Reply With QuoteThe Explorer I in white is definitely one of my top 5 Rolex watches and fantastic value for money. Don't think you can go far wrong with one tbh.
Hi All,
I am getting a bit bored with watches as too much mental energy is being expended on my next quest.
Anyway, I am thinking of getting an Explorer 1. I tried one on yesterday and the size was perfect. The date just 2 caught my eye but it is not my usual style so now discounted,
I have a SubC and Speedy pro which are keepers. My IWC Mark XVII is probably a long term prospect and my Aerospace is currently up for sale/ trade.
Any advice from Explorer 1 owners ( ps the 36 is too small for me).
Last edited by MFB Scotland; 8th August 2015 at 19:20.
The Explorer I in white is definitely one of my top 5 Rolex watches and fantastic value for money. Don't think you can go far wrong with one tbh.
I'm guessing you mean the Explorer IIOriginally Posted by Scepticalist
Oh no, please don't roll out the Explorer/Explorer 1/Explorer II barrel aaaargh !!
Some people get quite uptight around here with certain terminology and model recognition when it comes to "The Explorer" !!
Ha Ha. Its my thread so going for Explorer 1
Do as you pleaseHa Ha. Its my thread so going for Explorer 1
I don't think that is the watch he is talking about.
As for the watch, it's a good choice but perhaps not my favourite.
Paul, what would you go for upto £4,500. I had thought about an Ingenieur as another option ?
I tried on the new Oyster Perpetual 39 in grey yesterday - same case and bracelet as the 39mm Explorer 1 but with the dark rhodium dial and blue lume. Great size, and an understated but lively dial changing from silver to grey depending on the light. Overall a subtle and versatile everyday package you could wear with anything. I'd take one over an Explorer I. I realise subtle isn't for everyone of course, but with a Rolex the more subtle the better.
I'd also probably take it over the 40mm Ingy, even though it has that great bracelet and history. Those crown guards are just too big, the movement is nothing to shout about, and the dial a little plain, apart from on the white dial / good hands version or perhaps the recent blue limited edition. It's almost a great watch, but they should try a little harder at that price.
If it were me I'd be looking at a GMT, a very example of either a Explorer 2 or a Master GMT, both 40mm with a tritium dial and drilled lugs.
Thanks Paul. A 40mm white exp 2 is an option. One of my favourites was a new Exp 2 black dial. IMO this is a better proposition than a Sub but due to my small wrist it was too big and I sold it on.
+1 and not sure about the hands on the Explorer
I have the Explorer 214270 39mm but rarely wear it, I do like it but much prefer to wear my Explorer II 16570 Polar.
Do you mean the 6098 or 6610 Honeycomb? If so, erm, yeah my Top 5 too, Subs, GMT and SeaDwellers tend to get a lot of the popular watch forums attentions but I much prefer the Explorer models.
Oysterlock with 5mm easy link? I didn't think that was on the OP 39mm
You're right, no easylink. You'd almost think they were trying to make it the entry level model, it can't be that hard to include. And of course no date either. But there's something appealingly pure about the simplicity, it's the one current model I really like.
I've been looking at the DJ and the Explorer I recently. The lack of date would put me off the Explorer and if the DJ didn't come with polished centre links I think it would have been on my wrist today. It makes it far too blingy for me. If the 36mm is putting you off have another look, I did and it didn't look so small the second time round, personally I think they're a great size now.
Last edited by oiljam; 9th August 2015 at 10:42.
I did look at the Explorer 1 for a long time, the 39mm Explorer I sounds so perfect in my eyes, the 38-41mm is perfect for me, BUT the proportions on this 39mm is not good. I would avoid... Also, think hard if you want a watch without a date. The ealier 36mm has good proportions, but yes it is a small watch by todays standards.
Somewhat similar watch to the Explorer 1, which i think are done better than the 39mm one - either Omega Railmaster or Aqua Terra line.
I have also tried on that new perpetual. I think the blue dots ruin it for me. Otherwise it's terrific
Interesting point of view. I also wondered if the OP39 had the right proportions, but it turned out to wear incredibly well on a relatively slim wrist. A combination of short lugs and a bezel that looks like it may be a touch oversized but actually keeps the size of the dial right. Instead of just scaling up the 36mm they actually made it wearable, it all makes sense on the wrist. It's also pleasantly flatter than the slightly bulky mechanical AT, for wearing with a shirt.
All depends on wrist size and shape of course, but those were my conclusions.
39mm Explorer 1 fit like a glove. My best purchase!
Thanks for the responses. Really tempted now to buy one. :)
I'd be surprised if the 39mm Explorer didn't wear bigger than both the GMT 16750 and the ExpII 16570.
It's just a matter of time...
Based on the OP39, prepare to be surprised.
Well I've tried them all on in the past, and I'd say there is nothing in it, and the Explorer felt bigger to me (albeit I was to comparing them back to back) than my old 16570
It's just a matter of time...
I have a Speedy (currently away being serviced) and a 16610 both of which are keepers, however the 214270 has relegated both to being occasional wearers.
Some say, it's hands are too small. They are short sighted loons with tiny tadgers and an envy complex.
Some say, it's rather misshapen and not as elegant as former versions. They have potatoes for eyes.
Some say, it's over-priced for what it is. These folk may perhaps be correct.
BUT it casts a spell on you. Wear it and it's obvious.
It is; solid, easy to adjust for a great fit, comfortable, understated, accurate and if you scuff it, home fixable.
Some say dkpw is angling for Clarkson's job...
Sadly I am not ginger. :(
Been hankering for a 214270 but that review and picture have put it on my must own list, Nice! Lovely bit of tweed there!
Bandmaster? Turn me green twice...
I agree, for some reason the 39mm Explorer does seem bigger than a 16570 Explorer II, it could be the chunkiness of the bracelet that has an effect on the feeling of the size. Part of the reason I've steered clear from most of the modern Rolex Sport models, a GMT II is tempting but I think I'd find it wears too big.
Chaps
First of all, there is no such animal as an Explorer 1, it is simply the 39mm Explorer.
I have a 39mm Explorer, a 16610 Sub Date and a Freccione Explorer 2. The 39mm gets most of my wear time because it is a beautifully discrete watch with a superbly simple face.
The 39mm Explorer really is the perfect watch, you can wear it with a suit or with jeans and T shirt, it is truly versatile. Like all Rolex you can swim in it without fear and the new clasp is brilliant.
The only draw back is a late of a date function. I knew that when I bought it and to be frank, anyone with even half a memory knows, for instance, that today is the 11th and do you really need to keep looking for the same date all day long.
If I could only have one watch, this would be the one I would opt for.
Regards
Mick
It's just Explorer isn't it? The model is 214270.
Really? Over and above the Explorer II (1655?). If it's the 1655 then IMO that IS a stunning watch ...
It might just be me, but the Explorer is no match for these offerings.
Explorer for me, not a cyclops fan & prefer the no date option.
Chris
The 1655 is a rare watch and hence more valuable but it does not compare to the Explorer in any way shape or form.
The 1655 has a cluttered dial and is awkward to read, just look at a magnified dial - you will see what I mean.
The Explorer on the other hand is much more user friendly and frankly much classier in appearance.
The 1655 is a grail to some people and I feel privileged to own one but the Explorer is by far my favourite.
Regards
Mick
I have the 39mm Explorer and as mentioned above it goes with everything. It is an incredibly versatile watch with an understated level of class, without the ostentation of some other watches. Incredibly comfortable to wear too.
I have had a couple of Explorer I's 39mm's. Think they are a great watch, there is just a really funny niggle when wearing them that the dial is a bit big in comparison to the case. Thats only the case when I look at it on my wrist. On other people they look great, thats why I had 2. Mine is gone now and for my the 216570 is the perfect Rolex for my.
Heres a pic of mine next to the 47mm PAM372
39mm exp wears quite big i thought and hand proportions for me are abit off.
Thanks, I was looking at a Pam 249 as I love the California dial ... but at that size not for me, still it looks lovely.
Last edited by christech81; 11th August 2015 at 21:10.
I'm the worlds worst at taking pictures but I've put the Explorer II and Explorer next to an Aerospace ...
As has already been mentioned the pictures only tell half the story, they all feel very different on the wrist.
Hi Mick,
Thanks for your reply, I have heard that the 1655 is difficult to read, I've seen and handled a few, love it but I fear this is a watch that is out of my reach, it isn't a grail but I'd love one as a daily wearer. Having said that the 16570 is wonderful, it's a watch that I really have connected with, same movement as the GMT II and a little bit cheaper.
My most comfortable watch, would not be without it.
How do you do that?
It's a kinda magic.How do you do that?
So is this https://www.hodinkee.com/blog/Albino-GMT-Master-6542
I like the 39mm Explorer size but I am not a fan of the dial with its applied numerals. I like the 39mm Omega Railmaster better because of the printed dial. Having said that, some folks find the Railmaster dial a little too "shark-toothy" looking.
Looks like a GMT with a white Explorer II dial. I think the black Explorer II hands work better on that dial.How do you do that?
The white dial Explorer II model 16550 had silver hands, the 16570 had the black hands so silver hands to an Explorer II is it's 16550 is correct.
Love the Railmaster too by the way.
Hi Chris
To be honest, a 16570 is a much better watch than the 1655. The 1655 has a certain "cool" factor about it but essentially it is a bloody awful watch from a Rolex point of view. Your 16570 looks good and serves a GMT purpose whereas all a 1655 does is tell the time. The orange hand is fixed and hence only confirms whether the time is am or pm.
You have to remember that whilst the 16570 has been a steady seller over the years, the 1655 did not sell well at all due to the confused dial and pointless orange hand and hence 30 years later it is relatively rare and therefore valuable due to collectors buying them up.
So value is not necessarily a sign of excellence.
Regards
Mick
Last edited by Mick P; 12th August 2015 at 09:01.
Indeed, that dial seems about as plausible as the existence of magic. (Though you'd think that a magician might have conjured up a more credible lume job.)
I have to admit I miss my 214270 Explorer. Lots of reviews criticise the small hands relative to the dial and I see that argument however, in the flesh this isn't noticeable.
In my view it's actually a more versatile watch then the Submariner (I know many won't agree). It's also the most comfortable watch i've ever worn. I miss it. A lot.
At first it may seem slightly boring and generic, but once you've worn it for a few weeks, little things such as the matt dial and the polished bezel really give it elements of interest.
Buy and you won't regret!
Posting Permissions
