Reply With QuoteCheck out Chrono24 and eBay, that'll give you some ballpark figures, as to what you'll actually pay that'll depend on condition, age, servicing, loose or with b&p
Following on from these ramblings into my particular obsession with the Explorer theme
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...-Day-ZEX-style
Regardless of where my somewhat mercurial nature leads me I seem to keep coming back to this
Having tried homages by Smiths (superb but too big), Alpha and Tiger Concepts, the ZEX suits me the best - the original nags away at me though so I guess that its only a matter of time.
Realistically as regards price then that would be likely to 14270
I am just wondering if anyone has made this transition and would be interesting in any comments or observations
Cheers
Ian
Check out Chrono24 and eBay, that'll give you some ballpark figures, as to what you'll actually pay that'll depend on condition, age, servicing, loose or with b&p
If the Rolex still nags it is, as you suspect, probably not going to go away. The 14270 is a good one.
Although not exactly the same, there is a comparison of the Monte SPIGA to an Explorer 2 elsewhere on the forum. It covers some of the difficult thought processes when evaluating a much sought-after icon against a Rolex.
Paul
Thanks Nunya
Got a good idea of prices - just wondering what others experiences and subsequent thoughts on this are
Last edited by Velorum; 10th April 2016 at 10:44.
Thanks Paul - interesting readOriginally Posted by Tokyo Tokei
As an ardent Smiths Everest wearer I've thought about it, and even got as far as trying on a 214270 in the snooty Rolex boutique on Vörösmarty tér in Budapest. It didn't take me long to realise that what I really wanted was a 1016, which is well outside my current budget.
Yes, I know what you mean
Whilst I could stretch to around 3K - I just couldnt justify the amount that 1016's go for
Early on in my watch interest I had the Zeno Ex,a nice watch for sure,but I eventually went on to own the Rolex DJ and still have one.
If you can't stretch to a Rolex and the look is what will really make you happy ( but it won't ),then their are so many to choose from,I've had the RXW watches which are really nice,and if not gone already,the one recently on sc was a great buy and I might still have another look at it.
But the "snob" guys frown on the dial wording,but it is what it is,and the sum of the parts to build it are superb.
No, I suspect it wont
I can stretch to a Rolex, just not a 1016
Sometimes I think we all need to remember, homages are homage to something.
I know that reads a little barmy, but most of the popular homages reference the most popular, often iconic watches and accordingly, we can’t but help lust for the original.
I like certain homages because I like what they are based upon and dislike others for the same reason - I don’t like what they reference.
Everything I now own pretty much has a homage or two and I like both, just lucky enough to own the original. But I’d gladly sell and wear the homage again.
I thought the Smiths Everest and ZEX were the same watch save for the dial and case back?
Thanks - helps keep things in perspective and clarify my thinking
ZEX - 36mm
Smiths - 41mm
Crikey that is a difference, thanks. For what it's worth I've owned an Everest and I didn't like it much however I tried the 39mm Explorer at the Rolex boutique in Geneva a few weeks ago and it was perfect.
It will likely be my next watch (or a full size speedmaster!)
Last edited by rico; 10th April 2016 at 12:30. Reason: spelling error
Do you know why you didn't like the Smiths? I realised that sometimes these things are difficult to define
I found it way to large for my taste, especially on the bracelet
A ZEX sized Everest - just the thought of seeing the name on something in keeping size wise - it'll never happen of course, even when the trend turns to smaller watches again
Yep me.
I started with a Miyota ZEX which I bought new from our host, wore for a few years as a daily watch and then sold when I fancied a change.
A couple of years later I bought a new ZENO-USA version, but the quality was not so good and the lume pip on the second hand was in an odd position which got on my nerves (I know, I know), and I'd only had it for a few weeks when a 5500 Air King came up at a good price so sold it as I didn't need or want two, three-hand no-daters.
Last year I swapped the Air King for an Explorer 114270 from 2007. And so? I am a little disappointed.
The applied numerals and indices are a little too shiny for my taste and not, in my opinion, an improvement on a painted dial or the subimely well proportioned stick indices of the Air King. I prefer discreet watches in general and I think the Explorer is a bit too 'shouty'. But the thing that I just can't get used to is the flat, sapphire crystal. I prefer acrylic anyway, but every time I look at the Explorer there is a fingerprint or other mark on the glass and I am forever wiping it with my hankie. The last watch where I had exactly the same problem was a Hamilton Khaki Navy.
What the honorable member for Manchester says about homages is true, but the Zeno is an homage to a far prettier watch than post 1016 Explorers, so if you are hankering for the real thing, then what you want (and what I want) is a 1016. Obviously, objectively and subjectively I'd rather wear the real deal than an homage, but the Zeno is the more aesthetically pleasing watch because the 1016 was, and buying a 14270 or 114720 is a decision that should be made on the visual merits of these models, not as a step up from the ZENO, in my view.
Thanks Simon
The nearest to the modern Explorer Ive had was the Alpha and I really didn't like the dial as much
I beginning to think that anything other than the 1016 wouldn't do it
Save up for a 1016. Won't lose any money so just a matter of financing.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
The 14270, as has been said, looks like a very different watch to the one you're hankering after.
I hope you make it to the watch you really want. Best get saving those pennies. :)
Having told myself that the outlay on a 1016 couldnt be justified then I am now beginning to think that it might be a necessity
I am drawn to the rationalisation that I would be unlikely to lose money on it.......
What would I do if the wife found out?
Ha ha. I love the use of necessity 😀 Could your wife tell the difference between a 1016 and the new tudor heritage black bay 36mm? "That's a brand new watch too!". Good luck in your quest.
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
I can't wear the Everest on the bracelet, the addition of rigid end-links add too much to the overall dimension before it curves around the wrist. That said, I'm not much of a bracelet wearer anyway and much prefer it on leather or canvas.
It sounds as though you wouldn't be really satisfied with an Explorer other than the 1016. If you can afford it and feel comfortable wearing a watch of that value (another stumbling block for me), then that looks to be the way to go.
I have both. I wear the Zeno more often but that's because it tends to be around and not locked in the safe....
If it had to be Rolex you could go for a 5500 Air King with 3,6,9 on the dial or 5500/5504 Explorer but the last ones I saw were a lot more price wise than similar condition and age Air King
Just tell her it's an old watch so was quite cheap. Hopefully she doesn't know the values of vintage Rolex!
At least you know that if you do get one, you're unlikely to lose money on it.
And don't wear it in the garage!
Sounds like a plan!
No more garage incidents though!
Indeed this watch is very interesting, thanks for showing it!
Which watch?
No, but I did go from a ZOS to a Schmidt & Bender. That was all about the quality of the lenses, not the brand image, hence I got the Hungary one.
That was the conclusion I came to several years ago. Even though I could afford one*, I went for a ss black dial time only GS 9F61 on bracelet. The argument which swung the decision is the beater one: I have no qualms beating the quartzes about whereas I feel hesitant with (Swiss) mechanicals. I know I tend to treat those with kid gloves.
It still is one om my two most worn:
Wearing it now too.
Since then the prices have gone way up*.
Rather an interesting phenomena which has nothing to do with the tangible product. Even a factory refurb Zeiss scope goes down in price and remains there more or less stable.
*The 'too expensive' is a very relative aspect since you are pretty sure to get your money back. As such the 1016 is a low cost of ownership watch.
I would thus say; try to create the budget and find yourself a nice unmolested one if you experience the need. Whichever way you look at it; it will be worth the experience imo.
Tell her it is money YOU earned, that you are not spending it on cars despite practically living in those and
Oh and if needed, which I doubt, you can always go the guilt trip about the double bass.the rationalisation that I would be unlikely to lose money on it.......
Tell her it's for leaving to kids ( if applicable)
I've got a 14270 and think it's a great watch. I would prefer a 1016 though !
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
@RAJEN: The Zeno was new to me, not the Rolex Explorers
I was lucky enough to buy one of the last original Zeno-Watch, Basel ref.# ZN-001 Miyota mov't "Explorers" Eddie had for sale years ago (at an amazing 80 GBP then), but have never used it and it remains in pristine NOS condition still. Neat watch, though.
The first reason I haven't worn it is that I've never been able to find out exactly what acrylic crystal design these ZEX use. For the moment, though, I won't go into why that's an issue for me with this particular watch other than to say that if these do not use a negative pressure resistant crystal design, like the excellent military grade steel tension ring secured "armoured" type, or the vintage Rolex plexiglass era "bezel clamped" OysterCase crystal design the original 1016 used, I want none of it (I'll leave it at that because I could go on for another half page as to why I generally have an aversion to owning watches lacking at least aviation grade levels of negative pressure resistance ....)
I think the other reason is that these are no longer manufactured and easily replaceable (or at least weren't until the A.S. 5206 mov't version of the ZEX came out a year or two ago), and I'd likely find myself babying the watch to the point of neurosis, which won't do for a beater or everyday wearer and tends to wreck the enjoyment of wearing (and owning) the watch in the first place. If I'd be like that with a beater like the ZEX, I can only imagine what trying to wear a nice condition original Rolex 1016 would be like.
However, given I find out these ZEX use a crystal design I can live with, and Zeno starts making these as perpetually available as a Seiko SKX, I think I'd wear it without concern and enjoy it as it was meant to be.
As regards the iconic and ultra classic 1016 itself, what I think would be neat is if Rolex made it again as a standard catalog item exactly as it was made originally --- no blingy hour marker surrounds or dress watch sapphire, etc., but pure vintage plexi era Rolex tool watch just exactly as it was. That would likely cut the price in half over an original 1016 and, being replaceable, something you could wear every day without getting (too) neurotic about it
Last edited by Rollon; 15th April 2016 at 09:46.
I have time?
Me too...
Just to complicate matters, OP might want to keep a look out for a MKii Vantage. Bigger than the Zeno, smaller than the Everest and still cheaper than a 1016. They occasionally come up for sale on WUS.
Stolen pic:
I'd be happy to wear the crap out of it whatever window material it has.
I guess you're asking me to elaborate a bit about negative pressure resistant crystals so I'll give it a go while trying not to bore everybody to death. To keep it in the context of this thread, I'm sure most here are already well aware that the Rolex Oyster line of watches was born of a desire of the company to develop and produce a watch incorporating a comprehensive set of technological advancements that would allow it to survive any and all environmental and situational conditions that the wearer, regardless how adventurous, might subject his/her watch to.
Toward that end, as you know, Rolex developed such features as their still superlative OysterCrown with well thought out rubber, later neoprene, I believe, gasketing and a telescoping stem that disengaged from continuing to wind the mainspring while the crown was screwed back down after setting and winding the watch (the early oysters were all hand winds and this was essential). All versions of the OysterCrown, if properly installed so that the bottom surface of the crown “button” can never touch or “bottom out” on the case, also have a “fail-safe” crush gasket at the inside top cap of the crown that bears directly onto the top surface of the crown tube as the crown is screwed down and in so doing the design self-compensates for the cap gasket’s compression and wear over time.
Rolex also threaded the crown tube into the case, making it easily replaceable if damaged, stripped, bent, etc., in order to keep and maintain full water resistance. In other words, the Rolex OysterCrown was in the 1920s the best that could be had and I personally think remains so still. The reason is that it is bulletproof in that the OysterCrown design can endure virtually any contingency it might meet in use.
In the same sense, Rolex eventually developed the plexiglass era OysterCase crystal design to be bulletproof by using a separate external bezel ring to securely "clamp" the slightly flexible sidewalling of the cupped plexiglass/acrylic crystal onto an integral steel "lip" or flanging machined at the case mouth. This obviously not only sealed the front of the watch against the ingress of water and dust, etc., but the design was also intended to prevent the crystal from being easily dislodged if the watch should be subjected to hard external knocks. Also, and very unlike the very hard and relatively very brittle modern sapphire crystal material so ubiquitous now due pretty much only to its resistance to cosmetic scratches, the acrylic material used for the crystals of the vintage OysterCase watches was resistant to shattering into small sharp eyesight threatening shards should a hard direct impact break it.
And so finally to the point of negative pressure resistance. As I'm sure everybody here is aware, that occurs when the pressure inside the watch is greater than the atmospheric pressure outside the watch. Such a condition is another contingency a watch might have to deal with and can occur not just in saturation diving or barometric research, etc., but also, to a lesser degree or severity of differential, in aviation when the pressurized cabin of an aircraft at high altitudes is suddenly breached. The bezel clamped crystal of the plexi era OysterCase design of the Rolex 1016 is said to stand up to aviation levels of sudden negative pressure very well and resists "popping" out of its case seat under such conditions. The internal steel tension ring secured domed "armoured" acrylic crystal design so often used in military field, general service, and pilot's watches of the past, and even still, also has a great reputation in this regard. An important part of these types of crystal design being reliably resistant to aviation levels of negative pressure is that they, by design, compensate for temperature changes across a broad spectrum to maintain the secure fit of crystal to case regardless.
However, unless fit with crystals specially secured in place with glue, etc., as with IWC's Mk XII and subsequent modern pilot's watches, and other good ones like the Sinn 656 series and the TF Speedbird III PRS-22, most watches having modern plain press-fit sapphire or mineral glass crystals are by reputation vulnerable to the crystals popping out of their case seats under even aviation levels of negative pressure. That seems to make sense to me when considering that the latter type of crystal is generally just held into the case seat by the friction of a squishy soft synthetic gasket bearing against the crystal's peripheral edge and the perceived secure fit at installation temperatures does not necessarily maintain itself across the broad spectrum of temperature changes the watch may undergo due the divergent and uncompensated expansion ratio differentials of the case/crystal/gasket materials involved.
To (FINALLY) put a cap on this, I’d personally much rather have the negative pressure resistance and other practical advantages of military grade crystal designs like the “armoured” acrylic type and equivalents like the plexiglass era OysterCase design of the original Rolex 1016. The downside of these types of crystals for many is that they cosmetically scratch with relative ease. But, personally, I’d rather just live with the scratches. Its like choosing substance over style, I think. Rollon
Added Note: I’ve myself only ever heard one thing negative other than a vulnerability to scratches applied to the plexiglass era Rolex Oysters like the 1016, and that was that the crystal itself had to be changed with every periodic service because the acrylic material itself can “age” and start showing minute cracking at the crystal’s sidewalling where the bezel tightly clamps the crystal onto the case mouth. So, then, if the crystal is not kept fresh to a relative degree, this may, among other things, compromise the watch’s level of water resistance as the cracks form and “grow” over time
Last edited by Rollon; 16th April 2016 at 09:20.
Interesting read - thanks
Once again, thanks for all the replies folks - as I replied to the member for Manchester, it really helps clarify my thinking
Long term savings plan initiated
In the meantime I'm happy to wear this
Posting Permissions
