Reply With QuoteClassOriginally Posted by Haywood_Milton
There have been a number of threads on tz-UK previously, in which some members tried to "police" what certain Rolex models were called, for example http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...hlight=Haywood
It was insisted that "Submariner Date" and "Date Submariner" could not both exist.....until I posted Rolex's own literature which showed both.
It has frequently also been maintained that there is an "Explorer" and an "Explorer II" but that there is no "Explorer 1" --- that anyone who uses such a term is an idiot to be laughed at, who should not be allowed to spread their misinformation to a naive audience.
It was thus with some glee today that I further noticed this UK Rolex booklet from October 2007 :
Here are the inside pages :
Personally, I think the wisest course would be to let people call the models by any name that allows clear understanding by all involved, as the paradoxical position of the factually incorrect pedant is not a happy one.
Haywood
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 6th October 2015 at 21:45.
Perfectly putThere have been a number of threads on tz-UK previously, in which some members tried to "police" what certain Rolex models were called, for example http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...hlight=Haywood
It was insisted that "Submariner Date" and "Date Submariner" could not both exist.....until I posted Rolex's own literature which showed both.
It has frequently also been maintained that there is an "Explorer" and an "Explorer II" but that there is no "Explorer 1" --- that anyone who uses such a term is an idiot to be laughed at, who should not be allowed to spread their misinformation to a naive audience.
It was thus with some glee today that I further noticed this UK Rolex booklet from October 2007 :
Here are the inside pages :
Personally, I think the wisest course would be to let people call the models by any name that allows clear understanding by all involved, as the paradoxical position of the factually incorrect pedant is not a happy one.
Haywood
Let it go Haywood....:)
They are all 'Rollies' in my mind anyway
I think the pedants say there is no such thing as an "Explorer I".
Oh the irony ;-)
What an excellent find Haywood.
That should put some socks in some gobs.
Well done
It is simple ignorance, an inability to read posts properly and people who choose to try and interact via various 'forum reader' apps via their phones etc.
No excuse really but I doubt you will receive an apology Haywood.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
So is it pronounced Explorer ... Aye?
:)
Is this a 'dig' at my post (meant in jest)?
I don't think that was aimed at you; I certainly appreciated the tone --- and accuracy --- of your post !
HM
Without being in anyway dogmatic about anything, that may well have been the case in 2007. However these days, with different models, Rolex's nomenclature is clear.
But hey, call it what you like. I call my 214270 my favourite. :)
Thanks, and good spot. Hopefully the pedantic one will be along soon!
I or is it 'aye'........
Nice find, enjoyed that
Thanks Heywood certainly helps with the debate.
If I was to be devils advocate for a moment when Queen and Led Zeppelin released their first albums they were simply called Queen and Led Zeppelin - it was only when Queen ll and Led Zeppelin ll came out that their fans referred to the earlier release as Queen l and Led Zeppelin l - titles that were probably not recognised by their record companies.
I agree that it doesn't really matter what name is used as long as most people understand what is being referred to.
I hope this post isn't a case of "light the fuze and stand well back" - a round of appluse to anyone can name the Pink Floyd single that this quote comes from .....
Well shows ignorance on your part. I managed to read the whole post on my PC.
Oh the ironing ( sorry, irony).
I always thought it was explorer I and II. That's what I've learned anyway...
So what is the 1016 called - The Explorer 0?
Great work Milton - Im sure the erroneous ones will soon regroup to counter, but they do so on ever more unstable ground.
Wearing my no-date sub this evening. Just to be clear - "sub" is a very established abbreviation of "submariner" to those who enjoy watches - I apologise that it doesn't appear as a term in any rolex catalogue - though perhaps it should.
Haywood, I don't care what it's called, I just need to know if its better than a Grand Seiko?
The logic of the page numbered "3" seems clearly to embrace all those prior to the Explorer II as generically Explorer Is.
Of course, in my world you could just as freely call the 1016 a plain "Explorer" because I really don't mind, so long as I understand to what you are referring :-)
Haywood
I made the same point using Ford Capri, Escort, Cortina, etc. as examples. The first generation of these cars are commonly referred to as Mk. I, but only became so after the launch of the Mk II versions.
If the maker of the watch does the same (at times), i hardly think you will be severely punished for doing the same.
Last edited by Knisse; 6th October 2015 at 23:40.
“They don’t like it up ’em, Mr Mainwaring!”
Right, where is he....?!
Hi Haywood, very interesting, so Rolex seem to be inconsistent with their own model names and they seem to change over time, maybe as models get upgraded or change specs?
114270 = Explorer 1 (as per your '07 booklet)
214270 = Explorer (as per current information from the Rolex Website)
But in relation to your link to a previous thread it seems that I'm right.
Snickers used to be Marathon. Opal Fruits are now Sunburst. It's not a capital crime to use the current or former.
QUOTE=rob-vicar;3658642]
But in relation to your link to a previous thread it seems that I'm right.[/QUOTE]
You were never right, sadly. Accept every day is a school day in this wonderful hobby.
Snickers used to be Marathon. Opal Fruits are now Sunburst. It's not a capital crime to use the current or former.
You were never right, sadly. Accept every day is a school day in this wonderful hobby.http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...-for-some-help214270 = Explorer (as per current information from the Rolex Website)
But in relation to your link to a previous thread it seems that I'm right.
So.... how is that not right?
Your first post on that forum was “What’s an Explorer 1?"
So, you knew and were being provocative.
At least I keep my mickey taking out of Watch Talk and I’m always right, obviously.
In the real world, we call this an epic fail and you a troll.
Enjoy doing whatever you enjoy doing.
Chaps
To be fair, members on this forum as well as other forums are notoriously sloppy when it comes to using the incorrect name of various Rolex models.
The brochure that Haywood has produced has been shown on other forums but to my knowledge is a one off and all documentation on the 214270 refers to it as the Explorer.
It is unfortunate that this brochure was ever produced because it makes Rolexes intention of not using the term "Explorer1" extremely difficult.
However we should be respectful of Rolex and call all of their watches by the name that they use and not what you want to use.
I have to admit that thanks to this brochure it weakens the case.
Regards
Mick - 39mm Explorer owner
I think for people with purposeful lives, who have constructive things to do with their time, pragmatism is king. So, this certainly works for me:
Just checked my 2001 booklet... and yes, Explorer I and Explorer II!
Who knew :)
However, on the dial of the watch rather than a booklet written by the marketing mob...
Amen to that.
And it's STARBURST for gods sake :)
Pedants - the only people that appreciate your pedantry are other pedants. Everyone else thinks that you're a know it all knob.
So, do us all a favour and wind your necks in?
Right, I'm off to eBay to buy a Speedy Mk 1...
Last edited by Wexford; 7th October 2015 at 09:48.
Rolex themselves got it wrong, obviously. There's no Explorer 1.
If Rolex called it the Explorer 1(I) at the time of manufacture, most wouldn't buy it, you'd know/think there was something else on it's way and wait for the Explorer 2(II) to come out.
So it's understandable that they change it to Explorer 1 only after the next one comes out just to differentiate it and also to ensure that the buying public understands that the next on(2 or II) is the latest one and you now need to buy this one as it's the latest.
Don't get we started on the whole Star Wars and episode IV nerd debate either!
Off topic but i feel the most important question here was lost. ..
This is 'Point me at the sky', i await my applause.
I see the point you are trying to make and it would stand up if the Explorer was superseded by the Explorer 2, but it wasn't the Explorer 2 is a different model.
The nearest example is the GMT-Master being replaced by the GMT-Master 2
Good morning all,
As a collector of all things Rolex, I thought that it might be useful to look out a small number of my Explorer booklets.
First, the caramel-back 14270 series with sandy background to P2, having date codes for Jan 1993, Sept 1994, May 1995, Aug 1996, Dec 1996, Feb 1997 (USA), Feb 1998, Mar 1998 (USA), July 1998, Jan 1999, Feb 1999 and June 1999 :
You will note that every one explicitly shows and writes about the Explorer I.
Now the second series, the caramel back 14270 with white background to P2, having date codes for May 2000, Sept 2000 (USA) and Jan 2001 :
You will note that every one explicitly shows and writes about the Explorer I.
The third, transitional series is of course quite rare, detailing the 114270 model while - mirabile dictu ! - still enjoying a caramel back cover. So far I have seen it with only the July 2001 date code :
You will note that every one explicitly shows and writes about the Explorer I.
Finally, we have the common grey-back / 114270 series with date codes for Jan 2002, Mar 2003, Nov 2003, Feb 2004, Feb 2005, Aug 2005, Jan 2006, Sept 2006, Jan 2007 and May 2009 :
You will note that every one explicitly shows and writes about the Explorer I.
It thus seems that for sixteen years both Rolex Geneva and Rolex USA were happy to class any Explorer made prior to the Explorer II as an Explorer I.
As Jeremy Corbyn might say, "insert caption to taste" :
Good day,
Haywood Milton
P.S. I trust that I have not offended anyone by using the commonly accepted, abbreviated forms of the months of the year. I believe that NO law has yet been passed regarding the use of same, unlike the names we give to Rolex watches of course.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 7th October 2015 at 11:01.
Deep joy.
and thus
As for the 214270, which is no doubt where some will try to cling on to floating debris, it is only a matter of perception and time. I am reminded of the foolish numismatist who celebrated finding a Roman coin stamped "46 BC."
Haywood
This is getting out of hand, mod come save this thread before it goes any further.
Surely I have been using empirical evidence in order finally to settle arguments that have been resurfacing to the the irritation of many, in the hope that they need not interfere with forum discussion again?
This seemed a reasonable thing to do, when only sight of a twitching corpse would satisfy some that their cause was lost. I have been direct but factual and not abusive.
Furthermore, I do not think that this research has been carried out and published previously anywhere, so it enriches tz-UK as a watch forum. Who among us has not discovered the fact we are looking for on a forum previously unknown to us and thus been introduced to a place we went on to enjoy in perpetuity?
The information may seem pointless to some, just as much that is discussed on tz-UK might to me. There is no problem in this. Others may discuss Seiko, IWC, watch-making, straps, retailers and everything else they wish to, and I may either participate or ignore and leave them to it.
H
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 7th October 2015 at 11:09.
Looks like someone has been handed their backside back on a plate.
You misunderstood. We need the mod because this thread cannot continue, you clearly offend everyone but using the commonly accepted, abbreviated forms of the months of the year. Such misdeeds cannot go unpunished, surely you must be aware of that!
Well done that chap - a loud round of appluse to you.
I like it when there is a numbering convention like with DRSD dials and someone comes up with one that pre-dates the Mark 1, like in the case of the single red SD (even if it was a prototype) - so they call it the Mark 0. I think this illustrates how silly this dabate is.
Haywood, put your books away and get on with your work !!
Aha!
Phew! I feared I was about to be blindfolded and hurled from a high parapet.
H
I love this thread, best thread in ages.
Your knowledge and experience is only bettered by your eloquence, Haywood.
Outstanding work sir.
Now, Knisse, what is this 'mod' of which you speak?
Posting Permissions
