The Rolex Explorer: Darwin's Theory Of Evolution?

"If Charles Darwin could have worn a watch, he would have worn a Rolex Explorer”. We sat down with Lex to discover the evolution of this model through the years and which are the main characteristics that shaped it.
Would you wear an Explorer? Which one among the references Lex introduced in the video would you like to wear? Tell us in the comments section below! :)
All about watches
www.fratellowatches.com

[@369MatteGrey]

Had the 214270 for few years and found out that it’s out of proportions. Sold it, got the 114270 and I never looked back.

[@NenadRadibratovic]

Would you mind to clarify "out of proportion "

[@therajitusa]

I own an explorer two tone 36mm. Bought from local Rolex AD for $11750+ tax. For my small wrist size, it's the best Rolex I ever bought. Gave away my Daytona Cosmograph panda (too busy) and explorer ll black dial (date window) to my son. I'm 69 years old and this is the last watch that I will always wear.

[@ravipro]

I agree and like the TT for medium size 6.5 wrist

[@analoguestills]

Have eyed the Explorer for years! And when the opportunity came between the new 124270 and the older 114270, I went with the older 114270 because I think the proportions are perfect. The dial on the newer one feels a little too bold and 'cluttered'. The 114270 felt like a perfect in between vintage proportions with a relatively modern 3130 movement. Although I love the new clasp and movement update on the newer 124270, I think the older bracelet gave a better wrist presence at 20mm tapering down to 16mm rather than 19mm to 15mm. Although the difference is very small, the overall package feels just right on the 114270. Been in the honeymoon phase ever since.

[@davidhunternyc1]

Also, the numbers on 214270 are so large, Sesame Street wants them back.

[@analoguestills]

@@davidhunternyc1 Hahaha. Agreed. Looks even more crazy on the new Explorer 40mm....

[@thachnguyen5836]

I own both of them at the same time and the new 124270 gets all the wrist time. Imo, Rolex perfects the explorer with the new version. Still keep the 114270 though

[@vantage789]

To me the bracelet on the older one in this video seems disproportionate to the case because it’s so wide. With the new one they really nailed the proportions imo.

[@matthewhelm3035]

Great video! Always thinking outside the box with your reviews!

[@rodsalvador3608]

Currently own a 14270, lusting after the 124273 two tone. Absolutely boss piece, hope to acquire one soon. I love that most collectors hate it.

[@balazsgyorgy1]

Thx Lex, this is one of the best, if not the best videos in this topic I ever seen. 👏

[@ronch550]

If I were Darwin I would've worn a G-Shock.

[@jamesvickers3669]

Picked up my 40mm Explorer this weekend after a six month wait, ready for my wedding in two weeks! Beautiful watch that I plan to daily

[@shrinikketh]

Love Lex's videos (including this), just wanted to point out that the 2 tone Explorer continues to live

[@hunterthompson8450]

Great video for my favorite watch! thanks!!!

[@andrewjames9963]

Had a 114270 and sold it and regretted it. Thankfully had the call from the ad the other day and got a new 36mm explorer

[@yavornikolov6965]

How do you find the newer comparing to the last version ? :)

[@RocketDog73]

A Rolex Explorer 40mm with a meteorite dial would be a nice evolution of the watch for me.

[@jameshoward9700]

Nice one! Current 124270 for me; the improved power reserve and bracelet give it the result by a whisker and an Explorer has to be 36mm. Love it - such a versatile, hard working watch. Never ruffled, always elegant. Understated. One of very few watches that can do a day's work in the field and then wear with a suit. A modern Reverso. The gentleman's tool watch! TBH, a 41mm titanium would no doubt be good, but kinda misses the point.

[@putraariyavira]

Your comment is actually my current two watch collection! The 114270 and the Classic Large Reverso. Agree with your comment, IMHO Rolex might as well make a 36mm titanium for a weightless (but with quality) feel.

[@007Chancellor]

The modern (throwback) Explorer is my grail watch. It is the real deal 007 watch - as Ian Fleming wore a 36mm Explorer while writing the Bond books - and described Bond as wearing a "Rolex Oyster Perpetual." One has to imagine that he glanced at his own wrist while writing and gave his famed secret agent his own watch to wear.

[@gazz501]

I have a 2010 114270 and a 2023 124270. Bought the latter thinking it has to be better, an "evolutionary advance" model in the series. Well for me I much prefer the 114270. It's lighter and the clasp is a great low profile fit. Bracelet width is perfect at 20mm tapering to 16mm. 124270 clasp has a clumsy protrusion that annoys me, notwithstanding the ( overrated ) micro adjustment. And somehow, for a tool / field watch the bracelet seems somewhat dainty with the narrower 19mm to 14mm. I know it's only 1 millimetre to 2 millimetre difference but it's quite noticeable. Comparing the texting on the two dials I feel that the 114270 is less intrusive, more subtle and proportionate. There's enough text there already without increasing the size. The later movement is no doubt an evolutionary step up but the early watch has been bullet proof so far so the benefits are largely academic for me. What I would like to see - a 36mm ~ 38 mm Explorer in titanium with a low profile titanium bracelet and a homage honeycomb dial. And a crown evolution that eliminates the necessity to screw it against a gasket. Put me on the "list" for the first one please Mr. Rolex.

[@dedwardmalick]

The 1016 is my favorite. Then the 14270. Nice video.

[@lammargy]

The 114270 is my absolute favorite - because of the slightly larger bracelet and clasp (that by the way is also thinner than the one of the actual one) - just fits my wrist better. No doubt the latest version is far better technically and the quality of finish is miles away from older models, but I can’t help and prefer the 114270, a modern take of the 14270 …and not to forget : “old” Explorers have buckets of charm!

[@sackman1886]

The 114270 Explorer is what the 14060m is to the Submariner. Absolutely rides the razor's edge of modern tech and vintage styling.

[@fabiansuarez523]

124270, perfection all around, and 36mm is great looking size in my wrist. Lets see what " evolution" will bring to us

[@GeorgeinBrighton2007]

I've already put my name down for the new 40mm reference 224270. Previously I was in the the hunt for the 39mm 214270 but as I'm "blessed" with sizeable wrists, that 1mm extra of the newly announced reference is more than welcome. Let's see how long the wait will be, but I'm sure it will be worth it in the end.

[@joelh9093]

Thanks, Lex👍!

[@sanjivrpatel]

Very nice video. Just to add the first year (1989) of the 14270 was nicknamed “Blackout dial” as the 3, 6 & 9 were black filled rather than just white gold or white filled.

[@Milofchg]

Between my Speedy Pro and Explorer 124270.... Sometimes it's difficult to decide what to wear.

[@bjoernaltmann]

Now with the 40mm Explorer in the lineup and considering that the Explorer 36 measures 35.5mm, we have to assume that the smaller Explorer is also targeted towards women now - hence the dressy two tone. But yes, the 40mm is quite large, like the current Air-KIng. If I went exploring somewhere tomorrow, I would probably wear the 40mm Explorer for legibility reasons.

[@fabfour289]

Rolex... Where is the white dial?.. and for the 40mm version, please move the Explorer text back to the southern part of the dial right above the superlative chrono writing. Yes, just like the previous 39. Thanks for the vid, man.

[@dieterwolf9549]

I wear and prefer the 214270 39 mm case mark 2 dial explorer. (2016 evolution model)

[@billcore6295]

Well, crocodile 🐊 and platypus both kill that theory...... the Explorer is a nice watch ⌚️. Good video

[@BiologiGuy]

what do you mean?

[@nizarmurar]

Great criticism. Thank you. Viva Darwin 🎉

[@FratelloMagazine]

😂 We love to tell it this way! Thanks a lot, much appreciated ❤

[@pascalheijmerink6005]

Yes, the Rolex Explorer is on top of my list. The 40 mm for myself and the 36 mm for my wife. Thank You for this great explaining video! Pascal, the Netherlands.

[@_sr]

I don’t know. 40mm just looks weird. 36mm explorer will always be the OG gentlemen’s explorer. The classy one.. flemming’s watch. My money is on 36..

[@dellwright1407]

The 1016 wears much better in my view than later Explorer 36mm iterations.

[@douglascohen2521]

You’re spot on. The two tone will be discontinued but it’s unfortunate because it looks great in person. The titanium is the next evolution with crown guards. This will be very expensive.

[@ravipro]

Why you think TT will be discontinued?

[@douglascohen2521]

@@ravipro they don’t make a lot them and it’s an anniversary piece.

[@davidr2802]

Wrong

[@douglascohen2521]

@@davidr2802 I agree I was wrong.

[@NikonFM2n]

SMITHS was the first brand of watch on Everest.

[@davidr2802]

" In the 6610 we also see the Roman Numerals." Huh?

[@thatguy6111]

214270 is my favorite. Because it’s the one I have.

[@patrikrenmark2010]

I think the two tone will be discontinued soon, but not this year. In the future, it will eventually become a very high value collecteble. It has every ingredient for that to happen. Gold rolex, odd model, short run production (or so we guess), unpopular at the time but sought after in the future. I would get one if i could afford it (i actually think it looks great and i don't buy into the "tool watch" bs when we're talking these prices), but had the option to get the steel one (which obviously is at a lower price point also). Having both seems a bit of a waste, and now i cant afford it either way (though you could propably sell the steel one at almost the same price as you would have to give for a two tone).

[@philipwood1736]

The 1016 is the one for me. Classic design. the 14270 is also a great watch, but I have never liked the design of the numerals on the dial - great shame.

[@StruanRobertson29]

The 1st explorer reference....wow...but totally unattainable. Ive a real soft spot for any of the 36mm explorers. I really hope they dont do something silly next week like bringing out a 40mm explorer...that would be an insult to the explorer's heritage....

[@Valera_Scotland]

Ha ha well well well

[@StruanRobertson29]

@@Valera_Scotland yes...they have proven themselves to be a joke

[@ninjesus4079]

curious to see the new explorer they come up with, titanium? 40mm?

[@FratelloMagazine]

Guessing.. We will discover next week together! Stay tuned on Fratello, our team will be at Watches & Wonders for all new releases! 🫶

[@phmwu7368]

To be true to history, should be a cream dial Explorer to celebrate " 70 years Mt Everest - Chomolunga " 1953-2023 !

[@putraariyavira]

@@FratelloMagazine in a true Rolex style, they might introduce the 40mm as the Explorer 41...

[@mitchmitchell9588]

The sea iguana analogy is a bit off because Rolex made many two-tone tool watches in the early to mid 20th century. For example, the original Deep Sea Explorer was two-tone. There are plenty of others. So perhaps the better way to characterize the Rolessor is a recessive gene whose traits reappear after several generations. Also, there is some prediction that the Explorer may go full gold. If that's the case (pardon the pun), then perhaps we need to consider whether the environment is changing and new traits will ensure not just survival but expansion of the species. We have to wait until Monday to find out.

[@WrongTimeWatch]

I have been really tempted to buy a 114270, as the prices seem to be coming down. However, I might just have to try for the new 40 mm explorer from my AD.

[@jamesworthy1846]

36mm is just too tiny on most wrists above 6.5 inches. It's like a cute little button on your wrist.

[@MadMax76er]

Hillary wore a Smiths didn't he?

[@Sandbag1300]

Darwin would have done what all older Rolex wearers do. He would have switched to the Glashutte Original SeaQ in 39.5mm in dark blue so he could easily read the time with the much wider lumed watch hands. Given that he is out and about moving around a lot, he would not have to ever wind the watch so the 40 hour power reserve is a non-issue. He would write in his journal that Rolex, in designing the readability of their watch hands, forgot to consider the changing eye sight of their aging good customers.

[@invalidonlineid]

Huh? My 124270 glows wonderfully all night (61 years old BTW). SeaQ is nice though, especially the blue.

[@thegraciefighter102]

I like how everyone is now rapidly updating their predictions to include a titanium explorer ! Btw is that how you pronounce superlative ? I’m never 100% sure

[@Chrissepisje]

Sir Edmund Hillary reputedly wore a Smiths watch, which is currently on display in a museum in the UK. I'm happy you guys don't play lip service to that marketing schtick.Interesting question though, what would Darwin wear? Sir Charles Darwin was, by reputation, a man who played no favourites. He documented the evolution of birds, bugs and botanicals in equal measure. I doubt very much the Explorer would have been his default choice, because there are many, many watch models that have evolved over time in much the same way. Quite honestly, I think the man would have stuck to pocket watches, because he needed his hands in his laboratory. Sequestered in his country home as he was throughout the entire 1860's, he possibly would have been more for a 1908, if any Rolex had come to mind.

[@ShambaBasher]

He would have worn a Milgauss surely?

[@whereRbearsTeeth]

Only if he had really bad taste

[@papricep6248]

The 1601 and 5513 had longer runs than the 1016 no?

[@krystianstepien5835]

This watch is so simple that is not on my list.

[@davidhunternyc1]

... but if Einstein wore a watch it would be the Citizen 0100. "Revolution." Remember that word.

[@thegorn]

Charles Darwin predicted that so many young people would kill themselves taking selfies off balconies and lookouts and not reproduce. For that reason, he would wear a watch worthy of his stature as a based Chad - a pimped out Invicta Gladiator Reserve with a green dial, to pay homage to green Iguanas and big stonkin' turtles.

[@RJH5202]

The irony is that watchmaking and the watchmaker have been used historically to argue for intelligent design which is the opposite of Darwinism.

[@denbo74]

The Explorer 1&2 are the only real old school Rolex watches still made. They should never bling them out. Stainless steel only

[@jamesworthy1846]

0:01 WRONG! He would have worn a Hamilton Khaki field. Let me tell you why: because he had Hamilton money, not Rolex money.

[@ShambaBasher]

Actually Darwin was wealthy for his generation being married to a descendant of Wedgwood

[@mad1701]

Darwin actually did wear watches! His watches were just pocket watches and not wrist watches.

[@papricep6248]

It's like a Jr Submariner.

[@davidr2802]

Every statement he said regarding the Explorer and evolution could apply to most any other Rolex model. While many folks think that is boring, the continued popularity of Rolex says boring remains desirable.

[@logical333]

A tool watch but no crown gaurd, why? Pls, Rolex 40mm is too big, back to 39mm (38.5).

[@andyyoung6073]

Good vid thanks. So this is the opposite of evolution my friend, the modern day Explorer is the result of design not random chance . David Attenborough, the modern priest, for evolution wore an explorer. I would encourage you to read around evolution a bit more. It’s the most ridiculous theory, which is easy to believe if you don’t actually really think about it too hard…

[@pigmentretors]

Darwin wrote a lot of stupidities. He would have worn a fake. As his theory is. The explorer is an intelligent design ;)

[@davidr2802]

You are correct in that the Everest story behind the Explorer is as much a myth as intelligent design

[@pigmentretors]

@@davidr2802 Read the bible.

[@RocketDog73]

Darwin also married his first cousin - also another stupidity… His son did not learn much from his mistakes either 🙄 🪕

[@steve8510]

Technically Darwin would have evolved to wearing a smartwatch by now... but let's not go there. 😬

[@ektrolleyboy]

“If Charles Darwin could have worn a watch”. Erm... What? Did he not have any arms or something?! 🤔🙄

[@dellwright1407]

Charles Darwin died in 1882... before wristwatches became popular (during WW1, over 30 years later). In all likelihood a gentleman like Darwin would have had a pocket watch. The HMS Beagle had Chronometer no.506... a chunky piece of kit.

[@seanlin1202]

Nah he woulda worn a gshock

[@jt209539]

These videos always make me sad. Signed "39MM MK1 Owner" I call it my Trump watch. (Y'all work out if that's a good thing or not). Time will tell *pause for laughter*

[@MBCGRS]

Unfortunately Darwin's statement of the survival of the 'fittest' doest make logical sence. Who are the fittest? Well they are defined as the one's who have survived. So ineffect his statement says " survival of those that have survived " Not a logical statement. We all know what he meant. He just didn't say it very well. And yes I wear an Explorer 224270 the current evolution.

[@kaczynski2333]

Except, jewely (i.e. watches) is an aesthetic decision. Your video is bad, and you shpuld feel bad.