Rolex Explorer II (42mm) or Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean (42mm)

[whodareswins]

Right story so far......I went to compare the Explorer 39mm and Explorer II 42mm, today. Although, the bigger size is a slight issue, I much prefer the explorer 42mm (black face). However, as I'm watching Skyfall....I'm liking the Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean (42mm), which I've never previously considered.

So any comparison pics, ownership experiences, comments etc. on these two watches would be appreciated.

[RossC]

As many times as I've tried the 42mm Explorer on the wrist, I find it huge in comparison to the SubC which is a perfect size on my 7.5inch wrist. And that is coming from someone who's used to large watches, 45mm Seawolf's, etc. It sits very flat and with the stainless bezel it probably appears larger in diameter than the size suggests.

The 8500 PO is a proper fatty, and sits really high, almost 20mm in thickness. As lovely a watch that it is, I much prefer the slimmer form factor of the older model, but would miss the excellent in-house movement.

Neither would be my choice, I'd sooner go for a 114060/116610 Sub or 116710 GMT, but of the two you've suggested, the Explorer wins it for me.

[MFB Scotland]

As many times as I've tried the 42mm Explorer on the wrist, I find it huge in comparison to the SubC which is a perfect size on my 7.5inch wrist. And that is coming from someone who's used to large watches, 45mm Seawolf's, etc. It sits very flat and with the stainless bezel it probably appears larger in diameter than the size suggests.

The 8500 PO is a proper fatty, and sits really high, almost 20mm in thickness. As lovely a watch that it is, I much prefer the slimmer form factor of the older model, but would miss the excellent in-house movement.

Neither would be my choice, I'd sooner go for a 114060/116610 Sub or 116710 GMT, but of the two you've suggested, the Explorer wins it for me.

Ross has provided the perfect response to your post. I "had" to sell my black Exp II due to the size on my 6.75" wrist. The quality of the Exp II is amazing compared to the previous generation. I now have a SubC which is perfect in terms of size. Omega has dropped the ball on the 8500 PO due to the height. I would love a PO in the future but unless the height is reduced it will not happen.

[whodareswins]

Thanks guys some great observations. I had no idea on the depth of the PO.

[catflap]

Have to agree about the current 8500 PO it's just too thick for me. However the previous 2500 version is a great watch.

I've gone through a period of consolidation (following probably owning about 50 different watches of the last couple of years) and here's two of the probably four watches I'm going to keep (sorry about the quick and dirty pic - just taken for this thread):-



The Exp II wears and looks a little bigger on the wrist than the 42mm PO (despite the photo above) but sits flatter and is really comfortable. 42mm I've decided is just about the perfect size for me.

Couple of wrist shots on my 7.5" wrist

[whodareswins]

Great Pics and thank you.....out of curiosity what are your other two watches.

[Omegamanic]

I'd buy the 42mm Explorer - one of the best case shapes and sizes of any watch I've owned, and I miss mine.

I also like the old 42mm PO, especially with the Orange bezel :)

[MuRph77]

Mk1 liquid metal PO LE.....if you can find one ;-)

[RAJEN]

Explorer for me too in white.
I do love the 8500! POs. For my taste the extra height is a plus.
As said a SS LM LE would be a great choice though somewhat hard to find.

[catflap]

Great Pics and thank you.....out of curiosity what are your other two watches.

One is my old and a bit bashed 2531 Bond Seamaster - just about the most comfortable watch I think I've ever owned.

The other one I don't know yet but will attempt to work that out in the new year - will probably need me going through another 50 watches to find it of course! :) I'd really like a "hulk" LV SubC but can't really afford that anytime soon and keep the others, I also want to try a Grand Seiko, probably the SBGE001 but that is probably going to be too similar to the Exp II for me to keep, maybe an IWC? Whatever it is it'll be fun finding it I'm sure.

[AshUK]

An interesting dilemma over two great watches. Unfortunately in this case, I'd have to say the Explorer wins for me.
I've got the previous version (2500) 45.5mm PO in orange, as well as a 42mm polar Explorer II. I did look at the 8500 PO when they were launched, however as many have said before me, the thickness was too much for me. I also adore the look of the GMT PO, however that is even more absurd.
The Explorer II has a very distinctive face, the Orange hand really makes it pop for me. On the bracelet it is very comfy, and despite being 42mm, I don't think looks stupid unless you have really small wrists. The fact it is quite thin helps the fact. I've recently tried it on a NATO and am quite enjoying it - it gets a totally different look to it.
Good luck with whatever you go for, they're both great watches.

[whodareswins]

An interesting dilemma over two great watches. Unfortunately in this case, I'd have to say the Explorer wins for me.
I've got the previous version (2500) 45.5mm PO in orange, as well as a 42mm polar Explorer II. I did look at the 8500 PO when they were launched, however as many have said before me, the thickness was too much for me. I also adore the look of the GMT PO, however that is even more absurd.
The Explorer II has a very distinctive face, the Orange hand really makes it pop for me. On the bracelet it is very comfy, and despite being 42mm, I don't think looks stupid unless you have really small wrists. The fact it is quite thin helps the fact. I've recently tried it on a NATO and am quite enjoying it - it gets a totally different look to it.
Good luck with whatever you go for, they're both great watches.

Any pics with the NATO

[hilly10]

The PO allday long for me, mind you the Explorer II is my most hated rolex watch. Love the 39mm Explorer 1 though

[eagletower]

Have had the 42mm PO , great watch, really comfortable and great size. I haven't owned a 42mm explorer , but would love to own one. I think it looks great and is a great revamp of the old model . A member here has one which I'm hoping Fingers crossed he sells it to me.

Both great watches.

[Andyp1973]

I've never owned a PO, not yet anyway. I've had a 42mm Explorer for about 6 months and I absolutely love it.

[whodareswins]

I've never owned a PO, not yet anyway. I've had a 42mm Explorer for about 6 months and I absolutely love it.

Andy,

Nice pic. Any pro's / cons.....and will it be a keeper.

[Olives]

Having had a few planet oceans - I would take the exp II any day - whilst I am yet to own one - I really want to try one

[Andyp1973]

Andy,

Nice pic. Any pro's / cons.....and will it be a keeper.

Pro's

42mm
Case shape and size
The lugs
Half link adjustment in the clasp.
The way the grain in metal reflects light on the bezel. (Something you can only really see when you handle one)
Very easy to read.
Second time zone.
Ar coating on the date magnifier.
Hints to the original
I also love the raised crystal

And the big one is it flys under radar against other rolex models.

And the Cons

I wish it had a bigger crown.

I did say I loved it.

Is it a keeper? At the moment.... Yes. I'am lucky enough to own a sub LV as well. Since I bought the explorer I've hardly worn the sub. There's odviously a big difference between the two watches but the biggest is in the quality of the finish.

I do like and appreciate the PO 8500 and I wouldn't turn one down at the right price. They are a lovely watch. A friend is currently considering trading a couple of Oris's for one and I've encouraged him to do so.

For me though, at the right price I'll take the Explorer11.

I've waffled enough. Enjoy the decision process. A couple of pictures. Hope they help.

[whodareswins]

Two very handsome watches. When you say difference in quality, I take you mean the EXP II is better than the LV.

[MrSimba]

Well I've had a POC 9300 & it was a very nice watch, very thick & you certainly knew it was on your wrist! but also have an Explorer II which is by far my favourite watch, EVERYTHING about it is perfect! :)

So the Explorer II for me all day, everyday, and twice on xmas day!!!

[Andyp1973]

Two very handsome watches. When you say difference in quality, I take you mean the EXP II is better than the LV.

Sorry. Yes by quite a bit. It's not just the Explorer though. The current range is a step up imo.

[Andyp1973]

Well I've had a POC 9300 & it was a very nice watch, very thick & you certainly knew it was on your wrist! but also have an Explorer II which is by far my favourite watch, EVERYTHING about it is perfect! :)

So the Explorer II for me all day, everyday, and twice on xmas day!!!

Very nice.

[Erwind]

The Exp II is a lovely watch, but kind of beigh compared to some of the PO's.

I was in your shoes some time ago... ended up with the PO Liquidmetal, no regrets.

[Neely8]

Pro's

42mm
Case shape and size
The lugs
Half link adjustment in the clasp.
The way the grain in metal reflects light on the bezel. (Something you can only really see when you handle one)
Very easy to read.
Second time zone.
Ar coating on the date magnifier.
Hints to the original
I also love the raised crystal

And the big one is it flys under radar against other rolex models.

And the Cons

I wish it had a bigger crown.

I did say I loved it.

Is it a keeper? At the moment.... Yes. I'am lucky enough to own a sub LV as well. Since I bought the explorer I've hardly worn the sub. There's odviously a big difference between the two watches but the biggest is in the quality of the finish.

I do like and appreciate the PO 8500 and I wouldn't turn one down at the right price. They are a lovely watch. A friend is currently considering trading a couple of Oris's for one and I've encouraged him to do so.

For me though, at the right price I'll take the Explorer11.

I've waffled enough. Enjoy the decision process. A couple of pictures. Hope they help.

These are exactly my thoughts as well, right down to wishing the crown was a tad bigger. My Polar ExpII is my joint-favourite watch, along with my AP Diver. I just absolutely love it.

[AshUK]

Any pics with the NATO

Here you go..

[OldHooky]

An impossible decision!

I couldn't decide so instead went for a 14270. If that doesn't prove to be a keeper I will be in the same boat as the OP. Marvelous dilemma to face though!

[JP Chestnut]

The 8500 PO is a proper fatty, and sits really high, almost 20mm in thickness. As lovely a watch that it is, I much prefer the slimmer form factor of the older model, but would miss the excellent in-house movement.

Fatty is the perfect way to describe the PO 8500. Not only is it thick, but the cushion style case, chunky bezel, and massive end links add up to create a visual heft. Compared to the Explorer 2, it's a smaller fatter watch. I don't know the lug to lug measurements, but I have no doubt that the Explorer 2 is longer. I'd probably take the PO given the choice between these two though.

[tz-uk73]

I'm really enjoying mine too, in fact it's getting worn more than anything else right now. Just bought a new isofrane and it wears very nicely on that too and receiving unsolicited compliments too!

[Omegamanic]

I have a few large expenses, but if I can manage a whole sake watch reshuffle I'll be buying a replacement for my previous white dial 42mm version and a SDc. Fingers crossed life is kind.

[Embles]

I've had the PO8500 for a few months now and love it - I have the plain black dial version on a bracelet. I understand what people say about it sitting a little tall on the wrist but it really doesn't bother me and I soon got used to it. The Explorer is a great looking watch but I (currently) prefer the PO.

[DB9yeti]

You know how sometimes you wonder why you didn't do something before? I'm having that now with the PO 42mm, collected yesterday (in a very bizarre but fun trade in the middle of a foggy Exmoor in the pitch black).

I previously had a 9300 Chrono and whined about the sheer size of it (and then sold it) although I was stunned by the quality after owning many other Sea and Speedmasters. This 42mm sits perfectly on my wrist - it's by no means slim or light, but it's a chunky steel diver with display back and I think sits very well on my skinny 6.75" wrist. Movement is lovely, bracelet is lovely (though as many will say, why no microadjust - a huge oversight) and it's right up there with modern Rolex now.

I am extremely pleased with it. As to the Exp II; it wears too large for me so no comments.

[Nev]

For me the PO is too thick, in the short space of time to try one i knew i couldn't live with it.

In June i changed my wifes watch and while at the AD i saw a reasonably priced 42mm Explorer II white dial. I went back with the intention of trading my 16570 Polar to the 42mm. I couldn't, the dial just reminded me of a clown watch, fat hands, in your face orange gmt hand and what seemed like a lot of "empty space" on the dial not helped by wearing large on my not very svelte wrists! I wanted to love it but couldn't. Ended up getting a 16610LV instead.

So basically i'm no help as i wouldn't have either!!