ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Sub or Exp?? | |||
Keep the Sub-C! | 238 | 55.09% | |
Go for the Exp II 42, you will love it!! | 194 | 44.91% | |
Voters: 432. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
13 September 2012, 04:36 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,063
|
Sub-C VS. Explorer II 42mm
Both would be black dials!
I have been staring at the Explorer lately, it is just visually stunning. It also appears to have less bling than the Sub-C. Must be due to the shiny ceramic bezel. The question is, how does it wear compared to a SubC? I noticed the Sub wears very big for a 40mm watch. The crown bothers me sometimes, and the clasp is a bit large for my taste (but not a deal breaker imho) The Explorer 42's case has a nice taper to it, but does it actually wear about the same as the Sub? Anyone have any side to side photos? Note that I have a smallish wrist at around 6.25" Does anyone have any further comments, and if it would be wise to obtain an Explorer II to replace a Sub-C (cant have both unfortunately) Thank you in advance! PS: I know nobody has a crystal ball, but does anyone think an Exp II will retain value as well as the Sub does? I noticed the 16570 sells very cheaply. Thanks again |
13 September 2012, 04:38 AM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Ron
Location: Laguna Niguel, Ca
Watch: Rolex 116613LN
Posts: 1,724
|
Keep the Sub-C
|
13 September 2012, 04:43 AM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Joe
Location: Missouri, USA
Watch: YG Day-Date/SS Sub
Posts: 273
|
My personal opinion would be to keep the Sub-C
__________________
Rolex...the only way to go... |
13 September 2012, 04:44 AM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,148
|
The new Explorer II is a masterpiece, very impressive piece of kit. My advice would be to not read too much into resale value, it fluctuates - it shouldn't be the defining reason why you buy a watch. The Explorer II does wear larger than the Sub, but the case is more classically designed, so it's less square on the wrist. Movement-wise, it's got more going on than the Sub too, and very few watches can directly compare to the Explorer II - its closest competitor would be the GMT IIc, and that has a very different design approach.
|
13 September 2012, 04:46 AM | #5 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: nj
Posts: 31
|
Would keep the Sub-c.
|
13 September 2012, 04:55 AM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Dan
Location: Essex, UK
Watch: West Ham! COYI!!
Posts: 7,941
|
The square lugs on my cSub always bug me so my 216570's my go-to timepiece.
__________________
Onwards & Upwards Rodders...... Onwards & Upwards. Life is not about how fast you can run or how high you can climb........... It's about how well you can bounce!! TRF HALL OF FAME JANUARY 2010 |
13 September 2012, 04:55 AM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Real Name: Tom
Location: In a race car!
Watch: ME RACE PORSCHES
Posts: 24,123
|
the sub's bezel and clasp are superior, so got my vote
|
13 September 2012, 04:58 AM | #8 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 4,345
|
I would keep the Sub C, Rolex Submariner is an iconic watch so always will retain its value better compared to the Explorer
|
13 September 2012, 04:59 AM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Real Name: Sandy
Location: England.
Watch: 14060M 2 liner
Posts: 3,204
|
You might guess my opinion.
|
13 September 2012, 04:59 AM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,063
|
thanks guys, keep the comments coming!
I need to think long and hard about this one. The truth is, the Sub-C is a replacable watch at the moment so it could be worth the try. |
13 September 2012, 05:02 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: weehawken
Posts: 847
|
Sol,
If you have a small ROUND wrist (mine is 6.5"), dont even waste your time trying on the new explorer..that is, unless you like the look of big empty gaps between the top of strap and your wrist. |
13 September 2012, 07:33 PM | #12 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Crete
Watch: GMT Master IIc
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
Many other people have said it before me: size has a lot to do with personal taste. So the best possible advice and what you MUST do is spend time in an AD - give wrist-time to the candidates, visit the shop 2 or 3 times, alternate your attire to help you decide what looks best and then, believe me, inside you will know! You will be spending a considerable sum to acquire a close partner for a considerable amount of time - you must get what really warms your insides and to do that you must let yourself free to experience these feelings. Atb. |
|
13 September 2012, 05:08 AM | #13 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mass/Vegas/disney
Watch: Hulk,114060,14060
Posts: 929
|
Keep the sub c,as far as better resale value down the road the subc has the exp 2 beat.but pick whichever you feel you will enjoy more.ive had both and enjoyed the subc more.both very nice watches can't really go wrong either way.
|
13 September 2012, 05:19 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: massachusetts
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 1,659
|
I would enjoy the EXP II much more than the Sub-C.
EXP II because it's less common, less bling, no fat lugs, and more distinctive looking. As I mentioned in another thread, the shine and bling of the Sub gets tiresome after awhile. Just my opinion. |
13 September 2012, 06:25 AM | #15 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,063
|
Quote:
I dont have a problem test driving an Explorer 42 as I would probably be getting a pre-owned model and could easily flip it if needed. On another note I just went to Rolex on 5th ave and tried it on and it looks nice in person and nice on my wrist. I was wearing my GMT so I did not compare it to the Sub-C (totally forgot to ask the salesperson to bring one as well) The problem is that the bracelet was not sized, so it may be that once its sized the case might look large on my wrist. |
|
13 September 2012, 11:09 AM | #16 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: massachusetts
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 1,659
|
Here's the bottom line with regards to these watches. People want to look good and also have their watches reflect who they are...or who they ideally want to be. Let's be honest about this, right?.
The ceramic Subs/GMTs are initially eye catching and fantastically made, no doubt. But, what I focus on is what I think is timeless, what I think is going to look good years from now. More bling, shinyness=more likely to grow old fast. I mean real fast. This is my opinion. Quote:
|
|
13 September 2012, 11:43 AM | #17 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Real Name: Trevor
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,740
|
Quote:
I had the Sub C and sold it and now have the black dialed Explorer II, it is the best Rolex sport watch I have ever owned. I also hated the large clasp on the Sub C, it was just silly for someone who will never use it over a wet suit. I also am not a fan or the ceramic shine or the gloss dial, give me a matte dial every time and I will be happy. I also find the Explorer II to be way more comfortable on the wrist, it is just proportioned perfectly and is not as thick as the Sub C. I tried to like the Sub C, but it was just not for me.
__________________
My grails: |
|
13 September 2012, 11:54 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
|
I should also add: I find the Exp II easier to read than the Sub or GMT II C
The Exp II's matte (strictly speaking 'satin') dial, with its larger size and raised crystal (which allows more light onto the dial) make for a very easy to read watch
__________________
|
13 September 2012, 05:34 AM | #19 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 34,492
|
Keep what you have, IMO. Glidelock + rotating bezel + scratch proof bezel for the win.
|
13 September 2012, 05:41 AM | #20 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Watch: 116610LN
Posts: 15,802
|
From what you've written, it sounds like the Explorer II is more appealing to you in every way except concerns about its size.
I've never tried one on, but I do have a 42mm Tag as well as a sub c and any size difference between those is not noticeable to me. I agree that the sub c "wears big" for a 40mm watch. Is it wise to swap? I wouldn't have thought so financially, but then wisdom often goes out the door when it comes to watch purchases! |
13 September 2012, 05:53 AM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Real Name: Chris
Location: Wisconsin
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 2,984
|
IMO, ExpII wears way bigger than Sub. The diameter of the dial makes it seem much larger on wrist.
__________________
Lead by example through production. |
13 September 2012, 08:47 AM | #22 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Joe
Location: PA
Posts: 14,774
|
I'd keep the SubC.
Good luck! |
13 September 2012, 09:41 AM | #23 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Gotham
Posts: 1,249
|
I would pick the 216570 if both options are a black dial. If we were talking about the 116610LV then it would be a more difficult decision for me.
|
13 September 2012, 02:16 PM | #24 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Sam
Location: Gotham City
Watch: Wall Street
Posts: 9,954
|
x2 Both are solid! Decisions, decisions! Good luck!
__________________
"Wealth is of the heart and mind, not of the pocket!" "A Watch Is An Emotional Object, And So, It Is The Responsibility Of The Brand To Create Emotion Through It's Products" - Georges Kern "In the 1950s and 60s, they made the Ref 8171, which is a cult collectible—now that’s the ultimate Rolex you could own with a calendar and a moon phase.” - John Reardon "Heh, heh, heh..." - Michael Kilyung |
13 September 2012, 10:17 AM | #25 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida, Canada
Watch: Rol/Seik/Tud/Omega
Posts: 30,244
|
Easily the Ex2.
|
13 September 2012, 10:32 AM | #26 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
|
I voted Exp II
Imho a nicer-looking and more useful watch The Exp II sits flatter on the wrist than the Sub, so you may find it more comfortable in that regard. I find the clasp more comfortable than the larger Glidelock, but for many this is a non-issue. The overall difference in size is very slight They are both excellent watches, but I am much happier with the Exp II
__________________
|
13 September 2012, 11:22 AM | #27 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: earth
Watch: 216570 White
Posts: 224
|
GMT Master - can you elaborate on this Plz...
"its closest competitor would be the GMT IIc, and that has a very different design approach." Thanks. |
13 September 2012, 09:34 PM | #28 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,148
|
Quote:
With regards to the design, the GMT IIc is aimed at the modern businessman - someone who needs a watch to be reliable, practical, and look really sharp with a suit. The Explorer II is very much an outdoorsman's watch, just that little bit more sporty, a little less sophisticated (and I mean that as a compliment). So, you have two watches with extremely similar functions with two different end uses. Clever stuff |
|
13 September 2012, 11:15 PM | #29 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Real Name: Chris
Location: Wisconsin
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 2,984
|
Quote:
__________________
Lead by example through production. |
|
14 September 2012, 02:15 AM | #30 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,148
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.