The 39mm looks the best of the lot. I like the balance in the text and 41 for a no complication/dive bezel looks odd. The new 36 are closer to 35, unlike the perfect 36 oysters of the past. This will end up holding the most value over time IMHO.
In addition to MKII dial and hands enhancements, do you discern a slight 'widening' of the bezel surface area by a couple of mm's comparted to MKI? The connumdrum to me is the MKI looks almost indiscernably narrower around the dial head and the dial's new accents. I own MKI cannot shake the distinct impression Rolex machined a bezel accent differently. Great overview video of interest -sub in nyc. Let me know what you think? Thanks.
There is absolutely no difference between the MK1 and the MK2 besides the dail and hands .I also own the MK1 I took it for servicing and they offered to replace the dial and hands which I accepted they allowed me to keep my old dial and hands in case I ever want to go back which I would not want to there are no differences it's the same reference number
@@rnickiford I appreicate your feedback. Mayb it is an optical illusion on my part. The mk2 blzel looks slightly modified like a flat(ish) mirror finish (like DJ2) while the mk1 looks beveled (i hv a mk1). But anyway perh i come to your conclusion if I see one while wearing my own. thanks again.
Yes i realy think 39mm is the perfect size,i dont have nothing against rolex 41mm but 39mm is great,i have a rolex airking 34mm and its realy nice but dificult to read the time ,so i would lime to sell it and buy an oyster perpetual 40mm or this explorer,only dificulty is to be sure i can get it with AD at the normal price because in grey market it cost 8000 and more...
I’d say the 36mm is the perfect everyday watch. The proportions of the 39 are not correct imo. The hands look lost on that dial. The 36 is elegant and all the proportions are just right
36mm looks good on small wrists, on 7.5 inch wrist and more only 39mm or 40mm are right. Writing, that only 36 proportions are good means, that you are representing small wrist, and reaping you tubers opinion. Vintage watches were smaller, because people were slimmer and smaller. Adopt watch to yourself, Rolex gives an opinion!
@@MB-ev3ox imo the 39 proportions look wrong, they got it right with the 40mm. Yes I agree it depends on your wrist size of course, but generally for a slim build the 36mm is great
![[4K] Rolex Explorer 39 vs Explorer 40 Hands-on; Differences Beyond The Obvious | Hafiz J Mehmood](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Nf7Zfi8nuMQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![โฮ่ง! (SUGOI) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nFp4zjAARFs/mqdefault.jpg)
Voted with my $, 39mm 214270 MkII...love this watch!
The 39mm looks the best of the lot. I like the balance in the text and 41 for a no complication/dive bezel looks odd. The new 36 are closer to 35, unlike the perfect 36 oysters of the past. This will end up holding the most value over time IMHO.
Agree 100%. MK2 Explorer is the best of them all.
I have a 39mm, and find it to be just the right size.
It's a really nice piece, I think the larger dial on yours would be better than the newer model
very value for money at now market price ranch
In addition to MKII dial and hands enhancements, do you discern a slight 'widening' of the bezel surface area by a couple of mm's comparted to MKI? The connumdrum to me is the MKI looks almost indiscernably narrower around the dial head and the dial's new accents. I own MKI cannot shake the distinct impression Rolex machined a bezel accent differently. Great overview video of interest -sub in nyc. Let me know what you think? Thanks.
There is absolutely no difference between the MK1 and the MK2 besides the dail and hands .I also own the MK1 I took it for servicing and they offered to replace the dial and hands which I accepted they allowed me to keep my old dial and hands in case I ever want to go back which I would not want to there are no differences it's the same reference number
@@rnickiford I appreicate your feedback. Mayb it is an optical illusion on my part. The mk2 blzel looks slightly modified like a flat(ish) mirror finish (like DJ2) while the mk1 looks beveled (i hv a mk1). But anyway perh i come to your conclusion if I see one while wearing my own. thanks again.
All depends on the wrist size but in my opinion 40 is comfortable size
39mm is the sweet spot!
39 mm is the best, the 40 lug to lug is terrible....
Wrong the lug to lug is shorter than the 39 mm 😉
@@jeanlouisdubillon4212 i think he means endlink to endlink, which is about 2 mm larger on the 40.
@@mattijswouters6962Rolex need to stop with the male endlinks
Yes i realy think 39mm is the perfect size,i dont have nothing against rolex 41mm but 39mm is great,i have a rolex airking 34mm and its realy nice but dificult to read the time ,so i would lime to sell it and buy an oyster perpetual 40mm or this explorer,only dificulty is to be sure i can get it with AD at the normal price because in grey market it cost 8000 and more...
Rolex doesn’t make a 41mm Explorer or a 40mm OP. You are clueless
@@whereRbearsTeeth ok i am wrong for 2mm...big deal...the point is op is too expensive in grey market
I’d say the 36mm is the perfect everyday watch. The proportions of the 39 are not correct imo. The hands look lost on that dial. The 36 is elegant and all the proportions are just right
No
@@whereRbearsTeeth haha I think most would agree the 36mm is right
36mm looks good on small wrists, on 7.5 inch wrist and more only 39mm or 40mm are right. Writing, that only 36 proportions are good means, that you are representing small wrist, and reaping you tubers opinion. Vintage watches were smaller, because people were slimmer and smaller. Adopt watch to yourself, Rolex gives an opinion!
@@MB-ev3ox imo the 39 proportions look wrong, they got it right with the 40mm. Yes I agree it depends on your wrist size of course, but generally for a slim build the 36mm is great