By now, if you’re a watch enthusiast, you’ve seen what Rolex has announced as their class of 2020. I’m not going to go into the details of exactly what we got. There are plenty of resources out there to inform you on all the models and their respective specifications. To say it broadly, Rolex offered us a collection of updated Submariners, Sky-Dwellers, Datejusts, and Oyster Perpetuals.

If you’re like me, you’ll also have noticed that they didn’t touch the Explorer I. There’s a lot of opportunity for improvement there and I was really hoping to see some positive change. If you’re interested, and you aren’t opposed to reading a bible-length article, you can read about what that dream Explorer would be for me. That they didn’t update the Explorer line kind of left me humdrum.

Almost none of what has been introduced is going to find its way into my collection. No one piece strikes a sweet spot for me. However, subtle details in the Submariner and OP models (specifically) serve as very, very interesting developments.

First, let’s reflect on the updates to the Sub – specifically the No-Date 124060. Without getting into the weeds, the changes are as follows – new case, new bracelet and new movement. Without hesitation, I welcome the new calibre 3230 movement. With any watch, I want stalwart mechanics – no doubt. However, as necessary as they are, I’m not here for movements. I don’t geek-out on the tech specs. They need to be great, but how a watch looks and feels is a much higher priority when it comes to my appetites.

So, with that said, what about that new case and bracelet? Rolex, contrary to nearly every competitor in the market, has made the choice to expand the diameter of the Sub’s case and width of its bracelet… Palm to forehead isn’t enough to express my utter disbelief for the tone deafness of this move.

First off, in Rolex’s long, long history, it’s unprecedented that a Submariner be any larger than 40mm. Secondly, watch people don’t want bigger – they want more traditional sizing. I’m speaking in generalities here, of course. However, the general consensus is all that matters when it comes to designing a watch that is going to appease as much of your buying audience as possible. The greater majority don’t want 41mm – they want 39mm. I mean, Rolex’s own crash-test dummy, Tudor, proved this concept out with the Black Bay 58. Take a hint.

However, there’s a twist to this narrative. Just stating that the case got bigger would be slightly disingenuous, and a little unfair to the untrained eye. Rolex didn’t just level-up the case – they did something to its shape. For quite some time now, I’ve derided the maxi case. Its blockiness and girth hide away the elegant transition and flow of the oyster cases that came before it. To this day, these elegant attributes (now vintaged) remain an incredible example of confidence in conceptual design – juxtaposing perceived fragility with the intended aggressive application of a tool. This combination results in timeless class – which is why the Sub was once the perfect Bond watch.

Fortunately, with this September 1st announcement, Rolex’s approach to case design is changing, or going back to its roots – you might say. Sliver by sliver, slice by slice, the tyranny of the maxi case is being shaved away and is slowly revealing the true finesse of the oyster case we all love and lust for. Like some beautiful and faintly remembered relic, it’s being freed from its archaeological record of steel. It almost makes me want to say, there you are – where have you been all this time?

While I’m very happy to see the oyster case of old being reconstituted, that alone will not be enough to get me to pull the trigger on a 41mm watch. To me, it feels a lot like one step forward and two steps back. However, this discussion, as the title suggests, isn’t about the quest to own a Sub. We’re hunting Explorers. Bear with me. This will all come to a head. With Rolex, you need to follow the breadcrumbs to interpret the puzzle that is their next potential move.

Next, let’s take a gander at what they did to the OPs. Before we do though, make sure you put your sunglasses on and don’t look directly at the dials. Eyes just weren’t meant to look at such bright things. Joking aside the colours are what they are. And, for the record, I kind of like the Silver and Turquoise Blue variants. Also, I’m a lover of faux patina so who am I to judge if someone fancies a Coral Red dial?

I’m less interested in critiquing each colour choice and more interested in the overall design choice itself. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that this is Rolex, again, giving a nod to vintage. Lacquered Stella dials were wild and wacky colourways they offered to consumers in their Day-Date and Datejust lines during the 70s and 80s. You can read more about the Stella dials’ history here.

Are these vibrant dials a little too much for my taste – yes. However, a little dulling of the vibrancy paired with that flat lacquered application, and I might be in the market. I’ve always said, the perfect OP (or Air King) would be one that mimics the colouring of Ryan Gosling’s vintage Ref. 5500. A matte champagne or eggnog dial on a 34mm OP would be to die for. But I digress – the point I’m trying to make here is that Rolex really threw an Eephus with these lacquered, colourful dial OPs. No one saw them coming and it was a considerably daring design choice by Rolex. Will they be eternally coveted models – my guess is no. However, I love that Rolex didn’t play it safe here and demonstrated they aren’t opposed to pulling from the vault.

When it comes to the new Oyster Perpetuals’ case sizes and shape, there are more items of interest to discuss. Like the Sub, they too have benefited from a slimming down of the lugs – harkening back to the true shape of the oyster case. This line of watches is supposed to sit demure on the wrist – so this is a welcome return to normalcy. However, the key development for the purpose of this discussion isn’t the case shape – it’s the size (or, more accurately, the negation of a particular size).

Prior to the announcement, within the OP line, the buyer had their choice of 28mm, 31mm, 34mm, 36mm and 39mm. Post-announcement, there’s now a 41mm variant available. However, it’s not by way of addition to the selection, but by subtraction. The 41mm size has replaced the 39mm. You can no longer purchase a 39mm OP from Rolex’s current catalogue. Let that sink in and ruminate on the ramifications (at a larger scale) of this development. Personally, I’m a 34mm or 36mm OP guy. So, when it comes to this line in particular, I won’t really be impacted. However, for many, the decision used to be between 36mm and 39mm. Having experience wearing both of these watch sizes, I can say, there is a measurable difference. Although, it’s a manageable gap to mind. But now, a buyer has to make a choice between 36mm or 41mm – that’s an enormous chasm. Frankly, I don’t know how you can bridge between the two. Those sizes are in entirely different universes of thought when it comes to watch sizing preference. For those who feel they fall in between, if they even decide to go ahead with the purchase, they’re most likely set up to feel that their new watch is either too small or too large.

Now, to the meat of the issue and why I wanted to rant about all this in the first place. What do I believe all this means with regard to the potential next evolution of the Explorer I? Well, let’s quickly summarize the above facts:

More robust movements are being phased in, no matter what line the updated watch falls within.
Slowly but surely, Rolex is phasing out the maxi case and bringing back the timeless curves of the oyster case.
They’re moving away from 40mm cases, with the Sub moving to 41mm.
In a similar fashion, they’re doing away with 39mm cases, with the 39mm OPs being discontinued, jumping up to a 41mm variant.
Some of the subtle details of this release have out-and-out proven that Rolex can move backward, instead of forward.

The Explorer I will be updated. It’s just a matter of time. Will it be next year? If next year, when will Rolex’s releases occur? Or, will we have to test our patience once more, and wait a whole other cycle after that? Who knows? But, one day, it will happen. The question that sits heavy on my mind at the moment is – what changes can we reasonably expect to be made to the Explorer I, given the updates we’ve just witnessed?

Well, I’d be willing to bet the farm the next generation of Explorer I will be sans maxi case – bringing back the slimmer lug design. I’d also be willing to bet your bippy the revised Explorer will have an updated and more robust movement. These things, I’m willing to say, are basically a given. However, the next potential development I’m about to mention will either bring people to their knees in praise, or to tears in agony.

As I’ve said above and as Rolex is currently making clear – they are getting out of the business of 39mm and 40mm cases. As we all know, the current Explorer I is, of course, housed in a 39mm case. I see no reason why they’d keep one and only one watch at this size. From a production perspective, it makes no sense to do so. Furthermore, I see no reason why they would resize it to 37mm or 38mm, because they’d run into the same production issue – a solitary watch being manufactured at that size.

So, that leaves one of two logical options – for the Explorer to return to its roots and be re-cased in a 36mm size, or to forge into uncharted (and for many, unwanted) territory and grow to a whopping 41mm. One outcome is euphoria and the other is total dismay. Alternatively, they could offer the Explorer I in both 36mm and 41mm. However, in the past, Rolex has treated the Explorer as The Explorer – the one and only. I’d be surprised if they offered sizing options, but prior to this recent release I also would have bet that pigs would fly before Rolex announced a bright lemon dial OP – so, crazier things have happened.

It’s true, I’m underwhelmed by Rolex’s newest releases. However, the subtle hints in design these new models offer excites me quite a bit and renews my patience in waiting for the Explorer I’s return to glory. More than ever before, I’m emboldened to be rewarded for my long wait. As always, we’ll have to bide our time and see what awaits us in the future. No one knows but Rolex – but they’ve shown their hand quite a bit. There’s a lot to read into with these new releases.

In concluding, I think the best thing to come out of these 2020 releases is that no one can say, with any validity, ever again that Rolex doesn’t look backward, only forward. These new models stand as an objective testament to that being completely false. So, if you are someone who perpetuates this idea, how about you stop. And, as a community, whenever we hear someone utter this falsehood, hold them to account. Rolex needs all the encouragement they can get to continue on this path they’re forging and they don’t need divergent ideas influencing their direction.

Here’s to the exciting little tweaks in design of the 2020 models and to an early 2021 (January) release schedule for the next round of model updates!