As per an earlier thread of mind, these two are currently in the running for a future purchase as an everyday, do everything watch that I will actually enjoy wearing rather than just buying and keeping in a box. I know that they are two quite different watches and that it comes down to personal preference and that I should really try both on before I buy, which I am planning to do, but I figured any excuse to look at some pictures of the two and talk about them is a good excuse :)
I love the white dial Exp II with the big orange hand and orange writing, looks very fresh and exciting. Definitely prefer it over the black dial version. They both give a different look from the ceramic bezel Rolexes, which I find appealing.
Haven't really wanted a GMTIIc yet, maybe one day.
This was my last purchase and it took me months to decide between this and a Sub/GMT/SD but in the end i wanted a white faced watch and this really looks the part with being 42mm and also not as common a sight.Got a great discount and i hope people continue to avoid this Rolex as i don't want everyone with one.Originally Posted by Nagraboy
Therefore i advise you to buy a GMT...
I've owned both on a few occasions and much prefer the GMTC, It's totally subjective of course but I much prefer the look of the GMTC which combines elegance with casual and is not as prone to scratches like the EXP 2 bezel.
I agree with the scratches on the exp 2 bezel comment. It's definitely more likely to pick them up, so that's something to keep in kind.
As for the look and feel, as you said, it's subjective. Personally I just love the black dialled Exp 2 (strictly the black dialled one though, the white one looks to me like it was made by Fisher Price). The GMT 2c was not quite right for me, and also wears a little smaller and blingier. I let it go and kept the explorer.
But yeah, it's all a matter of personal preferences... It's a nice dilemma to have though! ;)
Had an explorer 2. Didn't get on with it for some reason.
Still have a GMT2C but will soon be mugged off for the new SD:)
Off the two, I prefer the GMT
The gmt was too small to my eye, the explorer at 42mm wears much nicer. I also really like the orange hand against the black dial.
For me, the lack of popularity makes it more desirable for me too. Im amazed at the price they can be had for these days, possibly not the smartest investment but certainly the better looking watch in my opinion
I had both GMTc LN and Polar Exp2 42mm. Now I have only Polar. It is the most comfortable watch I have. Only watch I can wear when sleeping, if that tells something. In my opinion it looks only good with jeans and casual wear. I wouldn't wear Exp2 with business suit as I would wear GMT, which is lot more dressier.
The Exp2 case size is spot on and legibility is the best you can get. It also has the newer bigger movement 3187 with Paraflex. I think it is the only watch in Rolex line up that still has even a little bit toolwatch DNA. No TT or blingbling models, just steel like DSSD. Unfortunately it doesn't have Triplock crown like Gmt and Sub.
By the way, replacing the scratced bezel with new bezel in Exp2 is cheaper than replacing ceramic bezel in GMT or sub. The bezel really can be removed as it can in Datejusts. And it is not a scratch magnet.
Last edited by Qristian; 24th April 2014 at 19:12.
Had both at one point
Sold the GMt and kept the explorer....:)
There is no "wrong" choice.....
Subjective of course, but the black dial 42mm Exp II for me.
Wearing mine as I type and it just feels right.
The right size, lovely bracelet, and still quite subtle.
Had both, and the GMTiic for a few years - I'd have another EXPII white dial.
It's just a matter of time...
Of those to I'd take the GMTc. If Rolex would kindly put the crown and the guards off the GMTc onto the Explorer then I'd take the Explorer. Every time I see a picture of the Explorer I alway think that the crown needs to be bigger.
^^^^Funnily enough... It was the smaller crown on the explorer that swung it for me.... It made for less digging in and a more comfortable watch..
I've owned the black explorer 2 and a gmt 2. The gmt is the one for me because of the triple lock crown, size, legibility and overall look. I found the big orange hand a distraction when reading the time.
I own a GMT and a polar explorer. The explorer is a nice size but the GMT seems like a classic Rolex, wears comfortable and has excellent lume.
Easy choice for me,GMT hands down.
I chose the polar explorer 2, have it on a rubber b just now and absolutely love it!
I have the black face ExplorerII, sizewise perfect for me, but I do miss the 'Triplock' on the GMTIIc, would make the Explorer almost perfect IMO. However I just can't do 40mm in Rolex sports anymore, sad to say, but I've been 'conditioned' to prefer 42mm plus in wristwatches. So if we had Sub's & GMT's @ 42mm I'd probably be totally skint for having them all. So, my vote would have to be the Explorer in a head to head here.
Whatever you decide I'm sure you'll be very happy though.
Prefer my White Polar Explorer II
Had it about a year now and still love it!!!!!!!!!!!
I like the look and size of the explorer 2. The silver bezel just does it for me.
The ExpII wears a fair bit bigger than the additional 2mm IMO. The black matte dial is ace though, a really nice contrast to the orange hand.
The IIc is not for me with the green hand, but the BLNR is ace. All subjective.
I would be hard pushed to choose between them.
I love polar explorer but if it calls to investment I would rather go for GMT.
Love the black dial Exp II and also love the BLNR, more so than the green GMT hand version, but sadly out of my price range. Which suggests I should go Exp II :)The ExpII wears a fair bit bigger than the additional 2mm IMO. The black matte dial is ace though, a really nice contrast to the orange hand.
The IIc is not for me with the green hand, but the BLNR is ace. All subjective.
I would be hard pushed to choose between them.
I think one still has to pay some premium for blnr. Maybe Rolex will introduce a SS coke model next year? Then you could easily find blnr for reasonable price.
Is the EXP II 42mm not considered a reasonable investment in comparison to a GMTc or Subc...if I didn't want a GMTc would I be 'better off' putting my money into a SubC ND instead of a EXP II 42mm? (I already have an LV SubC).
I'm loving the black 42mm and have no intention on flipping, but don't want to lose money in long run.
I cant predict whether the trend will change but at the moment, the 42mm has been dropping in value. Prices they have sold for on ebay, prices they are available for on chrono24 and the time some of them take to sell at around the 4000 quid mark on here suggest a different watch is a better investment.
Im still glad i have a 42mm instead of nything else by rolex though as for me its a keeper and their best looking product (in my opinion).
If you can get exp2 cheap then it is a good investment.
I traded my GMTc LN to LVc.
I was thinking of trading my exp2 to subc ND at same time. But I didn't because I think I have "more watch" in exp2. And I love white dialed watches.
I think sub ND and exp2 are sold about the same price in preused markets (about 4500 euros in Finland from private sellers) even exp2 is more expensive as new.
Last edited by Qristian; 25th April 2014 at 13:48.
Doubtful as that would detract from the 18ct model. Similar to the green dial 18ct GMTIIc, blue dial sub etc.
Well Pepsi and Coke are entirely different things. I am sure that coke bezel is coming some day and hoping it would come to steel model. But probably not going to happen.
What a fantastic picture , never been much of a fan to be honest but it looks that good in this that i could be tempted into trying one !I own a GMT and a polar explorer. The explorer is a nice size but the GMT seems like a classic Rolex, wears comfortable and has excellent lume.
+1 One of the nicest i've seen.
Personally I would choose the GMT IIc. I like it much better than the Explorer II.
GMT would be my choice too
GMTIIc for me. I think the Explorer looks great in pics but when I tried one on I didn't like the bigger size, the brushed bezel and the crown looked too small.
This is one of my favourite watches:
But I know I will also get a BLNR GMT at some point...
And one more for luck...
Used to have both,
Now I only have this one,
But I will get a GMTC of some sorts again, that is for sure.
Both are 'must haves' IMO but beware that the Exp II requires more wrist to work.
So, wandered into (or rather was allowed into) the empty Rolex boutique on Bond street this afternoon, unshaven, wearing my Prairie Doggin' T-shirt and looking decidedly undesirable, while the 8 unoccupied staff members all stared at me. I'd spotted the Exp II and bi-metal GMT II C in the window and openly told the lady who assisted me that I wasn't looking to buy new but would like to try them both on to compare them and she was very polite and helpful and brought both over. Would have been better to have the stainless GMT II but was happy to try the bi-metal just for the size comparison and overall look and feel of the two. As I expected, the GMT, while very nice, looked and felt too small on the wrist for my taste and was just too shiny, but I can definitely see the appeal. And then on went the Exp II and good lord did it look and feel right. Loved everything about it, loved the size of the case, loved the matt dial, the orange highlights, the brushed bezel, the whole package. Think I've just made an expensive decision...
Last edited by Seb d; 26th April 2014 at 19:04.
It would be an explorer for me - I just can't decide between a white or black face!
Another smashing pic.GMTIIc for me. I think the Explorer looks great in pics but when I tried one on I didn't like the bigger size, the brushed bezel and the crown looked too small.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
