Reply With Quote
I've got both currently and based on what you've put down I'd go immediately for the Sub. The bezel on the Explorer II is a complete scratch magnet so it will look pretty beaten up after a few knocks I'd say. The Sub is the ultimate tool watch imo.
Right. After quite a long hiatus from watches, where I became convinced it was a silly hobby and sold them all, I am being drawn back in.
What I'm after please are experiences and thoughts on the submariner v explorer 2. I say tool watch because I intend it to be my only watch and will wear it 24/7.
I have two young kids so expect it to get knocks. Additionally I go to the gym a lot, kitesurf, fish and spearfish ( not below about 10m). The watch will live on my wrist and will needs to be man enough for the job.
I've spent a lot of money buying and flipping dive watches that are quite like sub's whilst not being sub's. However I tried on a sub and a explorer 2 in my local AD today and came away more confused than not.
I like the iconic style of the sub and its history. It has a moving bezel and is super waterproof. Seems great. But I felt it was a little plain in real life.
I will always wear the watch on a rubber strap or more likely NATO, as I don't really like bracelets.
However the polar explorer 2 is great looking, has a separate but also brilliant legacy and is tough and waterproof. The bezel doesn't move which is mildly irritating and it wears large on my 6.75 wrists. I expect to keep the watch forever and as such don't want a dinner plate when I'm a lot older.
I'm hoping people have experiences in both and could share them where its not babied or a safe queen and has performed in real life with some testing.
It will be a second hand purchase and I've seen both around the 3k mark on eBay so won't be buying new etc. It will also be a little while away as I still need to wholly convince myself that I've stepped back into the hobby.
Thanks for any help you can offer.
Steve
I've got both currently and based on what you've put down I'd go immediately for the Sub. The bezel on the Explorer II is a complete scratch magnet so it will look pretty beaten up after a few knocks I'd say. The Sub is the ultimate tool watch imo.
Sub will wear better for longer in more circumstances.
I didn't realise that about the explorer bezel. That's exactly the advice I needed, thanks. SteveOriginally Posted by ~dadam02~
I've been in exactly this same situation. I went for a white explorer ii in the end (wore mostly on a nato as am not a big bracelet fan) which I bought in exactly the same mindset (buy it - keep it as my one watch forever)... I LOVED it - but ultimately sold it mostly due to the lack of rotating bezel which I find invaluable at least a few times every single day. That and I hate the cyclops on Rolex. I've never had a sub - as much as I'd like one, I know if I bought one I'd always wish I had a SD (and I can't afford one).
Every watch I buy I think 'this is what I'll keep forever' but it never lasts! lol
Get the SD and have the Cyclops removed,,,it works perfectly.
A ceramic sub and 42mm can be picked up for 3k???
Fixed that for you!Get the sub and have the Cyclops removed,,,it works perfectly.
To the OP I have the Sub and recommend it for your needs - it will wear better on your wrist size and will look better for longer, plus it has a rotating bezel.
If you want the second time zone there's always the GMT. .
14060m is what you want. Ive got one with the intention of it being one of three remaining decent watches. Its been on pretty much 24/7. Get a good one and you can leave it to your kid.
No cylops to mess around with and somewhere around 3k for a good one.
Thanks for all the advice. Its pointing unquestionably to the sub. Much appreciated. Steve
How do you get the Cyclops on in the first place?Get the SD and have the Cyclops removed,,,it works perfectly.
Suggedtion: Get a NDSub - 14060m recommended. Put on a nato. You'll have a timeless piece that will take any battering you throw at it. Watchfinder.co.uk have a sale on (wink).
Ok singular
GMT.
It has iconic style and its own history, not as plain as a sub, has a moving bezel, the 24 hour hand of the explorer, is easily waterproof enough for you and doesn't have the problem of wearing too large for you wrist.
Cyclops is singular...Ok singular
(point being that a SD doesnt come with a cyclops as standard.)
The only decison you need is date or no date and if the latter 2 line or 4 line.
All great watches. Its all about personal preference. Id steer you to a 2 line 14060m. Most of the vintage looks (apart from the tritium) with the modern movement and saphire glass.
If you are looking at the current ceramic bezel versions of the Sub and the Explorer II then I am afraid that you will not get either for £3k.......if however you are looking at the older versions then you should be fine with the Explorer II but I think you will have to add a little more for a good example of a Sub Date. I have been lucky enough to own various examples of both old and new models and for me the Sub (either with or without a date - new or old version) is the way to go.......it is an iconic design and will be the only watch you will ever need.
Oh dear what a silly billy.
Thanks for the advice. I've seen some pretty good date sub's go for between 3 and 3.5. I'm not too familiar with the different model no's and the finer points of the lines of text etc so wouldn't be chasing a specific one.
interesting thread, i’ve been mulling around an explorer 2 in my mind. Didn’t know the bezel is such a no deal for some. I actually like it.
As an alternative to a Sub its surely overlooked. It must be doing something right to be in production for 20yrs.
Have a.look here. Get a feel for the different used models....date and no date. Stainless. Or bi metal. Classic case or big lugs.
http://www.watchfinder.co.uk/Rolex/Submariner/Watches
And a nice post about the 14060m
http://www.woundforlife.com/2014/06/...mariner-14060/
Simple question is; do you need the second time zone? If not, it's unecessary and you're sacrificing the timing bezel for it.
Currently wearing a Yacht-Master which I like very much... But they get tatty very quickly.
For just over 3 grand there are some cracking 16610s about. Date or not... I would always say yes, but I like the cyclops.
If you can get the extra £1000 together then the 16600 Sea-Dweller hoves into view...
It's pretty inevitable that in this kind of thread about 90% of the replies will be from people telling you the sub is the one and only true watch to rule them all, and why are you even thinking about getting anything else? And we can assume that they have subs themselves.
So by way of balance, let me say that I got the Explorer 2 (black, 16750, good condition and well within budget) as I just prefer it. Of course there's nothing wrong with a sub (apart from looking vaguely like a barnacle), and certain ones seem very appealing - usually when they're much more expensive funnily enough, though not always. But for whatever reason I just don't feel like a sub person and like the stainless steel bezel. And why not?
I have neither but can see the advantages of both.
For your budget you can get a 14060 but probably not a 16610. They're great watches which will always be in demand.
The explorer 2 has never been as popular and so are available cheaper even though they have the second time zone and date function. They are also available with a white dial.
At the end of the day though, in your position I really don't know which I'd chose.
Whichever you do though, you'll not be disappointed!
One and only I'd go Sub as it is marginally more versatile but to be honest just go with the one that has the biggest wow on the wrist
I've had a 40mm exp2, a 42mm exp2, several subs and gmt's so I'm not one of these "only saying it because they've got a sub" types (I don't currently).. But out of the exp2 and the sub.. Sub by a country mile. Particularly the 14060m.. They can take all the mud and knocks you can throw, the bezel insert can be replaced if it gets damaged to a point you can't put up with whereas the exp bezel is more expensive to repair/replace and the grain shows everything.. plus I always found the crown a little weedy in comparison.
That said, it's not any of us that will be wearing it so go with what you like the most
Last edited by verv; 16th February 2015 at 21:46.
IMO, neither is a tool watch, whatever that means. I would seriously recommend getting the one whose looks and fit appeal to you AND a beater.
Are we talking the SubC or the non SubC?
In either case both come with no date version if cyclops is an issue.
Disclaimer up front: I have only experience of the 40mm expl II.
It's a really nice under the radar watch, clearly sturdy and well constructed- you could wear as a daily with no problem. Now the slight irritations; looks a bit too metal on metal on the bracelet and the bezel doesn't turn- no scratches on mine and it looks great off the bracelet with some colour in a NATO.
That said, if I had to chose just one, it would probably be the sub- it's iconic and bomb proof by the look of it. Will have to flip and try at some point....
God luck!
I think a ss sub is a watch made to be worn. My sub will only stay at home if im off surfing and woried about loosing it or off to a dodgy part of town. Hence my other thread about a cheapy seiko diver.
Last edited by pearlwhite67; 16th February 2015 at 22:03.
I would get the ND sub if between that and the Exp II, however as already said for another £1000 your in to SD territory and they are another level in my opinion.
Although a SD is not actually an ideal NATO match due to its weight (and the distribution thereof.) put it on a Rubber B.
Hmm. If you're adding 1k though that's into ceramics territory and they tend to wear better than a SD on a daily basis. IME.
Just wanted to give some positives on the Explorer II (I know the Sub has pretty much made a clean sweep in this thread).
The Explorer II is very understated and theres something very purist about it as a tool watch. For example there's no bling version, its stainless only in white or black dial. Its 'the working mans' Rolex (why do I reckon I'm going to get stick for that). I like the date/cyclops as it appears on the Polar explorer and I use it a lot. The GMT hand does little but it is a nice complication.
In terms of the fantasy branding it also depends on who you sort of align with; the explorer 2 being marketed at rufty tufty climbers and cave/geo people but the sub being marketed at scuba divers and all that. Of course 99.9% of these watches live and die in offices and suburbia !
I also see a lot of Submariners in workplace meeting rooms (Oil & Gas Industry). When I say a lot, one week I saw 6, on 6 different blokes.
I do think the new 42mm Explorer 2 (216750 ?) wears a bit big & wide.
Enjoy choosing.
Interesting comments and remarkably no arguments, it must have calmed down here in my absence!
Nice to see some balance for the explorer with personal experience. I do like the heritage of the watch as I'm a sad case for the old explorers but now understand the reservations about the bezel.
I like the SD but its too big for my wrist. Lovely photo though Josh.
SD in it's element:
Heres the SD in its other elements ;)
i dont find it wears any bigger than the Subs (and have had both date and nd) but it is a heavier wear.
Heres a post by a big fan of the Exp II for some further food for thought
http://www.theprodigalguide.com/2010...y-explorer-ii/
truth is if you buy well you wont go too far wrong with either.
Both excellent watches - I think, given your individual requirements, I'd go for the sub.
Get a sub.
mike
Ah Mike, if you were a PROPER diver like me then you would need an SD!
As you can see I need every one of those 4,000 feet...
An important factor for me is that while the sub is at very least one of the most recognisable and iconic Rolex out there, the Expolorer II is a much quieter watch, from what can otherwise be a rather loud brand. This makes it very wearable for me - I've never once felt that it was too showy or in your face. It reminds you of the days a Rolex sports watch was a tool and not an ornament, particulalry in drilled lugs 16570 form. With the larger cased 216570 in the shops, the older ones have acquired an almost nostalgic vintage appeal. And while there are a great many 'rare' subs in theory, you do seem to see a lot more of them in practice (and GMTs, and sub-alikes from other brands).
Finally, I'm sad to say I haven't so much as snorkelled since I was 8 years old, never mind dived, whereas the GMT hand is a genuinely useful complication as I do go on planes. Even if I did make it into the sea (a rare occurrence), the EII would certainly cope. So while I don't want to try and convince sub owners that the EII is a better choice - no hope of that - the EII does have its place and deserves some love too, especially at current prices.
Perhaps a GMT with a black bezel is what's called for here - that's more or less half way in between the two visually, and you still get to play with the bezel.
Last edited by Itsguy; 17th February 2015 at 10:26.
My 2001 Submariner 14060M remains my favourite watch.
I still enjoy just looking at it.
Photographed by LTF.
scooter
Forgetting the looks, the Exp 2 is going to be that bit easier to live with. I have both and the rotating bezel on the sub is most likely to cause issues with sand and dust getting into it. Also, the bezel on the sub is designed to be easy to grip and rotate, by it's nature, it catches on things (like clothing or any hard surface). I actually pinged mine off completely once. The bezel on the exp doesn't rotate and is designed not to catch on things. Incidentally, I don't think either of them are really a tool watch, I see them as high end luxury items.
Interesting you say that.
I've been wearing my 42mm Exp 2 non-stop for about six months - and have used it in all conditions, doing various outdoor activities, and the bezel still looks like new.
I'd agree that the ceramic bezel should wear better and also that the Sub is possibly the more hard wearing as a result but haven't found the 42mm Exp to mark easily at all.
I've tried every steel watch in the range with the exception of YM/YM-II. Get whichever one looks best to you within budget; Submariner, GMT II, Explorer I (36 mm only), Explorer II, and consider the non-"sports" range such as the 36 mm Datejust, OP and the seriously underappreciated Oysterquartz. They're all good.*
*Though personally, I'd stay away from the 42 mm Explorer II as an everyday watch even on my 200 mm wrist, let alone 170-ish.
Interesting point. Like a proper sad case I've been reading around the topic and found this comment in an old thread -
Its a tricky one I have both 114060 and a Polar Explorer II, honestly love both. Contrary to reports of the Exp II bezel being a scratch magnet etc mine is still pristine and heavily worn. The Exp II is the beater of my Rolex collection, its prob the only real "tool" watch Rolex currently make.
The swingometer is reset to 'indecision'.
Rolex Vs Rolex? Not much for the fanboys to get overexcited about. Just don't use the 'S' word or it'll all go wrong ;)
I have owned the Sub in the past (No-date version twice) and currently have the SD and the older 40mm Explorer 2.
I think the Explorer is more unique choice: size, weight and comfort are pretty close to perfect. It is a 'relatively' rare sports model which means not everyone will be wearing it down the pub. I have never had any problems with the Exp2 bezel and it has been used in some tough conditions.
I love mine. The Sub, though an obvious icon, never inspired me.
Buy what you like. I think the Explorer 2 previous model is a sleeper at present and you could find one at 2500 to 2750 in excellent shape. They wear a bit smaller and more discreet than the sub too. You see endless sub out and about... Not many exp2's.
Posting Permissions
