boat, 7.5" wrist but it's relatively flat and wide. I've got a couple of vintage Seiko's that are 37mm but my usual rotation is currently between 40mm and 43mm.
@@khaaaaaaaaaannn Big wrists unite! I also have that flat/wide thing going on. While some struggle with lugs hanging off their wrists we can cover the whole lug to lug length with room to spare. Some channels bash larger watches and I agree that you shouldn’t wear a hub cap if you have more svelte wrists, but those of us with gorilla wrists need bigger sizes.
I believe the 39mm is the best overall model as it is the one that has the best balanced text on the dial. All the others appear to be too top heavy. Just my opinion.
Is it actually a 40mm case? Or is it smaller?
The watch that Adrian shows with the specs at the right looks like the 36mm not the 40mm. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct
I like it. I definitely prefer the matt dial of the 39 and the much hated wider spacing but its nice to be able to get a medium size option. The 36 is a totally different but equally valid experience. Great watches
They should just have kept the 39 mm. version and could have made a "face lift" now if they wanted. I have a 214270 MK2 and don't think the 36 mm. was big enough
Boring watch doesn’t mean bad watch, it’s a matter of opinion and perspective. For me it just means under the radar and one that I can wear without being afraid of being mugged, or cataloged as rich or pouch. I owned the Tudor Ranger and I absolutely love it, when I tried it on, I fell in love, its wearability, the T-Fit clasp, the MT5402 COSC movement, the perfect watch for me. Despite that many people and RUclipsrs called it boring. Even on an episode of AET Andrew said it was overhyped and George wanted it out. I don’t get it. And I paid €2930 in November 2022 so just before the price increase, I don’t call that boring I call that a bargain (and I’m not being condescendant, I just mean compared to the watches market). Even more when the Rolex Explorer 40mm is priced at €7750.
If the watch is not the one for you because you don’t like the dial, the size, the bracelet, the colour, then just move on. Don’t waste your energy on hating on a watch that you won’t buy and won’t change anyone else’s mind if they like it.
I’m totally with you Adrian or should I say Captain Boring (I’m still shocked Andrew came up with that tee-shirt at W&W and you were not aware of it, it should’ve been yours), but I’m on your team 😊
One’s boring watch is to the other one the perfect watch. Do you and don’t listen to others’ opinion.
Great comment! I got my Ranger in February this year and absolutely love it. It has all the things that I like in watches. I don't care about others calling it boring. For me, it's perfect!
Super confused. Most of the shots that you reference as 40mm (224270) are actually shots of your 36mm (14270).
I just got a 124270 after having a 39mm Tudor Ranger and can safely say I'll be sticking with 36mm
I have the 39mm version and disagree completely. To me, the proportions are perfect. I've never noticed any "bulbousness" of the case. And sorry, but I'll take a 20mm lug width over 21mm any day. I feel that the 40mm Explorer is like a 41mm OP, the size of the face becomes too big and makes it look more bare and spartan than the 39mm. My 39mm is one of the only two watches that I will never sell (Other is Pelagos 39... also perfect in its dimensions IMO). I also love the matte black 39mm dial over a glossy black.
The matte dial versus the gloss version is something I thought fore sure he would have mentioned. Hopefully it will fade more with time.
Hi Adrian, just wanted to point out that at 5:09 that's your 36mm 14270, not the new 40mm model
I wore my 36 Explorer today. It's perfection
Has anyone else watched this video a few times?! Great work Adrian.
Love the explorer in 36 and 40 absolutely timeless stunning. I declared an interest about a year ago for the 36mm but sadly no watch. I would like to say I have now bought a Tudor Ranger and am more than happy with my perches and less than half the price
Perches
My brother picked up the Ranger. Very nice, available and half the price!
I guessed what you were going to say before the video dropped. Love my 39mm, wears fantastic.
If you think a 20mm bracelet looks odd on a 39mm watch head you won’t like it on the 40mm Submariners maxi case..or indeed the GMT’s. 21mm on the 44 Deepsea and 44 yachtmaster. Not forgetting Omegas entire catalogue. 2Omm on 42-43 cases a-plenty. How about Grand Seiko’s 19mm lug widths on 40 heads.. the list goes on. I agree, my new Sub 41’s 21 mm bracelet looks far more balanced than the previous reference and so does any wider bracelet on any watch..but to dismiss the Ex 39 because it looks unbalanced doesn’t make sense. Great vid btw
The 39mm was my grail watch. Was very disappointed when they discontinued it. I tried (really tried) to like the 36. Even went to the AD and tried it on multiple times. Even my SA suggested I try on a different watch. He commented "You seem to like a lot of other watches ( Even the E2) far more than the 36". He was right. Now I want that 40.
Great video. However, I find it rather confusing when you talk about the 39mm and then show the 40mm (or the 36mm). In fact I haven’t seen the 39mm anywhere in the video. Did I miss it? This may seem a bit odd in a comparison video (based on your Insta post). In fact, the 21mm bracelet to me looks too wide for the case, there’s not enough tapering. Anyway, you need to see them in real life in order to judge.
I don't think you can generalise that a 20mm lug width is wrong for a 40mm watch. Rolex sports watches have been 40mm with 20mm bracelet for eons and the 5 digit refs in particular have always looked perfectly balanced. I admit a rotating bezel is thicker, making the dial and crystal smaller, and thus the watch wears smaller. But in the case of the new explorer, I still think a 20mm bracelet would have been the right size. I certainly never felt the 39mm explorer was visually unbalanced on a 20mm bracelet. I do agree that overall the 40mm explorer is a marginally better design than the 39 - the subtle tweaks to the hand sizes and shaping of the lugs, the larger crown etc, but it's certainly not a chalk and cheese comparison. But to be fair you have handled both, and the digital experience will never compare with getting metal on the wrist.
Of course one can generalise that a 20mm lug width is wrong for a 40mm watch. It's called "having an opinion".
Hi
i have a question.
If you were to choose between the two, which one would you choose?
explorer ll polar(226570) vs explorer l(124270)
thank you
Would love to see a new hands on review. Really enjoy hearing people who actually love the Explorer 40 discussing it.
Absolutely agree with your analysis on this, Adrian. Understated elegance, a true sense of purpose, and a lack of flashiness for the sake of it makes this a lovely watch. I own a Rolex Datejust 41mm black dial smooth bezel, oyster bracelet, and a Tudor BB58 in Navy and I like to feel like both achieve their original intentions extremely well. Nothing is added that doesn’t need to be there.
I have the 36mm Explorer followed by getting a 40mm Air King, and discovered I did like the 40mm size better on my wrist (my wrist is small to average), but preferred the face of the Explorer. I think the 40mm Explorer will hit the sweet spot. I agree size does not matter, but I find I do prefer a slightly larger watch than the 36mm. Finally, I know there has been a lot of hate on the 39mm Explorer, but I rather like that "Explorer" is moved to the bottom half of the face on the 39mm, and I prefer the matte black over the gloss. The awkwardness of the bracelet is solved with a leather strap instead.
It’s not boring, it’s iconic.
His and hers explorers, seems convoluted. The 214270 mk2 is the best of the best in this range.
Some of those wristshots are not 40mm explorer as you stated, new models have crown between swiss and made
YES, this video from Adrian is not really a "hands-on" review.
The two watches are both 36 mm LOL
The images in this video are all over the place, they don't match the watch version Adrian talks about, even the part when the text summary of the 40mm specifications come up the image is of the old 36mm
Feel like you messed up the editing of the video. You are showing your 36mm watch on your wrist when saying "this is the 40mm watch on my wrist"
The watch on wrist at 2:51 isn’t the new 40mm, right, as per specs listed? Because it looks tiny!!
Picked up the new Explorer 40mm yesterday and you’re absolutely right! The proportions are just… perfect. The 21mm bracelet and the slimmer lugs make all the difference. I’m over the moon with it 🤩🤩🤩
I have a mk1 39mm, I have to say the new 40mm looks great. I do however prefer the Explorer text location on the 39mm. Looks like the crown on the 40mm might be bigger than then the 39mm? I won't be changing my watch but hopefully rolex will keep the 36mm and 40mm in the range for many years.
For your wrist, how many links do you have on the 6 side and 12 side?
Just curious as I’m trying to find the right fit on mine
@BarkandJack Adrian, can you let us know the width of the 1st link after the lug please? Asking because on the new 36mm it's only 18mm. Also on ratios, the new 40mm should have had 22mm lugs to be same ratio 1.8 as the old 14270 and 114270
Reminds me of my Aqua Terra. In my collection (Speedmaster in Hesalite, pre-wave dial Seamaster) it gets noticed the least. But with a 72 hour power reserve, display caseback, METAS certified, twin barrel, silicon balance spring, etc it has the far superior motor under the hood. I would love to add this Explorer to my collection (or an Air King) but the nonsense you have to go through to even get on a list with an AD has put me off the brand. They are great watches for sure, but I'm weary of having to prove I'm worthy enough to own one. I sell a luxury product (wine) and some limited editions sell for several hundred dollars a bottle. I have never once treated a customer like they were doing me a favor buying our wines.
Modern 39 Explorer 1 is a keeper for me, needless to say that it is well known for being a strap monster, love that i could wear the watch with any strap that pleases me. It is such a shame that the current 36 and 40 aren't strap friendly anymore with Rolex turning them into a strap chewing monster. i love how 39 explorer 1 being a reiteration of classic explorer with a touch of vintage by having a matte dial, the lumed 369 for MKII perfected it knowing that 369 in vintage explorer are lumed too. My OCD also could not overlook the concave on the center of the dial for the current explorer 1, just seem like a flaw in production method to me.
It seems to me that the proportions of the new 40mm (with 21mm lug width)are similar to the ones of the older 36mm models whereas the 39mm has similar proportions to the new 36mm in terms of the relation of case size to lug width and tapering. So if you say it doesn‘t work for the 214270, how can it then work for the 124270?
39mm Mark II - my all time fav Rolex watch
Had the 124270 for about a year and I did love the watch but, from time to time, I felt it just didn't look right on my 7.25 inch wrist. So I'm very interested in seeing the 40mm in the metal.
you tried the 40 now? i have the exact same wrist size and i'm interested :)
@@floolo1 No, not yet
Really glad to see some different size offerings finally instead of everything getting bigger or everything getting smaller. The proportions of this new 40 seem better executed than the 39. I have small wrists and bought the 124270 when it came out and It has since become my favorite watch. I’m glad the folks who need or like a bigger watch can experience the Exp1 magic again.
I’m getting the 36mm on Saturday finally! Slightly used for 6k.
Hi Adrain, great video. At the 5:10 in the video you say “this is a 40mm watch on my 6-1/2 in wrist “ but I think the picture shows your 36mm.
This is my favorite release of W&W, I can't wait to see it in the metal. Any lug to lug measurements? - I don't mind how big it is, I always thought the new 36 (35mm) was a bit too diminutive compared to the true 36s of DJ and OP varieties.
Nah, still love my 39 over this 40. The 21mm bracelet/lug width looks visually oversized to me. I would love to see the new 40mm Explorer on one of your nato straps to see the contrast of stainless steel case and a fabric strap to see if I still think so.
I would love to have either the 39 or the 40. The 39 made me fall in love with the Explorer watches.
Explorer - indeed for the person who likes watches, versus just wants luxury stuff. The Explorer is the perfect go anywhere, stand up to anything, watch. I just got the Explorer40, and it is just right.
I have a 36mm explorer (124270) and absolutely adore it. Haven’t seen the 40mm in the flesh but my instinct suggests it’s too big for my taste and will start to wear like a clock on my 6.75 inch wrist. Understand it for a much larger wrist, but to me the explorer is best as an under the radar, vintage-sized tool watch that doubles as a nice dressy watch - not a larger statement piece (or clock 😂)
I agree....that watch is supposed to 36mm....thats was always part of the character of the explorer...I feel like they are crapping all over the heritage of this watch by messing about with the size...
Always enjoy your reviews. It's not that I think size matters, but rather I believe proportions matter. For one person a 36mm will be just fine. I tried it and it was just too small. I've dumped 45mm watches for being too big. For me, personally with my size wrists, 39-42mm generally is the sweet spot. So waiting lists aside I am looking forward to getting my hands on a 40mm Explorer to see how it'll feel. Keep up the great content.
Exactly! I find 38-39 on me looks like 36mm watches on smaller wrists. I'm excited about the Explorer 40 release.
Hi Adrian - all of the 40mm videos are the 36mm watch, you can tell by the hollow end link connection to the case, rather than the solid end link connection. Please fix.
hmm. generally i really like your reviews adrian, but i was confused during this video which watches we were looking at, whether the 36, 39 or the 40. subtitles might have helped! also it's nice to know the lug to lug, the dial diameter, and the bezel diameter. these matter so much but are never published by the brands. it's nice to get actual calipers on a watch.
Having got the updated Air King, I’d suggest a comparison video with this explorer… both being 40mm, with similar designs but also with distinct features that set each one apart. I can’t tell you how pleasantly surprised I was by the Air King, and I think you might be as well!
The new Airking is only slightly less hideous an eye full than the old model. Yes you get a splash of Rolex green and even a yellow crown thrown in. But the thing is a horrific dog’s breakfast of a design and an insult to the senses.
@@bobbydazzler1780 funny that… “horrific dog’s breakfast of a design” and “insult to the senses” is precisely how I would describe a shocking pink IWC… but hey, to each, their own! Lucky we’re all free to enjoy whatever we like :)
@@kingflum Wife’s piece son
@@bobbydazzler1780 at least it has character unlike the same old boring watch now released in 36, 39 and 40 all in the space of a few years. Selling near retail as well so not too popular either
Is that seriously the 40mm in that shot at 2:56? looks like the 36mm
That’s right it’s the 14270
That's the 36mm in that particular shot.
Hi Adrian
I'm one of the converted, totally agree with you I ,fell in love with the explorer in 2010 and saved and saved and in 2018 I pulled the trigger on a new 2018 version 214270 when they were available in the window , remember those days ?? I have never really taken it of and I won't wear anything else
It’s the only Rolex I would like to buy. From the video it looked like the Arabic numerals where larger on the 40mm. I liked that.
Love my 39mm It’s the ultimate explorer . Love it’s aesthetics and size . The 36 looks extremely odd on my 6:75 wrist . The 36 looks great on some ladies
To each his own...the 36mm 124270 Explorer looks great on my 6.75 inch wrist. The 39 looked like a dinner plate.
Good on the 40mm size. Smiths also had a beautiful 40mm Everest (now discontinued) and looked way nicer than the 36. It remains out of production.
When Rolex announced the 40mm Explorer I thought ' oh ok, time to dig my Smiths out of the box '. 😊.
The great quality of the Explorer, is that you love the model you own. I’m certain the 40mm is better than the 39, but as I own a 39 for the last 5 years and love it! Only wearable Rolex that doesn’t ooze bling.
I have the 39mm mk2 version. The proportions are not bourbus. They work well for 6.5” wrist
39mm > 40mm
I love my 39mm Mark 2 and i also love my Sub 41, waiting for the Batgirl to take the 40mm spot 🥹
Great review; My most worn watch: 36mm Explorer
Adrian, is this really a "hands-on" review?
It looks like you are comparing two 36 mm watches
That's one huge Explorer I 😅. Like the DateJust and the OP, the Explorer I should always be a 36mm watch (IMO). Some Rolex models work well in the larger sizes, but the classics just look better in the small 36mm size
nah, for someone with large wrists, the 40 looks like a 36 does on smaller wrists.
@@conradcoolerfiend I have a 7.5" wrist, not small, not massive and I prefer a 36mm Explorer I and DateJust. A Rolex 36mm wears like a 38-39mm, because of the male end-link. A 40mm wears like a 42-43mm for the same reason.
All that aside, wrist size really has nothing to do with it, that's just personal taste and style IMO.
The Explorer I 40mm just still looks strange to me. I think it has something to do with the thickness of the bezel, that looks chunky and oversize...a little off, just as it did on the 39mm. I respect Adrian's opinion, God knows he loves an Explorer 😂. I just see it slightly differently
@@m.e.p.r to each his own for size preference, but I think the proportions on the new 40 are far closer to the 36 than the old 39 was , for sure
Boring.
Another great video Adrian, but unfortunately, many of your shots “showing the 40mm” are of your 14270, making things perhaps a bit misleading…
My 39mm Explorer 1 is my favorite Rolex, but I would love to get hands on with this 40mm version. Is the crown on the 40mm much larger than past iterations? That would be welcomed, because I find the crown very small on my watch. Cheers.