Explorer 39 versus 40, for an Omega 42 mm guy

[romegalex]

This is my first post, so please give me a little Grace, as I humble myself, and fully admit the amount that I don't know. :-)

I'm so sorry, because I know that this is probably been discussed a whole lot before. But there's always some sort of small detail that makes us unique, at least makes us think that we are unique.

I only recently became a watch guy, maybe in the last 6 to 12 months. But like most things, I try to hit it hard, and do things right, in my eyes, from the beginning.

For a couple months, I've been wearing a first generation Omega Aqua Terra ("AT") which has a 42MM diameter. My wrist is right around 7 in.

I honestly love just about everything about the AT, except for the legibility. I find that it's a little difficult to read in either very bright light, or very low light. Middle of the day is fine, but I'm having more trouble than I would like too often. It's a gorgeous watch and I truly enjoy it, but after seeing a few Explorers in person, The Arabic numerals for three six and nine are fantastic help for me...

Because of the way things are, I have never been able to try on the 39 and 40 side-by-side, but I tried them both on.

I thought the 39 was a little small, especially compared to my 42mm AT

I thought the 40 seems better, but of course, is still seemed a little small compared to the 42mm AT.

I also realize that making comparisons between things is noticeable while making comparisons. As soon as you have one and only one thing, and wear that a lot and get used to that, You sort of forget about all else. True with watches, true with life. I also feel like the clasp is highly over engineered, and really large, especially to the svelte and nothing more than necessary clasp on the Omega. Again, just differences, both are great.

Anyway, the real question (ignoring costs):
Is it really laboring over 39 versus 40, that's compared to an obviously larger 42 mm Omega? (That is, will 39 vs Omega really be any different than 40 vs Omega?)

Or, considering costs, should I just buy the cheapest 39mm Explorer 1 that I can find used (surely an mk1), and take it from there? I don't want to do a lot of buying/selling to dial things in if I can avoid it, but I do need to start somewhere. Where should I start?

I'm ready to move on a 39mm mk1 or a 40mm, but want a few opinions, and then sleep on it.

Thanks everyone! Have a blessed day!

[RolexPete]

Get the 39. Destined to be a classic. The 40 dial symmetry is all off and 21mm lug width is just awful.

I love my 214270 Mk2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CaptT]

Congrats (in advance!).

I wouldn’t sweat 39 or 40 vs the Omega, but that’s just me. The considerations in my mind for the Explorer are:

- the 214270 (39) has a matte dial, and the new Explorer 224270 (40) has a glossy dial
- the movement in the 214270 (3132) is likely to perform better over the long haul relative to the new Explorer (3230 movement). See various threads about the reported 32xx issues. The 31xx movements have stood the test of time, and is highly regarded.

You mentioned a preference for the mk1, but maybe worth taking a look at the mk2 214270 as prices have come down considerably, and the slight premium over the mk1 could be worth it in light of the “enhancements” (longer hands, lumed 3/6/9).

Either way, good luck.

[Scholar]

"Omega 42mm guy" doesn't mean much by itself because a Speedy Pro for instance wears very differently from a watch that's all dial like yours.

That said, I would go for the 39mm. The two watches are basically identical in look and feel, except that the movement is objectively better in the 39mm. This is because, first of all, the Explorer had a movement that had special upgrades compared to the standard no-date movement due to its intended uses as a field watch. The 40mm just uses Rolex's standard no-date movement, and in the case of the 32 series the movement is a piece of crap to begin with so I would pass on that.

[ol' Rex]

Welcome to the forum!

I think both the 39mm and 40mm are excellent choices, but if I were you, I would go for the newer model on account of the warranty and more importantly in order to establish a buying history with an authorized dealer. That becomes important if you ever decide you want to purchase another Rolex.



There's a good comparison of the two models on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf7Zfi8nuMQ

[1William]

With a multi watch collection in varying sizes from 38mm to 51 mm. I have found that I get use to wearing a watch, or the size of the watch, and it takes me a short time to adjust. Most of it is visual, but sometimes, it is the weight that is associated with the size. I like the Explorer but with a 7.5-7.75 inch wrist I find it visually too small for my liking in every size except the 40mm. If I was going to something like the Explorer I would probably go back to the 41mm Tudor Ranger. Less money, admittedly less watch, but is a strap monster and a lot of fun for 2k, pre-owned. Why not go look at the Explorer II, either the older 40mm version or the newer 42mm version. Either way I like them better than the Explorer. Good luck and let us know what you decide.

[Occam's Dial]

If it's legibility, in all light levels, that you're after, then the Explorer is a clear upgrade over the AT, especially if you have a a non-black colour AT. The Explorer's silver+lume-on-black contrast is brilliant, and I think the handset legibility is superior, especially the Mercedes hour hand. I wouldn't get too concerned about the hand wringing over the 3230. There are a bunch of no date models using it (Sub, Deepsea Challenge, OPs, Explorers, Air King), and what seems to be somewhat limited noise, so I reckon you'll be OK. As far as 39 vs 40, it's a matter of priorities. I have the 40 and recommend it for balance of dimensions (larger dial size, shorter L2L, 21mm lug width with thinner lugs), but it's all so marginal to be somewhat comical. I do agree with the 39 advocates that the Explorer text at the bottom is more balanced.

[RolexPete]

Originally Posted by CaptT

Congrats (in advance!).

I wouldn’t sweat 39 or 40 vs the Omega, but that’s just me. The considerations in my mind for the Explorer are:

- the 214270 (39) has a matte dial, and the new Explorer 224270 (40) has a glossy dial
- the movement in the 214270 (3132) is likely to perform better over the long haul relative to the new Explorer (3230 movement). See various threads about the reported 32xx issues. The 31xx movements have stood the test of time, and is highly regarded.

You mentioned a preference for the mk1, but maybe worth taking a look at the mk2 214270 as prices have come down considerably, and the slight premium over the mk1 could be worth it in light of the “enhancements” (longer hands, lumed 3/6/9).

Either way, good luck.

Excellent advice. If I wasn't so lazy, it would have been my response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigJim67]

I own 3 Omegas (41 SM300 GMT, 42 PO, 38 Aqua Terra). They wear a lot different than Rolex that I have tried on over the years. To me, the Oyster design just sits on the wrist much differently, kind of "hugs" and doesn't feel as clunky.

I tried a 41mm Aqua Terra on recently, it just sat way too high and looked too big on my 7.5 wrist.

[CaptT]

Originally Posted by RolexPete

If I wasn't so lazy, it would have been my response.

Ha, thanks, I'm going to have to remember to use this myself ("If I wasn't so lazy....."). 🤣

[fskywalker]

Had 36 and 39 MM Explorers and IMHO the proportions of the 39 MM were off. Haven’t tried the new 40 MM version, but from
What have heard has better proportions than the 39 MM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[RolexPete]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

Had 36 and 39 MM Explorers and IMHO the proportions of the 39 MM were off. Haven’t tried the new 40 MM version, but from
What have heard has better proportions than the 39 MM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

And I have read and seen quite the opposite. Dial symmetry on 40mm is off, and 40mm is shorter (lug to lug) than 39 and looks squished IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk