I SHOULD HAVE SAID - these explorers were on loan from my fabulous friend Mark! @mr_watchaddict on Instagram! It was far too kind of him to loan me all his explorers!!! THANK YOU MARK!!! 💕💕💕✨✨✨🎉🎉🎉
You're extremely welcome darling! Excellent spot with the lug lengths by the way! Also, the 40mm has AR coating on the underside whereas the 39 doesn't. Love the matte dial of the 39 too, and the massive ding I added right before I leant it to you!! 😁❤Xxx
I find the EXPLORER text on the 40mm makes it look "Top Heavy". I much prefer the 39mm's text layout. I have the EXPLORER 39 (Mk II) in my collection 😉
I'd spent 18 months toying with buying a 39mm and then the 40mm was released, and I just couldn't bring myself to pay over retail for a pre owned watch with an inferior movement. Completely agree that the 39mm wears better and I prefer the proportions, but it wasn't so much of an issue that I would have paid the extra for the older model. Have had my 40mm for 6 months and love it.
I really can’t fault you here!!! That’s something I should have clarified in this vid - just that the 39mm ISNT current catalogue anymore! Are the prices on these still crazy, I wonder?? Hopefully not! Such a great watch! BUT SO IS THE 40mm!! I totally understand why people Prefer the 40!
Inferior movement? The 3130 is a indestructible movement. In fact every watchmaker I spoke to said the older 48h Rolex movement's are extremely better than the new 70h power reserve movement's and they need servicing alot less. The 3130 is one of the BEST movement's Rolex ever produced and its extremely accurate with a dead silent rotor. Unlike the new movement's that have a more autobile rotor. New?? Dosen't automatically mean it's better. The 3130 is TRIED AND TRUE and if I ever add a ceramic Submariner to join my 14060m and Explorer 114270. That both have the 3130. You better believe it will be a first generation ceramic with the 3130 movement
In the world of mechanical watches newer is not always better, the 31xx family of movements have proven over the years that they're bulletproof and super accurate. To me the only real benefit of the new 32xx movements is the longer power reserve but other than that, not much else. The older movements have been super robust, reliable, and accurate anyways.
when you say counldnt bring yourself to shell out for inferior movement, the 39mm is hardly like buying a poor movement. it's rock solid. the most in demand rolex are are cheap as chips bracelets, non ceramic with movements that wouldnt live with a modern day. tudor blackbay
Have both a OP 36 and an Explorer 40mm. For those of you saying the 40 is a large watch, you're wrong. The OP 41 and DJ 41 feel substantially larger. The OP41, for example, has a large dial surface that the explorer 40 just doesn't have. The 40 has extremely nice proportions not unlike the OP36. I prefer 36 mm Rolex usually, but I can't help but think Rolex were aiming at a "his and hers" duo with the new 36 and 40. The 36mm is actually a 35mm with a extremely tapered and elegant bracelet and the 40mm is actually a 39mm with a robust and sporty bracelet. My advice for anyone deciding between the 39 and 40, do yourself a favour and try them both on, the 40mm will still be very pleasing to folks like myself who generally prefer midsized cases. Because off the top heavy proportions of the 39, I find it wears much larger than the 40. The 40mm is my favourite watch in the current Rolex lineup. The 39 is very nice but the 40 has a nicer lacquered black dial, larger white gold handset, larger crown, 21mm bracelet, clasp, and overall head to bracelet proportionality. You can't go wrong with the 36, 39, or 40, but the 40 is my choice of the bunch.
Totally agree. I have a 6.5", but flat wrist so I can get away wearing larger watches. However, I was shocked at just how diminutive the Explorer 1 36mm was in person. It's basically child size and the dainty bracelet is very feminine. I've recently found out what you've said - it's actually nearer 35mm, while for all the critics saying the 40mm is "too large", it's actually closer to 38mm. The bracelet is what adds to the look of a watch and the 40mm has a wider, more masculine and sturdy bracelet. It is also more "sporty" to have a larger watch, while the 36mm is more of a dress watch. I think you are spot on that the current sizing is a "his n hers" duo. This watch "speaks" to those who do outdoors activities and many couples will do such things together. That's where the 'hers' 36mm and the 'his' 40mm comes in.
I'm team 39mm too, even with my eight inch wrist. I like a nice matte dial. My favorite Glycine Combat Sub has a matte black dial and it's very easy on the eyes. Plus, I've seen so many glossy and sunburst dials. Matte finishing makes a nice change, and I think it gives the dial a more no-nonsense tool watch appearance.
40 mm because of the new movement 3230 with the Chronergy escapement, AR coating on the underside, the broader width displaces the thickness better, and it suits my 17 cm wrist.
The biggest contributing factor between these two is the measurement of the dial. I believe the 40mm dial is about 0.5mm larger than the 39mm. It gives it that massive “dinner plate” aspect on the wrist that I feel the explorer should never have. The 40mm is also thicker and the case back does not taper quickly, which makes it wobble around and not wear nearly as close to the wrist as the 39mm.
4:39 you nailed it. I prefer the slimmer, classic shape of the 40 mm. But: the end links protrude too far. The current "41mm" Submariner is shorter than the 40mm Explorer and wears better on a smaller wrist! Quite unexpected!
I want the 36mm in my life 😭 working in an AD I've played with all of these and the 36mm is just PERFECT for me. I neeeed it! Great Video Britt! Had never realised all of these differences, hadn't even clocked, (haha) the difference in the "explorer" placement!
The only two ways in which the 39 is preferable to the 40 are the text placement (I agree that 'Explorer' below the pinion is more balanced) and possibly the 20mm lug width (although it's not difficult to source 21mm straps these days). I don't intend on taking my 40 Explorer off its bracelet, so that isn't an issue for me. Had they still been making the 39, I would have happily taken one, but I wanted a brand new watch, so took the 40 when one was offered to me in May last year - zero regrets having done so - it's a simple, beautiful, iconic timepiece with mod cons.
FYI the 40mm Explorer has AR coating. I bought my 39mm Explorer mkII when it was in the display case at my AD. The 39mm can be worn on any large wrist-both are great 😎.
Woooah now THIS is good to know! Thabk you so much! You know, back in 2019 I bought my husband the 39mm explorer! Just in the display case! What a great time to be alive 🤣
Britney your spot on in your summation the 39 mm is smaller looking because the actual area that the watch fills is 43 square millimeters less than the 39.7mm diameter version. A = πr2 = π(d2)2 I also think the 39mm is a better option, with the matte dial and the 20mm lugs.
Excellent video Britt. But can't believe nobody is talking about the crown!! Always thought the crown on the 39 was a bit too small and dainty. Pretty sure they just took the 36mm crown and used it on the 39. The 40mm now has a "big boy" crown that feels more appropriate to a tool watch of its size. (Might be the same size crown as the Explorer II?) It's a lot easier to get a grip on and looks better in proportion to the rest of the watch.
Okay, a couple of points for the Explorer 40 over the 39 - for me - are that the 40 has anti-reflective coating and also a glossy dial, which looks a little more crisp.
I'm definitely team 39mm...Only thing you didn't mention, though, is that the 40 has anti-reflective coating which is nice. I wish the 39 had it but i'd still go with that one.
Hey Britt, I can’t believe you don’t prefer the 40mm more !! Go to your room without any supper and don’t come down stairs until you can apologise. The 40mm is a sleeker case, better balanced bracelet and an alround better movement. Love your channel and fabulous review, even though your obv wrong 😈😈😈
Great video. Would love to see a comparison between the 36mm Explorer models (114270 and 124270) and your take on them. I'm still undecided on which one I prefer.
Don't feel too bad, Britt. I spent hours agonizing over the sizes of the older 39mm or the new 40mm only to decide to put my name down for a new 36mm 😅
Well done Britt. I agree. I've owned both and I found the 39 feeling larger or more chunky to me on my wrist. I sold my 40 and went back to my 39 mm for everyday.
Ahhh Britt....you've got a personality that lights up the screen. You're easy to listen to and look at, and you speak the universal language of love....Watch Talk! I, too, have the Exp 39 and can't say enough about it. I pretty much share all the reasons you love this reference. I had reluctantly bought the 124270 (for the less initiated, the latest Exp 36, which actually measures 35.5). I say reluctantly because my sweet spot in sports models is 40mm, as in my GMT-Master. Liking the idea of keeping with the 'classic' Explorer size, and having read enough posts on forums where 36'ers swore that you quickly get used to the diminutive size, I decided to go for the 36 over the 39. [The 40 was out of the question because of the distinctions that Britt points out, especially the wider lug and bracelet -- just more metal clinging to the wrist.] Well, I should have stuck with my instincts that had told me that I would NOT get used to the size of the 36, even on my not-so-large 6.5" wrist. The nail in the coffin was my wife's reaction at first sight: "It looks like a boys watch". "Boy" that hurt! How does this story end? I sent the 36 packing, welcomed with open arms a 39, and the sun is now shining once again. The discontinued 39 (since 2021) remains controversial within the watch-geek community -- not sure I understand why -- but for this occasional flipper, the 39's a keeper. Thanks again, Britt, for the great, and entertaining, review.
With a 7.5 inch wrist I can hands down say the 40 fits me better. I do enjoy smaller watches and can even pull off a 36. However, having owned the Explorer 40 since May of last year it has been my daily driver. I tried my friends 39 on and it did wear very slightly smaller - the improvements on the 40 for me were the winner and the whole package is just beautiful.
I have the 39mm and bought a 40mm for a friend. The BIG difference is with the width of the bracelet which is much chunkier on the 40mm. The clasp on the 40mm is much bigger. I prefer the 39mm as it's more elegant
Adding the anti-reflective treatment to the new 40mm clearly makes it the best model (see what I did there…..) I’m biased as I own the 40mm, but I do adore it and it fits my just over 7” wrist perfectly.
Not trying to change your mind, but it seems to me that every difference you point to in your video clearly places the 40mm as a better choice over the 39 haha! That being said, you're right on one point: anyone spending more than 7 seconds on this needs more friends
If a choice between the 2 it would be 39mmm for me as well with my 6.3" wrist. But I purchased the 36mm that I am actually wearing as I type. I have a few sport models with the ceramic bezels and 40mm works but with the smooth or domed bezels the 40/41mm ones look like a dinner plate on my wrist. My OP's are all 36mm as well.
I agree with you. My wrist is 6.7“ and 40/41mm and even some thin 42mm are perfectly wearable, but the Explorers/ OP/ DJ/ DD just all look more balanced in 36mm - and also more refined in my opinion, but thats subjective. The proportions however, are objectively better onthe 36. Plus I just enjoy wearing 36/38mm watches because I find them comfortable.
Spectacular review... and I just got the Explorer 40... and sorry to agree to disagree, but the 40 just works for me... okay, so I'm also 6'4", but that movement upgrade and the somewhat glossy face also did it for me. But if you have a 39 floating around, I'm okay with getting another Explorer 😀I think the Explorer in general is the perfect "unRolex" Rolex. Net, you convinced me Explorer 39:40 is worthy of a 10-minute comparison!
Happy new year Britt and Pappy! Wishing you a great 2024 P.s. I'm so so so so tired of Rolex ha ha! Loving my IWC Mark XVI which has the same dimensions, although a little thinner, and cost me £2500 eek.... love that watch I think I've realised that i have a panic attack with the idea of spending over 4-5k on a watch I've had some great watches recently which all cost a lot less, and i feel that the companies raising their prices like crazy, don't deserve our hard earned money. As an example I've had these in the past 4 years: Speedy 1861 - £3200 Aqua Terra 39mm first gen - £2700 Hamilton Pilot Pioneer - £550 Omega Seamaster 2541 - £1900 G shock 5600 - £60 Seiko Turtle - £500 All are sold, because I'm in a bit of a journey and like to try watches out, but there is still great value out there, especially in watches from the past 10-20 years, like my 2011 IWC or many Omegas for example I don't know if I'll ever get a new Rolex, and if i did, it would be the bright blue OP 36mm
@@watchpapi agreed... I don't need to spend 10k on a jlc at this point in my life... and anyway I'd rather go gold vintage jlc for that money... just one example
Thanks! Im considering the 39mm and this video was very helpful. Regarding the lug-to-lug distance, how is Rolex defining this? Is it the exact distance btw center of the band pins or is it the longest distance for the casing (in 6-12 o'clock direction)?
Good morning Brit. Great video....I agree the 39 would be my choice as well. What about drilled lugs? Is that also changed? Please advise and thank you 👍.
Explorer 39mm is the one on my wrist for the past 6 years and really enjoy it. Maybe I would have liked a 36 or a 40 had it been available, but a good watch gets better over the years, and that’s what the 39mm is.
8” wrist. I picked up the 40. I prefer the glossy dial. I do think the Explorer text at the bottom looks better even if it isn’t historically accurate.
You forgot to mention a HUGE difference with the 40mm - the anti reflective coating on the underside of the crystal. Big improvement. Plus the slightly larger crown on the 40mm.
The first thing to know is that there are two 39 mm Explorers: MK1 and MK2. The MK1 was a rare Rolex disaster. Google it, learn about it, and avoid it. I fell for the 36mm hype and bought one. Couldn't stand it on my 7.5 in wrist even a month later. Bought a 39 and loved it. Rolex brought out the 40 a week later. Arghh. Altogether, however, I'm happy with my choice. The cost, wearing experience, matte dial, strap size, and layout of the 39 are all marginally better. That said, nobody would turn down a 40 nor should they.
Happy owner of a 39mm Explorer - the script is too busy with the Explorer logo at the top imo. That said the 72h reserve would be nice. Got my Smith's Everest recently & will get the 1016 one day to complete the collection around the Everest story to go along with the Moonwatch collection in the making. Nothing beats those two for backstories & that's what counts for this particular collector....
Awesome video two great watches I own the mk2 39 and love it. I tried on the 40 and love it as well, thinking of adding the 40 to my collection some day but in the interim I will enjoy the 39mm
Greetings Britt, from a subscriber in St. John’s, Newfoundland! (I imagine that most of your viewers have no idea where that is but I know you do!) I happen to own a 39mm Explorer and a 39mm blue dial Oyster Perpetual and love how they wear on my 7” wrist. For the life of me, I have no idea why Rolex discontinued the 39mm size in both these models only to increase their size shortly thereafter to 40mm for the Explorer and 41mm for the OP. Were the (many would argue) subtle updates worth the re-tooling and additional expense for the minimal impact, visually and otherwise? I somewhat understood the re-introduction of the 36mm version coincident with the discontinuation of the 39, but can’t get my head around the rationale for adding the 40 very shortly thereafter. Of course, who am I, and many others, to try and understand the logic Rolex often uses to evolve their catalogue! Anyway, love your content Britt and keep it coming! Cheers from The Rock!
Daytona has its wording on top too! I always like the 39mm but felt it a tad too huge for my 6.2inch wrist and when I saw the Explorer40 in person, it was a game changer for me.. the newer layout of the whole dial just somewhat creates less empty space and somehow made the Explorer40 looks and feel smaller than its predecessor- at least for me. I’m currently the lucky owner of both the 124270 and the 224270 ☺️
Great video! I just bought a 40mm after having considered buying the 39mm, but I wasn’t very happy to spend more for a used watch! Apart from the “Explorer” text position (it should have been placed at the bottom!) I totally love my new 40mm and think I made a wise choice going for it.
Hey Brittany, could you make a video about the dimple in Rolexes with black dials? The dimple is located, where the hands are inserted. Some models have it, some don't. My 36mm Explorer (114270) and my new 2023 124060 Submariner don't have it. The dials are completely smooth, but I have seen an earlier 124060 Sub , that does have a dimple around the hands. I've tried to look it up on forums, but I wasn't any wiser afterwards. Btw, if I have noticed correctly your Pepsi has it.
I like the 39mm better than the 40mm. Key issue is the EXPLORER text being above the center point on 40mm looks cluttered, the three lines don’t look evenly spaced apart and the use of three different fonts back-to-back is visually jarring. The dimensions on the 39mm are also better.
Great comparison, and the 39 is an excellent fit for you, Britt. You forgot maybe a few details: the 40 has AR-coating, the winding crown is much bigger (I don’t like it), and the ‘tip’ of the hour hand is much longer and sharper (also a negative imo). I just compared the tip of the hour hand in several other professional models, and they all seem to be the same as the one in the new Explorer 40. The relative short tip of the hour hand in the 39 (mark II, in the mark I it is also longer) seems to be unique; another nice feature of the 39.
Nice how subjective this stuff is and that we have options. The larger crown is pure perfection and so is the larger handset. Both are more tool like and less on that dress side.
Arghhhhhh RUclips ate my comment. HAPPY NEW YEAR BRITT, thank you for all your videos and being my friend! I’d go for the 39mm too, for the exact same reasons. The text bothers me and actually I kinda prefer the older movement. I have several 32XX movement Rolexes (like the current 40mm Explorer uses) and the new movements are more prone to beat rate errors and so are less accurate. I’ve had to have 3 regulated in 3 years! Like you say, the lug profile is changing. Stubbier lugs at more of a downturned angle to give the impression of feeling smaller due to a closer fit. This is why I think lug to lug is way more important than diameter. Royal oaks are classic example. The 37mm is really a 40mm and goes up from there! Hope you and @watch_papi are well (is he still claiming a 7” wrist? 😂) and you get a celebration OP soon! Or a 16710 🙊
Neither is better. 36 is the best, IMO, of course.😉. Seeing that you're into minutiae, the diameter difference is only 0.7mm. Another thing is that the hour hand on the 39mm is proportionately shorter and should be longer.
BAHAHA YOURE NOT WRONG HERE! Nothing beats the 36!! As for the hands of the 39mm, it’s the Mk1 that had the stubby hand problem! 🙈🙈 I’m pretty ok with the Mk2 hands! 💕✨
Great video as always! I'm curious did you measure the dial sizes (by measuring the crystal)? Seems to be a .5 mm increase in size according to Hafiz J Mehmood. See his excellent video comparing the 39 and 40 mm if you want even more nerdy details and measurements. Well worth the time :). Also, hello from the GTA!
@@watchpapi Thanks for the reply! Sorry, I meant in addition to measuring the case. It's interesting that the case is 1 mm larger, but the dial is only 0.5 mm. Many little refinements and changes made by Rolex definitely add up to a different wrist feel between the two.
So the 40 diameter is .7 larger but lug to lug is .9 smaller but it feels so much bigger? I wonder what the dial and bezel measurements are. When I got the call for the 40 at my AD they also had a 39 in the CPO area for $2K more. I took the brand new 40!and love it!!
Basically, I like the “Explorer” on the bottom lines better. Since it is also mentioned above in my favorite reference (1016), I think it is completely ok in a historical context.
I haven't been a reg watcher of the channel in maybe two years but this is a very good video. Concise and informative. Very nice. Thank you for making it. I agree about the 39 being the one btw lol.
What about contrast? Who is more antireflective (more legible) in strong natural light? Both watches have AR coating only on the inside of the crystal, right? One has a matte dial, while the other has a glossy dial. Is the new glossy dial worse for overall contrast or better?
The added mm in the lug width makes the 40 (39.7)mm look narrower and is why the lug to lug can be a bit shorter. But the measurement that matters is from the end links, which explains why the 39 wears smaller while looking wider.
Both are great but as I own an OP 41, a Starbucks submariner, and an explorer II I’ll probably never feel the need to get an explorer I. If I get another Rolex it will be a Daytona or a skydweller
Hi Britt. Comparing these watches is like comparing yourself with Jenni Elle. They are both adorable but out of my price range. Anybody would be happy with either. Happy New Year ;-)
114270 36mm has the best symmetry, propotions and fit. The 124270's 19mm lug width n aggresive bracelet taper to 14mm makes it too dainty wears too small for my taste.
I completely agree with all of your points. That being said, I own both and still decided to wear the 124270 and I just forget about those details when I‘m not actively obsessing about them. The antireflectant on the crystal, the better lume and lumed 369 digits are all winners and outweigh the drawbacks of the new model. Except that the new one isn’t as well suited to swapping straps which is a pity. Yet still I can’t bring myself to part with my 114270 which I purchased 3 weeks before the new one was released😅
Over the years, Rolex has released something like 35 different versions of the Explorer. The Vast majority (30ish) have the word Explorer at the top...
case and shoulder lugs are deceiving. the explorer 2 polar wears quite bigger visually because its a very WIDE watch case. i prefer the older 40mm case for 6.5-7" wrists.
Well, having the name Explorer at the top or bottom of the dial did not bother me … until you pointed it out. LOL. What is more annoying than that, is that Oyster Perpetual is written on every Rolex. It would be nice to just see Oyster Perpetual reserved for the dial of the Oyster Perpetual proper and remove it from all other Rolex models. This might another topic to mull over and do a video on. Thanks for all your great videos.
I have the 39. THE most non-pretentious, under the radar watch in the Rolex lineup (except for the OP models). If you know, you know. It doesn’t attract unwanted attention, and I don’t need to prove anything to anyone anyway. It makes ME happy! Ha! I bought mine new from an AD. It seemed to immediately skyrocket in value. But, I’d never sell it. I like it too much. It shares wrist time with my Sub, DJ, and my Cartier Tank; but I seem to wear this one as much as the other three combined, due to its non-showy aesthetic. Great video.
I have 7” wrists and I’m between the 36 and 40 modern versions…but I might need to look back and consider 39…thanks Britt for ruining my shopping experience with your wonderfulness
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I SHOULD HAVE SAID - these explorers were on loan from my fabulous friend Mark! @mr_watchaddict on Instagram! It was far too kind of him to loan me all his explorers!!! THANK YOU MARK!!! 💕💕💕✨✨✨🎉🎉🎉
You're extremely welcome darling! Excellent spot with the lug lengths by the way! Also, the 40mm has AR coating on the underside whereas the 39 doesn't. Love the matte dial of the 39 too, and the massive ding I added right before I leant it to you!! 😁❤Xxx
I find the EXPLORER text on the 40mm makes it look "Top Heavy". I much prefer the 39mm's text layout. I have the EXPLORER 39 (Mk II) in my collection 😉
The classic layout is at the top though.
Personal preference. I do prefer the text up top.
Ditto 👍
The "Cosmograph" text is on the top, too, and makes it veeery busy (there is no space on the bottom)
Still looks very good!
100% agree
I'd spent 18 months toying with buying a 39mm and then the 40mm was released, and I just couldn't bring myself to pay over retail for a pre owned watch with an inferior movement. Completely agree that the 39mm wears better and I prefer the proportions, but it wasn't so much of an issue that I would have paid the extra for the older model. Have had my 40mm for 6 months and love it.
Some would say the 32 are inferior… read about it
I really can’t fault you here!!! That’s something I should have clarified in this vid - just that the 39mm ISNT current catalogue anymore! Are the prices on these still crazy, I wonder?? Hopefully not! Such a great watch! BUT SO IS THE 40mm!! I totally understand why people
Prefer the 40!
Inferior movement? The 3130 is a indestructible movement. In fact every watchmaker I spoke to said the older 48h Rolex movement's are extremely better than the new 70h power reserve movement's and they need servicing alot less. The 3130 is one of the BEST movement's Rolex ever produced and its extremely accurate with a dead silent rotor. Unlike the new movement's that have a more autobile rotor. New?? Dosen't automatically mean it's better. The 3130 is TRIED AND TRUE and if I ever add a ceramic Submariner to join my 14060m and Explorer 114270. That both have the 3130. You better believe it will be a first generation ceramic with the 3130 movement
In the world of mechanical watches newer is not always better, the 31xx family of movements have proven over the years that they're bulletproof and super accurate. To me the only real benefit of the new 32xx movements is the longer power reserve but other than that, not much else. The older movements have been super robust, reliable, and accurate anyways.
when you say counldnt bring yourself to shell out for inferior movement, the 39mm is hardly like buying a poor movement. it's rock solid. the most in demand rolex are are cheap as chips bracelets, non ceramic with movements that wouldnt live with a modern day. tudor blackbay
Have both a OP 36 and an Explorer 40mm. For those of you saying the 40 is a large watch, you're wrong. The OP 41 and DJ 41 feel substantially larger. The OP41, for example, has a large dial surface that the explorer 40 just doesn't have. The 40 has extremely nice proportions not unlike the OP36. I prefer 36 mm Rolex usually, but I can't help but think Rolex were aiming at a "his and hers" duo with the new 36 and 40. The 36mm is actually a 35mm with a extremely tapered and elegant bracelet and the 40mm is actually a 39mm with a robust and sporty bracelet. My advice for anyone deciding between the 39 and 40, do yourself a favour and try them both on, the 40mm will still be very pleasing to folks like myself who generally prefer midsized cases. Because off the top heavy proportions of the 39, I find it wears much larger than the 40. The 40mm is my favourite watch in the current Rolex lineup. The 39 is very nice but the 40 has a nicer lacquered black dial, larger white gold handset, larger crown, 21mm bracelet, clasp, and overall head to bracelet proportionality. You can't go wrong with the 36, 39, or 40, but the 40 is my choice of the bunch.
I agree. I’ve tried both on and prefer the 40. The better proportions make it wear “smarge”. It’s nice.
What is your wrist size? My wrist is 6.85in and stuck between 36 or 40
@@DennisFilms I’m about the same size - 6.75/6.8.
@@bobbycalifornia7077 awesome!
Totally agree. I have a 6.5", but flat wrist so I can get away wearing larger watches. However, I was shocked at just how diminutive the Explorer 1 36mm was in person. It's basically child size and the dainty bracelet is very feminine. I've recently found out what you've said - it's actually nearer 35mm, while for all the critics saying the 40mm is "too large", it's actually closer to 38mm.
The bracelet is what adds to the look of a watch and the 40mm has a wider, more masculine and sturdy bracelet. It is also more "sporty" to have a larger watch, while the 36mm is more of a dress watch.
I think you are spot on that the current sizing is a "his n hers" duo. This watch "speaks" to those who do outdoors activities and many couples will do such things together. That's where the 'hers' 36mm and the 'his' 40mm comes in.
I'm team 39mm too, even with my eight inch wrist. I like a nice matte dial. My favorite Glycine Combat Sub has a matte black dial and it's very easy on the eyes. Plus, I've seen so many glossy and sunburst dials. Matte finishing makes a nice change, and I think it gives the dial a more no-nonsense tool watch appearance.
40 mm because of the new movement 3230 with the Chronergy escapement, AR coating on the underside, the broader width displaces the thickness better, and it suits my 17 cm wrist.
The biggest contributing factor between these two is the measurement of the dial. I believe the 40mm dial is about 0.5mm larger than the 39mm. It gives it that massive “dinner plate” aspect on the wrist that I feel the explorer should never have. The 40mm is also thicker and the case back does not taper quickly, which makes it wobble around and not wear nearly as close to the wrist as the 39mm.
Superb video Britt! I tried on both versions and went with the 40mm on my 7 inch wrist. Let's see more of these comparisons please. 😀
6:50 explorers have historically had their names on the top line. It is just Rolex respecting their past design language which is a good thing.
4:39 you nailed it. I prefer the slimmer, classic shape of the 40 mm. But: the end links protrude too far. The current "41mm" Submariner is shorter than the 40mm Explorer and wears better on a smaller wrist! Quite unexpected!
I want the 36mm in my life 😭 working in an AD I've played with all of these and the 36mm is just PERFECT for me. I neeeed it! Great Video Britt! Had never realised all of these differences, hadn't even clocked, (haha) the difference in the "explorer" placement!
Totally agree, I still prefer the case size of the Explorer 39 over 40 the same way that I prefer the OP 39 vs 41.
Right?? I totally agree with this! 💕👏🏻
I have the 40 and love it... The proportions of the bracket and clasp are just right for me. Everything is balanced just right
The only two ways in which the 39 is preferable to the 40 are the text placement (I agree that 'Explorer' below the pinion is more balanced) and possibly the 20mm lug width (although it's not difficult to source 21mm straps these days). I don't intend on taking my 40 Explorer off its bracelet, so that isn't an issue for me. Had they still been making the 39, I would have happily taken one, but I wanted a brand new watch, so took the 40 when one was offered to me in May last year - zero regrets having done so - it's a simple, beautiful, iconic timepiece with mod cons.
I seem to be one of the few that prefers the text up top. Part of the poor balance on the 39 had to do with the saggy bottom text on the 39
@@Explorer40mm saggy?? It looks much better on be bottom.
@@whereRbearsTeeth nah, in person I prefer the text up top. More of a title rather than a sub heading
Thank you Britt! I've been searching RUclips for videos on this exact topic - no nerdiness present at all!!
FYI the 40mm Explorer has AR coating. I bought my 39mm Explorer mkII when it was in the display case at my AD. The 39mm can be worn on any large wrist-both are great 😎.
Woooah now THIS is good to know! Thabk you so much! You know, back in 2019 I bought my husband the 39mm explorer! Just in the display case! What a great time to be alive 🤣
Meaningless AR argument - can’t tell the diff btw my 214270 and 226570 after 12 months.
Britney your spot on in your summation the 39 mm is smaller looking because the actual area that the watch fills is 43 square millimeters less than the 39.7mm diameter version.
A = πr2 = π(d2)2
I also think the 39mm is a better option, with the matte dial and the 20mm lugs.
Excellent video Britt. But can't believe nobody is talking about the crown!! Always thought the crown on the 39 was a bit too small and dainty. Pretty sure they just took the 36mm crown and used it on the 39. The 40mm now has a "big boy" crown that feels more appropriate to a tool watch of its size. (Might be the same size crown as the Explorer II?) It's a lot easier to get a grip on and looks better in proportion to the rest of the watch.
I can not unsee that now
There’s nothing whatsoever wrong with the crown in the 39.
@@whereRbearsTeeth not that there is something wrong, more a matter of preference
Okay, a couple of points for the Explorer 40 over the 39 - for me - are that the 40 has anti-reflective coating and also a glossy dial, which looks a little more crisp.
40 is just perfect, never liked the matte dial on the 39
I'm definitely team 39mm...Only thing you didn't mention, though, is that the 40 has anti-reflective coating which is nice. I wish the 39 had it but i'd still go with that one.
Hey Britt, I can’t believe you don’t prefer the 40mm more !! Go to your room without any supper and don’t come down stairs until you can apologise. The 40mm is a sleeker case, better balanced bracelet and an alround better movement.
Love your channel and fabulous review, even though your obv wrong 😈😈😈
Great video. Would love to see a comparison between the 36mm Explorer models (114270 and 124270) and your take on them. I'm still undecided on which one I prefer.
Ouuu now THIS is a video I’d love to make!!!
OK I think 39 looks better, and in some weird way I find it's easier to read
It’s more vintage feeling with the almost tropical like dial. Plus the Explorer text works better at the bottom to balance things out IMO.
Don't feel too bad, Britt. I spent hours agonizing over the sizes of the older 39mm or the new 40mm only to decide to put my name down for a new 36mm 😅
Same here. 36mm all day long.
This is EXACTLY what I needed to know. Thanks, Britt!
Great video Britt. I like the detail you provide on each watch and the concept of comparing the two. That was a worthwhile video.
Agree 💯%
I have felt the same since the 40 mm Explorer came out...thanks for giving words to my thoughts 😊
Completely agree Brit. I had the 39mm Explorer and it was perfect. They shouldn’t have changed it.
They both look good!
side note: what watch are you wearing here? is it a datejust?
You do such a great job with your videos and they always have such a good vibe.
Keep racking them up and knocking them down. Great content
🤣🤣💕💕💕 ahh thank you JAYBEE!!!
I went to buy the 36… but it was truly too small for my 7.15 inch wrist. I have the 40 and it’s a dream.
Well done Britt. I agree. I've owned both and I found the 39 feeling larger or more chunky to me on my wrist. I sold my 40 and went back to my 39 mm for everyday.
You know! I can’t fault you in this! There’s just something right about the 39!
Brilliant video Brittney.
I’ve gotta agree 39mm is definitely the sweet spot, but in this model I’d take the 36mm . Keep up the great content. Wills
Ahhh Britt....you've got a personality that lights up the screen. You're easy to listen to and look at, and you speak the universal language of love....Watch Talk! I, too, have the Exp 39 and can't say enough about it. I pretty much share all the reasons you love this reference. I had reluctantly bought the 124270 (for the less initiated, the latest Exp 36, which actually measures 35.5). I say reluctantly because my sweet spot in sports models is 40mm, as in my GMT-Master. Liking the idea of keeping with the 'classic' Explorer size, and having read enough posts on forums where 36'ers swore that you quickly get used to the diminutive size, I decided to go for the 36 over the 39. [The 40 was out of the question because of the distinctions that Britt points out, especially the wider lug and bracelet -- just more metal clinging to the wrist.] Well, I should have stuck with my instincts that had told me that I would NOT get used to the size of the 36, even on my not-so-large 6.5" wrist. The nail in the coffin was my wife's reaction at first sight: "It looks like a boys watch". "Boy" that hurt! How does this story end? I sent the 36 packing, welcomed with open arms a 39, and the sun is now shining once again. The discontinued 39 (since 2021) remains controversial within the watch-geek community -- not sure I understand why -- but for this occasional flipper, the 39's a keeper. Thanks again, Britt, for the great, and entertaining, review.
I’m a 36 guy but you really can’t go wrong with with any Explorer!
With a 7.5 inch wrist I can hands down say the 40 fits me better.
I do enjoy smaller watches and can even pull off a 36.
However, having owned the Explorer 40 since May of last year it has been my daily driver. I tried my friends 39 on and it did wear very slightly smaller - the improvements on the 40 for me were the winner and the whole package is just beautiful.
I have the 39mm and bought a 40mm for a friend. The BIG difference is with the width of the bracelet which is much chunkier on the 40mm. The clasp on the 40mm is much bigger. I prefer the 39mm as it's more elegant
I'm with you, the 39's elegance is unbeatable! 💯
Adding the anti-reflective treatment to the new 40mm clearly makes it the best model (see what I did there…..)
I’m biased as I own the 40mm, but I do adore it and it fits my just over 7” wrist perfectly.
Not trying to change your mind, but it seems to me that every difference you point to in your video clearly places the 40mm as a better choice over the 39 haha! That being said, you're right on one point: anyone spending more than 7 seconds on this needs more friends
I agree with you on this one. 39 mm my favorite.
If a choice between the 2 it would be 39mmm for me as well with my 6.3" wrist. But I purchased the 36mm that I am actually wearing as I type. I have a few sport models with the ceramic bezels and 40mm works but with the smooth or domed bezels the 40/41mm ones look like a dinner plate on my wrist. My OP's are all 36mm as well.
I agree with you. My wrist is 6.7“ and 40/41mm and even some thin 42mm are perfectly wearable, but the Explorers/ OP/ DJ/ DD just all look more balanced in 36mm - and also more refined in my opinion, but thats subjective. The proportions however, are objectively better onthe 36.
Plus I just enjoy wearing 36/38mm watches because I find them comfortable.
Spectacular review... and I just got the Explorer 40... and sorry to agree to disagree, but the 40 just works for me... okay, so I'm also 6'4", but that movement upgrade and the somewhat glossy face also did it for me.
But if you have a 39 floating around, I'm okay with getting another Explorer 😀I think the Explorer in general is the perfect "unRolex" Rolex.
Net, you convinced me Explorer 39:40 is worthy of a 10-minute comparison!
Happy new year Britt and Pappy! Wishing you a great 2024
P.s. I'm so so so so tired of Rolex ha ha! Loving my IWC Mark XVI which has the same dimensions, although a little thinner, and cost me £2500 eek.... love that watch
I think I've realised that i have a panic attack with the idea of spending over 4-5k on a watch
I've had some great watches recently which all cost a lot less, and i feel that the companies raising their prices like crazy, don't deserve our hard earned money.
As an example I've had these in the past 4 years:
Speedy 1861 - £3200
Aqua Terra 39mm first gen - £2700
Hamilton Pilot Pioneer - £550
Omega Seamaster 2541 - £1900
G shock 5600 - £60
Seiko Turtle - £500
All are sold, because I'm in a bit of a journey and like to try watches out, but there is still great value out there, especially in watches from the past 10-20 years, like my 2011 IWC or many Omegas for example
I don't know if I'll ever get a new Rolex, and if i did, it would be the bright blue OP 36mm
Awesome watch! Congratulations 🙌🏽
@@watchpapi thanks mate. Have edited comment. Please have a read. Appreciate it
@@Valera_Scotland yeah, I think Neo vintage around the 2-3k mark is presenting great value right now.
@@watchpapi agreed... I don't need to spend 10k on a jlc at this point in my life... and anyway I'd rather go gold vintage jlc for that money... just one example
Thanks! Im considering the 39mm and this video was very helpful. Regarding the lug-to-lug distance, how is Rolex defining this? Is it the exact distance btw center of the band pins or is it the longest distance for the casing (in 6-12 o'clock direction)?
Very detailed video. Nicely done. 39 for me as well. Friends are overrated, rather obsess over watch minutiae any day.
Good morning Brit. Great video....I agree the 39 would be my choice as well. What about drilled lugs? Is that also changed? Please advise and thank you 👍.
Great video, I just got the 40mm from my AD and it’s nice having a lowkey piece.
Explorer 39mm is the one on my wrist for the past 6 years and really enjoy it. Maybe I would have liked a 36 or a 40 had it been available, but a good watch gets better over the years, and that’s what the 39mm is.
Love the details in this video .
8” wrist. I picked up the 40. I prefer the glossy dial. I do think the Explorer text at the bottom looks better even if it isn’t historically accurate.
You forgot to mention a HUGE difference with the 40mm - the anti reflective coating on the underside of the crystal. Big improvement.
Plus the slightly larger crown on the 40mm.
214270 Mk 2 FTW!!! Thanks Britt. Great content as always. Cheers.
The first thing to know is that there are two 39 mm Explorers: MK1 and MK2. The MK1 was a rare Rolex disaster. Google it, learn about it, and avoid it.
I fell for the 36mm hype and bought one. Couldn't stand it on my 7.5 in wrist even a month later. Bought a 39 and loved it.
Rolex brought out the 40 a week later. Arghh. Altogether, however, I'm happy with my choice. The cost, wearing experience, matte dial, strap size, and layout of the 39 are all marginally better. That said, nobody would turn down a 40 nor should they.
💯 right about "EXPLORER" should be at the bottom of the dial like on all other professional models.
Happy owner of a 39mm Explorer - the script is too busy with the Explorer logo at the top imo. That said the 72h reserve would be nice. Got my Smith's Everest recently & will get the 1016 one day to complete the collection around the Everest story to go along with the Moonwatch collection in the making. Nothing beats those two for backstories & that's what counts for this particular collector....
🤣
Awesome video two great watches I own the mk2 39 and love it. I tried on the 40 and love it as well, thinking of adding the 40 to my collection some day but in the interim I will enjoy the 39mm
Greetings Britt, from a subscriber in St. John’s, Newfoundland! (I imagine that most of your viewers have no idea where that is but I know you do!) I happen to own a 39mm Explorer and a 39mm blue dial Oyster Perpetual and love how they wear on my 7” wrist. For the life of me, I have no idea why Rolex discontinued the 39mm size in both these models only to increase their size shortly thereafter to 40mm for the Explorer and 41mm for the OP. Were the (many would argue) subtle updates worth the re-tooling and additional expense for the minimal impact, visually and otherwise? I somewhat understood the re-introduction of the 36mm version coincident with the discontinuation of the 39, but can’t get my head around the rationale for adding the 40 very shortly thereafter. Of course, who am I, and many others, to try and understand the logic Rolex often uses to evolve their catalogue! Anyway, love your content Britt and keep it coming! Cheers from The Rock!
Thanks for the video! Just a note, the Milgauss label is also on the top line! 😊
Are there schematic drawings of these you could overlay on each other at scale?
Probably at Rolex but I doubt they’ll share them.
Daytona has its wording on top too!
I always like the 39mm but felt it a tad too huge for my 6.2inch wrist and when I saw the Explorer40 in person, it was a game changer for me.. the newer layout of the whole dial just somewhat creates less empty space and somehow made the Explorer40 looks and feel smaller than its predecessor- at least for me. I’m currently the lucky owner of both the 124270 and the 224270 ☺️
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the name placement on the professional series. The 39mm wins simply on that point.
the placement on the 40 is actually the classic placement
Great review as usual Brit. Loved the spoiler alert 😂. I’ve been on the AD wait train for a 40 but tossing up NOW between a Expl 39 or Ranger 39z.
Explorer and ranger are leagues apart.
Great video! I just bought a 40mm after having considered buying the 39mm, but I wasn’t very happy to spend more for a used watch!
Apart from the “Explorer” text position (it should have been placed at the bottom!) I totally love my new 40mm and think I made a wise choice going for it.
Hey Brittany,
could you make a video about the dimple in Rolexes with black dials? The dimple is located, where the hands are inserted. Some models have it, some don't. My 36mm Explorer (114270) and my new 2023 124060 Submariner don't have it. The dials are completely smooth, but I have seen an earlier 124060 Sub , that does have a dimple around the hands.
I've tried to look it up on forums, but I wasn't any wiser afterwards.
Btw, if I have noticed correctly your Pepsi has it.
I think it’s probably damage to the dial from pressing the hands on. Yeah the GMT has it.
I like the 39mm better than the 40mm. Key issue is the EXPLORER text being above the center point on 40mm looks cluttered, the three lines don’t look evenly spaced apart and the use of three different fonts back-to-back is visually jarring. The dimensions on the 39mm are also better.
Great comparison, and the 39 is an excellent fit for you, Britt. You forgot maybe a few details: the 40 has AR-coating, the winding crown is much bigger (I don’t like it), and the ‘tip’ of the hour hand is much longer and sharper (also a negative imo). I just compared the tip of the hour hand in several other professional models, and they all seem to be the same as the one in the new Explorer 40. The relative short tip of the hour hand in the 39 (mark II, in the mark I it is also longer) seems to be unique; another nice feature of the 39.
Nice how subjective this stuff is and that we have options. The larger crown is pure perfection and so is the larger handset. Both are more tool like and less on that dress side.
@@Explorer40mm no
@@whereRbearsTeeth yassss, getting rid of the little button crown was a great move. The handset too. Larger hands are nice.
I have the 39mm mk2 dial and the 1016, I really like the domed plastic crystal.
Arghhhhhh RUclips ate my comment.
HAPPY NEW YEAR BRITT, thank you for all your videos and being my friend!
I’d go for the 39mm too, for the exact same reasons. The text bothers me and actually I kinda prefer the older movement.
I have several 32XX movement Rolexes (like the current 40mm Explorer uses) and the new movements are more prone to beat rate errors and so are less accurate. I’ve had to have 3 regulated in 3 years!
Like you say, the lug profile is changing. Stubbier lugs at more of a downturned angle to give the impression of feeling smaller due to a closer fit.
This is why I think lug to lug is way more important than diameter. Royal oaks are classic example. The 37mm is really a 40mm and goes up from there!
Hope you and @watch_papi are well (is he still claiming a 7” wrist? 😂) and you get a celebration OP soon! Or a 16710 🙊
Well the right answer is 36mm - for me. 😉
*With all jokes aside - both seemed to wear well on your wrist Britt.
Bahahaa! YES SALTY! 36mm is ALWAYS the right answer! I couldn’t agree more! 🤣👏🏻
36mm is perfect for Britts wrist 🎉
Neither is better. 36 is the best, IMO, of course.😉. Seeing that you're into minutiae, the diameter difference is only 0.7mm. Another thing is that the hour hand on the 39mm is proportionately shorter and should be longer.
BAHAHA YOURE NOT WRONG HERE! Nothing beats the 36!! As for the hands of the 39mm, it’s the Mk1 that had the stubby hand problem! 🙈🙈 I’m pretty ok with the Mk2 hands! 💕✨
Oh, because you own the 36, it’s better? 36 mm is for girls
now you've said that I cant unsee😢
Depends on your wrist size.
The problem is that the new 36mm is a 35mm. A Datejust 36 wears definitely larger.
Thank you for the video. Both are excellent watches, and I hope to get one of these two some day.
What watch roll is that? Looks really nice!
Having just got a Sinn 556 which is 38.5 - I think I’m more likely to prefer the 39mm. Though it’s unlikely I’ll ever see one. Or own one.
I liked the video - it is very useful and I subscribed. Edit: I also commented.
I’ve owned the 39mm for almost a decade and love it.
Great video as always! I'm curious did you measure the dial sizes (by measuring the crystal)? Seems to be a .5 mm increase in size according to Hafiz J Mehmood. See his excellent video comparing the 39 and 40 mm if you want even more nerdy details and measurements. Well worth the time :). Also, hello from the GTA!
No, by measuring the case.
@@watchpapi Thanks for the reply! Sorry, I meant in addition to measuring the case. It's interesting that the case is 1 mm larger, but the dial is only 0.5 mm. Many little refinements and changes made by Rolex definitely add up to a different wrist feel between the two.
@@tedj9 no worries! I see what you mean now.
I've tried both watches on and the 40 has a much bigger visual footprint than the 39.
So the 40 diameter is .7 larger but lug to lug is .9 smaller but it feels so much bigger? I wonder what the dial and bezel measurements are. When I got the call for the 40 at my AD they also had a 39 in the CPO area for $2K more. I took the brand new 40!and love it!!
Basically, I like the “Explorer” on the bottom lines better. Since it is also mentioned above in my favorite reference (1016), I think it is completely ok in a historical context.
I haven't been a reg watcher of the channel in maybe two years but this is a very good video. Concise and informative. Very nice. Thank you for making it. I agree about the 39 being the one btw lol.
What about contrast? Who is more antireflective (more legible) in strong natural light? Both watches have AR coating only on the inside of the crystal, right? One has a matte dial, while the other has a glossy dial. Is the new glossy dial worse for overall contrast or better?
The added mm in the lug width makes the 40 (39.7)mm look narrower and is why the lug to lug can be a bit shorter. But the measurement that matters is from the end links, which explains why the 39 wears smaller while looking wider.
Both are great but as I own an OP 41, a Starbucks submariner, and an explorer II I’ll probably never feel the need to get an explorer I. If I get another Rolex it will be a Daytona or a skydweller
Both great options.
@@watchpapi thanks watch papa, when are you and gringa going to make a little watch baby? I think it would be a good mascot for the channel
@@WatchUnwind 😂🤣 it certainly would!
Hi Britt. Comparing these watches is like comparing yourself with Jenni Elle. They are both adorable but out of my price range. Anybody would be happy with either. Happy New Year ;-)
114270 36mm has the best symmetry, propotions and fit.
The 124270's 19mm lug width n aggresive bracelet taper to 14mm makes it too dainty wears too small for my taste.
I completely agree with all of your points. That being said, I own both and still decided to wear the 124270 and I just forget about those details when I‘m not actively obsessing about them. The antireflectant on the crystal, the better lume and lumed 369 digits are all winners and outweigh the drawbacks of the new model. Except that the new one isn’t as well suited to swapping straps which is a pity.
Yet still I can’t bring myself to part with my 114270 which I purchased 3 weeks before the new one was released😅
Over the years, Rolex has released something like 35 different versions of the Explorer. The Vast majority (30ish) have the word Explorer at the top...
Feel like you have a million videos for this watch haha Great job always kiss !!
I prefer the longer beak at the end of the hour hands Mercedes circle on the 40mm.
Good point about the model name below on the pro models.
case and shoulder lugs are deceiving. the explorer 2 polar wears quite bigger visually because its a very WIDE watch case. i prefer the older 40mm case for 6.5-7" wrists.
Well, having the name Explorer at the top or bottom of the dial did not bother me … until you pointed it out. LOL. What is more annoying than that, is that Oyster Perpetual is written on every Rolex. It would be nice to just see Oyster Perpetual reserved for the dial of the Oyster Perpetual proper and remove it from all other Rolex models. This might another topic to mull over and do a video on. Thanks for all your great videos.
p.s., and let’s not even get started on the 5 lines of text at the bottom of the Tudor Pelagos 42 mm.
@@tacticaltruth8118 TURDor Gulagos by KENISSI outhouse must not be mentioned in polite society.
Firmly in team 39mm.... cheers as ever Britt!!!
I have the 39. THE most non-pretentious, under the radar watch in the Rolex lineup (except for the OP models). If you know, you know. It doesn’t attract unwanted attention, and I don’t need to prove anything to anyone anyway. It makes ME happy! Ha! I bought mine new from an AD. It seemed to immediately skyrocket in value. But, I’d never sell it. I like it too much. It shares wrist time with my Sub, DJ, and my Cartier Tank; but I seem to wear this one as much as the other three combined, due to its non-showy aesthetic. Great video.
''You can really feel that millimeter.''
Thats what she said. Literally
What watch were you wearing in this video?
Happy New Year from Las Vegas!! (team 40mm)
I have 7” wrists and I’m between the 36 and 40 modern versions…but I might need to look back and consider 39…thanks Britt for ruining my shopping experience with your wonderfulness
Your sense of humor is great 😆😆😆😆