Explorer, Explorer II or a Seamaster 300

[Alan C]

I'm sure it's been asked many times before, but I just can't decide between these three. I think I'm leaning towards the Explorer II, but after having and selling 2 seamasters I still want another!

It's going to be a replacement for my Tudor which I'm not weating as is just too shiny for me.

Any thoughts?

Sent from my [device_name] using TZ-UK mobile app

[NigeG]

I think that it depends on which version of each you are considering, given there are several of each. So; new or used?

Personally I prefer the 36mm version of the Explorer and the 40mm Explorer 2. The recent bigger versions are just too dammed big in my opinion. On the SM300 front, assuming your talking about the vintage inspired and not the Professional, I didn’t like the straight lugs.

Of the three, I have a leaning towards Explorer 1. Looks classy in all walks of life, dressed up or down. Doesn’t shout “look at me”, simplistic and functional.

[Dandandanman]

Explore 1 classes

[Dave+63]

If you don’t like shiny then you can rule out the explorer as the bezel is very prominent and shiny; the explorer II is certainly a better option in that respect.

[RajLondon]

Explorer I all day long!

[Alan C]

I think that it depends on which version of each you are considering, given there are several of each. So; new or used?

Personally I prefer the 36mm version of the Explorer and the 40mm Explorer 2. The recent bigger versions are just too dammed big in my opinion. On the SM300 front, assuming your talking about the vintage inspired and not the Professional, I didn’t like the straight lugs.

Of the three, I have a leaning towards Explorer 1. Looks classy in all walks of life, dressed up or down. Doesn’t shout “look at me”, simplistic and functional.

It would be a preowned explorer II as I've tried one of the new ones and they are too big for my wrist. The 40mm version fits me much better.

The seamaster would be a blue or black professional, which I'm sure would be much cheaper than the Explorers.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[helidoc]

I think favourite watch is often a variable thing in WIS-land, but the 40mm Explorer II remains mine. If I had to chose only one, the Sub-Date and Speedy would both go before I would part with this.



In Rolex terms it is quite subtle, and I really appreciate that.

Dave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alan C]

If you don’t like shiny then you can rule out the explorer as the bezel is very prominent and shiny; the explorer II is certainly a better option in that respect.

I was thinking that the Explorer wouldn't be as shiny as the Tudor because of the brushed case. But if the bezel is very prominent and shiny then that may be out.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[johant]

Very different watches (and I am not knowledgeable on Rolex), of which I would definitely select the Seamaster. The Rolex may hold its value better, but I find the Seamaster a more attractive watch.

[Alan C]

I think favourite watch is often a variable thing in WIS-land, but the 40mm Explorer II remains mine. If I had to chose only one, the Sub-Date and Speedy would both go before I would part with this.



In Rolex terms it is quite subtle, and I really appreciate that.

Dave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that I like very much.

The next question would be a black dial or a white!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[TimeThoughts]

As can be seen in Avatar; I'm going to say Polar Exp II; a very useful watch. I travel to the states a few times every year and I genuinely use the GMT complication. Also date is very useful to me.

Good value on the 40mm ones also.

My second choice would be Exp; 14270 or 114270; a classic.

Both of the above should hold value.

[Alan C]

As can be seen in Avatar; I'm going to say Polar Exp II; a very useful watch. I travel to the states a few times every year and I genuinely use the GMT complication. Also date is very useful to me.

Good value on the 40mm ones also.

My second choice would be Exp; 14270 or 114270; a classic.

Both of the above should hold value.

Thanks.

I'm off to Manchester today, so I'm going to have a look around to see what's available.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[-Ally-]

An older white dial Exp II gets my vote. I really should wear mine more.

[deepreddave]

Explorer version depends very much on whether 36mm or 39mm suits you better plus the subtle differences in each. I've 6.75" wrists so the classic 36mm fits fine and think of it as spot on in terms of shininess and I'm no fan of shiny at all. It's a 'one watch' candidate so needs a little bit of dressiness.
My only other observation would be that if you don't have other 35-38mm watches in your collection then 36mm can feel small if following 42mm+ but after a short while you get used to it and realise how 'spot on' 36mm looks.

That said my watchco SM300 is just lovely and Tony's recent shot of it on leather was surprisingly well received!

[Jardine32]

The 39mm Explorer would be my choice. It is understated and classy, without screaming Rolex look at me. I wear mine with everything from suits at work to jeans and t shirts, it simply works and with current pricing it is the pick of the range.
J

[KingKitega]

214270 2016 version here.. Under the radar, excellent legibility, super comfortable. The perfect one watch solution!

[stix]

214270 2016 version here.. Under the radar, excellent legibility, super comfortable. The perfect one watch solution!

Very, very nice mate.

[11erv]

The 16570 is one of my favourite references & represents very good value in today’s market...so much so that I ended up with both black and white. I tend to wear then black more. Condition is everything and it’s not easy to find one with a full quota of metal on the lugs. It always feels to me that the 16570 is a lot of watch for the money, but I’m usually left feeling the opposite with the modern iterations of the Explorer I.

[Stuno1]

New Explorer 2 or a tudor pelagos. If you are looking for a more discreet watch the pelagos is all brushed and being titanium is not as shiny as steel either. The expat 2 polar is lovely though. As stated above the Explorer 1 is more stress than sports and the bezel makes our more blingy. That's the reason I we my pelagos more than my aqua terra.

[mjc1216]

Get down to the gym and give your wrist a work out and then you can have one of these for tough northern types...

[marcus.furius]

My money is on the 40mm Explorer II

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[ac11111]

42mm polar explorer. Nothing else like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[11erv]

42mm polar explorer. Nothing else like it.

That’s certainly true.

[Dave+63]

.

Funny how the black dial looks larger in this picture!

[raptor]

White dial explorer for me

[verv]

Polar explorer ll for me too.

I tried a sm300 out of curiosity once and was massively overwhelmed to the point of dislike which was a shame as images of it were what had me interested in the first place. Too shiny, flimsy, and the bezel action felt cheap.

[gbn13]

On balance I would go for a 114270, as I find myself wearing it in a wider range of situations than the 16570. I certainly don't find that having a shiny bezel makes it stand out.

However the 16570 is also one of my favourite watches.

[Sweepinghand]

I think favourite watch is often a variable thing in WIS-land, but the 40mm Explorer II remains mine. If I had to chose only one, the Sub-Date and Speedy would both go before I would part with this.



In Rolex terms it is quite subtle, and I really appreciate that.

Dave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the one to go for IMO it’s just lovely
Sporty yet classy too

[JP Chestnut]

Polar explorer ll for me too.

I tried a sm300 out of curiosity once and was massively overwhelmed to the point of dislike which was a shame as images of it were what had me interested in the first place. Too shiny, flimsy, and the bezel action felt cheap.

I've never been more disappointed in a watch than I was with the 300m. It photographs nicely but the proportions are all wrong in person. ALL wrong.

[topcat666]

The short answer:buy the one you like.
Trying to be more helpful,does the purchase and sale of two Seamasters indicate that the purchase of a third will just lead to another sale or has something changed for the OP in his perception of that watch?
If not,then it looks like Rolex - at least a sale if later found unsuitable might not be so expensive?
I have slim wrists so would always like the old 36mm Explorer I.
Of the two suggested by the OP,I prefer the Explorer I,even new style,as I find the bezel on the Explorer II a bit distracting but each to their own.
Seem to recall some threads where even discounts on Explorer II's have been mentioned..or was I just dreaming?

[Routers]

Explorer 1 all day imo.
The bezel on the Explorer 2 seems to pick up marks so easily and these are not trivial to remove.
Seamaster in third place.
All imho of course.

[JP Chestnut]

Explorer 1 all day imo.
The bezel on the Explorer 2 seems to pick up marks so easily and these are not trivial to remove.
Seamaster in third place.
All imho of course.

The explorer 2 bezel is replaceable. You wouldn't want to do it on a vintage version, but the service part is identical for the last two generations.

The bezel isn't expensive either.

[Foxyadam]

214270 2016 version here.. Under the radar, excellent legibility, super comfortable. The perfect one watch solution!

Exactly same as mine and would be my choice all day long. Great one only watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dave+63]

Exactly same as mine and would be my choice all day long. Great one only watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I tried one on at an AD and I’m not inclined to disagree.

[UsefulG]

Horses for courses, I would have the explorer for a more dress look and the explorer II for a tool watch. No place for the Seamaster I’m afraid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[charlies]

16570 is the one out of those 3 . And it’s probably the only Rolex steel sports model that’s still good value for money . Can pick these up for around 3.5-4.0k so versatile , sporty , casual , smart .
Black face is my favourite as the dial contrasts the hour markers and hands better


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[gerard]

One of these.......SM300

[kickstart]

I think favourite watch is often a variable thing in WIS-land, but the 40mm Explorer II remains mine. If I had to chose only one, the Sub-Date and Speedy would both go before I would part with this.



In Rolex terms it is quite subtle, and I really appreciate that.

Dave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

100% agree absolutely lovely

[J J Carter]

The SMP 300 is much more noticeable on the wrist than the Explorer II 16570, not least as it's 170g vs 130g so they wear very differently. The diver extension makes the bracelet much heftier, by comparison you forget you have the Rolex on. Also the SMP300 has the polished connecting links and the scallops on the bezel which catch the light. Of course, the SMP300 is associated with 007, which may or may not be a good thing.

I wear my Explorer II a lot more than the SMP300 in the office, the diver seems a bit 'shouty' unless it's dress-down Friday. Give or take, I'd expect the SMP300 to about half the price of the Rolex, assuming B&P and good condition.

[Alan C]

Well, it looks like its going to be an Explorer II then.

Thanks for all the comparison shots. They've been really handy. It's surprising how the back dial one looks bigger than the white.

However, I think the white is going to be my first choice as I haven't got any white faced watches atm.

Now to find one at a decent price!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Belligero]

Well, it looks like its going to be an Explorer II then.

You have chosen...




...wisely.

[TomRea]

42mm polar explorer. Nothing else like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s some watch !!!!


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[nitsy]

Good pick, the 16570.

Unless of course you'd rather end up with a Sub...

[Strchr03]

I tried a 42mm polar explorer yesterday and it just looked like a dinner plate on my wrist, and I regularly wear my 43mm Zenith cp2... now I need to try the 40mm...


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[ColDaspin]

I've owned both the 5 digit Exp II (Polar) and the 36mm Exp.

I have a 6.75 inch wrist and these were the two best wearing as well as favourites among the Rolexes I've owned. They are extremely comfortable and amongst the most low key of all Rolex models (a big plus in my book). You can't go wrong with either. If you choose the Exp II then I would recommend the Polar as this is arguably the more iconic version and gives you the relatively rare (in Rolex terms) white dial, better legibility and is great for all seasons, especially summer.

Of the two, however, I would recommend the Exp (36mm - imo something was lost in the upsizing to 39mm). If I could only have one Rolex (price no issue), then it would be the 36mm Exp. Personally, taking certain design elements in isolation, I feel the proportions/dimensions are wrong but some clever alchemy occurs and the whole is much more than the sum of the parts. The size is small for the followers of current fashion but, imo, and certainly for smaller wrists, 36-40mm is the sweet spot. My only criticism would be that the legibility is not great.

[Strchr03]

Explorer 1 with polar dial. Tried the Explorer 11 recently but the whole design looks bloated and cumbersome to my eyes. 2nd would be the modern ceramic Seamaster in blue.

Sent from my [device_name] using TZ-UK mobile app

The explorer 1 only comes with a black dial. I think you just mean the 40mm explorer ii. 15670


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Belligero]

I tried a 42mm polar explorer yesterday and it just looked like a dinner plate on my wrist, and I regularly wear my 43mm Zenith cp2... now I need to try the 40mm...

Indeed, it's a big watch; in fact, its larger dial can make it seem more substantial than the Deepsea when viewed head-on:




Personally, I love mine and appreciate have some sizing options in sports Rolex, but it's certainly not for every wrist.



Incidentally, I find that the white dial works better on the 42 mm, while the black option is the one to have in 40 mm. They're both good, though. :)

[ac11111]

Indeed, it's a big watch; in fact, its larger dial can make it seem more substantial than the Deepsea when viewed head-on:




Personally, I love mine and appreciate have some sizing options in sports Rolex, but it's certainly not for every wrist.



Incidentally, I find that the white dial works better on the 42 mm, while the black option is the one to have in 40 mm. They're both good, though. :)

Sometimes you want to be stealthy sometimes bold, the 42mm is for the latter without crossing the line and looking flash. Not a one watch watch but it has its place as part of a collection

[Belligero]

Sometimes you want to be stealthy sometimes bold, the 42mm is for the latter without crossing the line and looking flash. Not a one watch watch but it has its place as part of a collection

Exactly. Though the 216570 is a favourite when it’s in its element, I can appreciate my 36 mm Datejust just as much.

[Alan C]

So......I was looking for and explorer II yesterday, and somehow managed to buy another seamaster!!!!

Not sure quite how it happened, but I suppose that if I'm not keen on it I can always move it on.

Hopefully it will be here in a few days and I can post some pics up.

Sent from my [device_name] using TZ-UK mobile app