📣 New feature alert: Collections!!
Access via collections tab in your profile ✌️
Design Deepdive: Exploring the proportions of Explorer 36mm vs. 40mm
Despite the size difference, I'm amazed at how the 36mm and 40mm look exactly the same in proportion. But are they really? I decided to geek out and explore (pun intended).
I downloaded the official photos of both the 36mm and 40mm models from rolex.com, put them side by side, and shrunk the 40mm image so that the diameters of the bezels matched, eliminating the reference to their actual sizes. You'd be hard-pressed to tell which is which (the answer is at the end of this post).
Then I drew grids across both photos of the watches to check their proportions relative to each other, and they are almost a 100% match! The lines intersect the elements and features on both watches as if they are exactly the same watch!
But I did spot some minor differences:
The second hand's circle is slightly bigger in the 40mm.
The lugs are slightly shorter and wider in the 40mm.
The end-links are longer in the 40mm.
The bracelet on the 40mm looks a bit stubbier overall.
On the dial, the crown logo and the words "Rolex" and "Explorer" are bigger in the 40mm (which makes them even bigger than on the 36mm in actual size).
Interestingly, the words "Oyster Perpetual", "Superlative Chronometer", and "Officially Certified" are smaller on the 40mm (making them roughly the same size as on the 36mm in actual size).
The proportions of the two watches being the same likely dictate the actual measurements of the lug widths (19mm vs. 21mm), the lug-to-lug distances (46.5mm vs. 43mm), and the case sizes (38.9mm vs. 35.5mm). For example, if they made the lug width of the 40mm model 20mm, the two watches wouldn't be as proportional anymore.
One hypothesis I have for why Rolex moved the word "Explorer" back to the 12 o'clock position for both sizes is that, considering its heritage, it wouldn't look right on the 36mm. The Explorers straddle both the Classic and Professional Rolex models, placing them in a class of their own!
So, what do you think?
Answer: the left one is the 36mm.
References:
Britt Pearce's "Rolex Explorer 40 OR 36?! What Reviewers DON'T SAY!" YouTube video
9 comments
Sort by
Firebolt
New watch collector
Bay Area, CA, USA
Member since
Last active: 32 min ago
3
watches
in collection
6.50”
/
16.51 cm
This is the kind of nerdy shit I love to do!
Interesting comparison! It looks like they did a lot to try to reduce the perceived size of the 40mm
I have a 6.5inch wrist and think the 36mm is just the perfect fit. I have Seamaster mid-size at 36mm and if I was going to get the #rolex I would follow suit with the 36 as well. But totally up to you!
Interesting comparison! It looks like they did a lot to try to reduce the perceived size of the 40mm
I think Rolex naming them "36mm" and "40mm" is pure marketing. They couldn't literally make the Explorer a 40mm watch because it would be unwieldy on most people's wrists if they kept the proportions the same as the 36mm.
Well, considering you removed the one thing that would cause them to wear diff, I would expect the rest to be very close.
I have a 6.5inch wrist and think the 36mm is just the perfect fit. I have Seamaster mid-size at 36mm and if I was going to get the #rolex I would follow suit with the 36 as well. But totally up to you!
I have farsighted eyes, so when I remove my glasses, the dial on the 36mm becomes a blurry mess 😄. Additionally, the 40mm offers more material for not much more money and still looks great on my wrist. The final nail in the coffin is that my wife prefers the 40mm on me. I also figure that in the future, I can buy a pre-owned 36mm to scratch the "historical size" itch since there are plenty of them on the market.
The bracelet taper gives it away.
Team 36 here..
Team 40 for me. A 36mm Explorer looks a bit silly on me