closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 93

Thread: rolex explorer, ugly duckling?

  1. #1
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    back garden shed Edinburger
    Posts
    150

    rolex explorer, ugly duckling?

    Will the Rolex explorer 2 always be the ugly duckling of the sports range or is it the ultimate Rolex true sports watch.

    As the Gmt, subs and daytona climb the scale of desirability, has the explorer been left behind or maybe it just does not care and delivers a great robust watch to be worn.

    D.

  2. #2
    Master -Ally-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Eurabia
    Posts
    8,329
    A bloated mess IMO.

  3. #3
    Master Papa Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Not Edinburgh
    Posts
    7,487
    You were right, it doesn't care.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    No Fixed Abode
    Posts
    653
    That bezel is the least robust thing I can think of. Looks ten years old after a week of wear.

  5. #5
    Grand Master Onelasttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Everywhere, yet nowhere...
    Posts
    13,707
    Depends which model you're talking about, I'm assuming the 216570? The 16570 is a classic and although it doesn't enjoy the same kudos as the GMT, it's still a lovely sports Rolex and holds value well.

    As for the 216570, I'm not a fan. Too big and clumsy looking for me.

  6. #6
    Glad to see you mean the Explorer II. It is what it is... sort of worked when it was smaller.

  7. #7
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    back garden shed Edinburger
    Posts
    150

    All explorer 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onelasttime View Post
    Depends which model you're talking about, I'm assuming the 216570? The 16570 is a classic and although it doesn't enjoy the same kudos as the GMT, it's still a lovely sports Rolex and holds value well.

    As for the 216570, I'm not a fan. Too big and clumsy looking for me.
    I was thinking of the explorer 2 since the 1655 . Have any of them, 16550 , 16570 or 216570 climbed the desire ladder.

    D.

  8. #8
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    267
    Are you kidding? The 16550 value is through the roof no?
    I’m biased because I’m crazy about my 16570. Tried one on when I had the much coveted BLNR on my other wrist and realised I liked everything about it more.
    But can’t afford the 16550 mark up! Ugly duckling?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    267
    But hey, if I’m honest, a big part of its appeal to me is precisely that it’s no forum favourite. It means I rarely if ever see them as opposed to the plague of Subs.
    So yes please. Let’s keep them ugly. Because I want another.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Master reggie747's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    The Mersey Riviera
    Posts
    7,184
    I don't mind the watch at all barring the fact it's 42mm. I'd probably have one at 40mm. 42 is just outside my comfort zone.

  11. #11
    Personally I think that the bezel is a bit divisive. I’ve been considering a 16570 for ages but every time I think about it, the bezel font annoys me. It’s quite annoying as I like them when I see them on peoples wrists in passing.


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  12. #12
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    297
    I like the explorer II, i would happily add one to the collection.

  13. #13
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    7,769
    Most modern Rolex have a bloated appearance and the 216570 is no exception.

    I have a 1980 Freccione Explorer11 (1655) and it looks completely different.

  14. #14
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    back garden shed Edinburger
    Posts
    150

    Explorer.

    Quote Originally Posted by rgwarden View Post
    Are you kidding? The 16550 value is through the roof no?
    I’m biased because I’m crazy about my 16570. Tried one on when I had the much coveted BLNR on my other wrist and realised I liked everything about it more.
    But can’t afford the 16550 mark up! Ugly duckling?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The cream RAIL DIAL 16550 is the only exception in the recent Explorer model history to have gone into the big league.

    Does seem to be a watch that would not be the first choice but maybe add to the collection at some point if you find one in great conditon.

    As someone said earlier, they do seem to look at bit tired as they age but then so do we all.

    D.

  15. #15
    Another looky at this?





    Boom.

  16. #16
    Master
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI USA
    Posts
    2,133
    The old version was an under appreciated gem. The new version is the worst modern regular production sports model.

    However, it's big so some people seem to like it.

  17. #17
    Grand Master Onelasttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Everywhere, yet nowhere...
    Posts
    13,707
    When the bezel looks tired on the 16570, just pop another one one at service time. I was quoted £150, which seems a lot but the bezel on my 2002 version looks good for a few years yet.

  18. #18
    Grand Master number2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North and South.
    Posts
    30,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Mick P View Post
    Most modern Rolex have a bloated appearance and the 216570 is no exception.
    Agreed, these days a wrist watch has to be noticeable at 20 paces.
    "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."

    'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.

  19. #19
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Onelasttime View Post
    When the bezel looks tired on the 16570, just pop another one one at service time. I was quoted £150, which seems a lot but the bezel on my 2002 version looks good for a few years yet.
    Precisely. Mine’s a 2004 and still looks new. Great great complication, and under appreciated. Fine by me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    1,894
    The 1655 Explorer II seems to be very desirable these days, not a big seller when in the range and not many around compared to subs and sea dwellers of a similar age. I still haven't quite bottomed out in my mind if it's a classic or an ugly duckling.

  21. #21
    Had my white dial 16570 over 3 years. Worn more than most I have and my usual holiday watch. No scratch marks on the bezel.

    If I ever decided to reduce to 4-6 watches the 16570 would be one of them.

    I like the point that it has low recognition compared with many other SS Rolex.

  22. #22
    I have a 16570 so am biased, but I wanted a white dial sports watch with GMT. It was that or the Omega Great White and I preferred the Rolex.

  23. #23
    I have a 216570 White dial and love wearing it. The case shape is beautiful. Lovely curves that you don't get with a sub or GMT. Or any other Rolex tbh

    16570: I struggle with this reference

  24. #24


    Suits me fine.

  25. #25
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluetinfloor View Post
    The 1655 Explorer II seems to be very desirable these days, not a big seller when in the range and not many around compared to subs and sea dwellers of a similar age. I still haven't quite bottomed out in my mind if it's a classic or an ugly duckling.
    I have 5 Rolex and the 1655 is currently my favourite.

    Basically it is a useless watch as it was designed to go down caves (spelunking) which in itself is a limited market.

    The orange hand is fixed and all it does is show whether the time is am or pm.

    There are two dials (12hr and 24hr) superimposed over each other and the result is somewhat difficult to read. It is often referred to as the disco dial and it took me a month of wearing it to learn how to quickly read it.

    It was a poor seller and numbers were low, you then fast forward 35 years and now it is a rare Rolex and hence collectible.

    I must admit I like it and am kicking myself for not buying one 35 years ago when your local AD would have kissed your feet to take the thing off his hands.

    The acrylic lens gives it a real retro look which is always good and it is well below the radar and no one ever notices it. I was in Venice a couple of months ago and mingled with a group of 5 other gents staring at a SD50 on display in a shop in San Marco and whilst they all noticed and talked about the Rolex on their wrists, not one of them noticed mine and they were all Rolex enthusiasts, that was a nice feeling.

    It really is a marmite watch and I really enjoy wearing mine. It inspired me to actually go down a cave for the sheer hell of it. I scratched the acrylic lens to buggery but 2 minutes with Polywatch as was pristine. That was a real experience, wearing it for the purpose for which it was made.

    I love it.

  26. #26
    Craftsman Cyclone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    478
    Personally I really like the 216570 and may eventually swap my Sub for one.

  27. #27
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    3,252
    I have tried to like it over the years as it always appears to be good value second hand by I always prefer the Pepsi and use of a rotating bezel. The new model still looks unbalanced to me and so it would probably sit in the ugly duckling category for now.

  28. #28
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North
    Posts
    18,928
    Blog Entries
    2
    I don't mind it but it's not my favourite professional model.
    I've been looking for one for my dad though as his glaucoma makes his DJ difficult to use.
    On that note it's readability at a glance is a big plus.

  29. #29
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    2,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
    Personally I really like the 216570 and may eventually swap my Sub for one.
    I did four years ago and not once would i go back to a 40mm Rolex.

  30. #30
    Grand Master wileeeeeey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    18,997

    rolex explorer, ugly duckling?

    Happy with mine. It isn’t loud and doesn’t scream Rolex - no one notices it all. Nice big legible dial, GMT and date functions, easy link, brushed bracelet.

    There are other watches you may go for first but the Exp2 is a great watch. You just might need something else in your collection to appreciate it fully. Or big wrists. Not everything needs to be 40mm. Anyone saying they would buy one if it was 40mm there is a 40mm version. Buy that and leave some options for the big wristed among us.

    That being said it isn’t perfect and could benefit from triple lock crown and glide lock or the same clasp as the DSSD.

    Last edited by wileeeeeey; 10th October 2017 at 11:56.

  31. #31
    ^

    Well-said, though I think it’s perfect as-is. I wouldn’t want the extra bulk of either the diver’s clasp or crown for this watch. The slimmer versions on the E2 are better-suited and more consistent with the design.

    And it’s plenty functional for diving, anyway:


  32. #32
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,412
    Quote Originally Posted by sarky View Post
    That bezel is the least robust thing I can think of. Looks ten years old after a week of wear.
    You must be remarkably clumsy.

    Quote Originally Posted by rgwarden View Post
    But hey, if I’m honest, a big part of its appeal to me is precisely that it’s no forum favourite.
    Actually I think the 16570 is a forum favourite. It's less popular with the general public as people rarely buy a sports Rolex because they want something subtle and less recognisable. But many here see that as an advantage, along with its looks, proportions, and relative good value. Also the newer model is too big for some. If there weren't so many available, as a discontinued model I think they'd be shooting up in price at this point, as it is they're a solid buy and very easy to live with.

  33. #33
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Itsguy View Post
    You must be remarkably clumsy.



    Actually I think the 16570 is a forum favourite. It's less popular with the general public as people rarely buy a sports Rolex because they want something subtle and less recognisable. But many here see that as an advantage, along with its looks, proportions, and relative good value. Also the newer model is too big for some. If there weren't so many available, as a discontinued model I think they'd be shooting up in price at this point, as it is they're a solid buy and very easy to live with.
    I agree with all of this. I guess eye of the beholder etc as I don’t see anything ‘ugly duckling’ in the 16570, either colour dial. Quite the opposite.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  34. #34
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Itsguy View Post
    You must be remarkably clumsy.



    Actually I think the 16570 is a forum favourite. It's less popular with the general public as people rarely buy a sports Rolex because they want something subtle and less recognisable. But many here see that as an advantage, along with its looks, proportions, and relative good value. Also the newer model is too big for some. If there weren't so many available, as a discontinued model I think they'd be shooting up in price at this point, as it is they're a solid buy and very easy to live with.
    I am also baffled by how anyone can think that the explorer II brushed stainless steel isn’t robust? It strikes me as the most robust bezel Rolex make, capable of bumps and bruises just as the bracelets are which we all live with.

    But if the 16570 really was a forum favourite would we be getting a thread asking if it was the ugly duckling? I take your points though, particularly regarding how many of them are around because of such a long (and unpopular sell?) run? It makes me want to find good examples and hoard them....


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  35. #35
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tamworth, Staffordshire
    Posts
    257
    Wearing mine at the moment, my first Rolex and very happy with watch. Nice legible face, good lume, easy link and comfortable bracelet.

  36. #36
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,412
    Quote Originally Posted by rgwarden View Post
    But if the 16570 really was a forum favourite would we be getting a thread asking if it was the ugly duckling?
    With all respect due to the OP, it's a question from a new member. There have been many threads from fans on the forum, you can probably find some of them via the search function if interested.

  37. #37
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North
    Posts
    18,928
    Blog Entries
    2
    Op potentially asking about the 216750 which did cause a stir on release.
    Without refs who knows.

  38. #38
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    353
    Hardly an ugly duckling, especially among WIS, but I imagine it would receive less compliments from the public than subs or the somewhat dressier watches (Milgauss, Explorer, etc).

  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Mick P View Post
    I have 5 Rolex and the 1655 is currently my favourite.

    Basically it is a useless watch as it was designed to go down caves (spelunking) which in itself is a limited market.

    The orange hand is fixed and all it does is show whether the time is am or pm.

    There are two dials (12hr and 24hr) superimposed over each other and the result is somewhat difficult to read. It is often referred to as the disco dial and it took me a month of wearing it to learn how to quickly read it.

    It was a poor seller and numbers were low, you then fast forward 35 years and now it is a rare Rolex and hence collectible.

    I must admit I like it and am kicking myself for not buying one 35 years ago when your local AD would have kissed your feet to take the thing off his hands.

    The acrylic lens gives it a real retro look which is always good and it is well below the radar and no one ever notices it. I was in Venice a couple of months ago and mingled with a group of 5 other gents staring at a SD50 on display in a shop in San Marco and whilst they all noticed and talked about the Rolex on their wrists, not one of them noticed mine and they were all Rolex enthusiasts, that was a nice feeling.

    It really is a marmite watch and I really enjoy wearing mine. It inspired me to actually go down a cave for the sheer hell of it. I scratched the acrylic lens to buggery but 2 minutes with Polywatch as was pristine. That was a real experience, wearing it for the purpose for which it was made.

    I love it.
    Now that reference, I really like! I had no idea of this variant's history, so thank you.

  40. #40
    Master blackal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Scottish Borders
    Posts
    9,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Mick P View Post
    Most modern Rolex have a bloated appearance and the 216570 is no exception.
    .
    This.....

    Quote Originally Posted by number2 View Post
    Agreed, these days a wrist watch has to be noticeable at 20 paces.
    and this.............

    The appeal of the fat casing, ceramic bezel, the garish blue - all designed IMO to 'shout'

    Al

  41. #41
    I like pretty much all the explorer variants. They provide an excellent balance between functionality and design. And they’re not as ubiquitous as some of the other models, so I don’t get tired of them. My personal favourite is the 216750, because I have a large wrist and it’s the one that sits best on it. But I’d be happy with any other, frankly.

  42. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by wileeeeeey View Post
    Happy with mine. It isn’t loud and doesn’t scream Rolex - no one notices it all.

    That looks great, definitely not a bloated mess.

  43. #43
    If Rolex were Ferrari then the explorer II would be the 456. Whilst all the more fancied models go up in value, Subs / Daytona's / 360's / 430's. The 456 / Explorer II flat lines, but once the Subs' / Daytona's / 360's / 430's move out of reach then buyers focus their attention on the 'unloved' models, the 456 or the Explorer II, after all they are still a Ferrari / Rolex so the price begins to appreciate.

    Personally, I am a fan of the Explorer II (I also don't mind the 456 lol).

  44. #44
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    End of the world
    Posts
    3,460
    Blog Entries
    9
    I had the 42mm Polar for a year or two.

    My view was always that it looked superb on the wrist however not so appealing looking at it in my watchbox or in a shop display. Kind of weird I know, but thats how I generally felt, when I wore it I felt it looked superb (just like some of the pics in this thread)

    It is def less blingy with no ceramic which is something I liked about it and and mine was kind of a beater and my go to travel watch - dare I say its Rolex's last "tool" watch?

  45. #45
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,502
    I agree that it is the last rolex tool watch. It's big and legible for a reason. I am of course bias being an owner! Having a white dial and uncommon is also a big part of the charm



    Sent from my Moto C Plus using Tapatalk

  46. #46
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by JGJG View Post
    Another looky at this?





    Boom.
    Not sure. I’d have to see it on my wrist.... :wink-new

  47. #47
    Agreed. It’s slim, legible, tough and has a top-grade movement. If you have the wrist for it, it doesn’t get any better as a no-BS current-production Rolex; for me, it beats my other modern favourite for wrist time, which is the 116600 Sea-Dweller.

  48. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbyf View Post
    Not sure. I’d have to see it on my wrist.... :wink-new
    What is that? Has someone just ground off the numbered layer?

    Those blotches look like a half-assed job if so.

    Edit: unless it's just a quick photoshop!

  49. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by kultschar View Post
    its Rolex's last "tool" watch?
    The best watch to have when going on an arctic expedition:

    https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=345242

    Not something I'm likely to be doing soon.

  50. #50
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    N Ireland
    Posts
    4,415
    Quote Originally Posted by kultschar View Post
    I had the 42mm Polar for a year or two.

    My view was always that it looked superb on the wrist however not so appealing looking at it in my watchbox or in a shop display. Kind of weird I know, but thats how I generally felt, when I wore it I felt it looked superb (just like some of the pics in this thread)

    It is def less blingy with no ceramic which is something I liked about it and and mine was kind of a beater and my go to travel watch - dare I say its Rolex's last "tool" watch?
    That point hits the nail on the head for me. Looks meh in the watch box but looks great on the wrist.

    Sent from my SM-G920F using TZ-UK mobile app

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information