The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 13 September 2012, 04:36 AM   #1
Solo118
"TRF" Member
 
Solo118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,056
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
Solo118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 04:38 AM   #2
Lagunatic
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Ron
Location: Laguna Niguel, Ca
Watch: Rolex 116613LN
Posts: 1,724
Keep the Sub-C
Lagunatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 04:43 AM   #3
pol
"TRF" Member
 
pol's Avatar
 
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...

pol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 04:44 AM   #4
The GMT Master
"TRF" Member
 
The GMT Master's Avatar
 
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.
The GMT Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 04:46 AM   #5
leetheway
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: nj
Posts: 31
Would keep the Sub-c.
leetheway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 04:55 AM   #6
spuds
"TRF" Member
 
spuds's Avatar
 
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
spuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 04:55 AM   #7
tkerrmd
"TRF" Member
 
tkerrmd's Avatar
 
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
tkerrmd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 04:58 AM   #8
Sam Philip
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
Sam Philip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 04:59 AM   #9
SeaDweller50
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Real Name: Sandy
Location: England.
Watch: 14060M 2 liner
Posts: 3,204
You might guess my opinion.
SeaDweller50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 04:59 AM   #10
Solo118
"TRF" Member
 
Solo118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,056
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.
Solo118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 05:02 AM   #11
tinger
"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.
tinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 05:08 AM   #12
Rocco22
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.
Rocco22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 05:19 AM   #13
warrior
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: massachusetts
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 1,640
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.
warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 05:34 AM   #14
Cru Jones
2024 Pledge Member
 
Cru Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 34,376
Keep what you have, IMO. Glidelock + rotating bezel + scratch proof bezel for the win.
Cru Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 05:41 AM   #15
Bangel
"TRF" Member
 
Bangel's Avatar
 
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!
Bangel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 05:53 AM   #16
floater156
"TRF" Member
 
floater156's Avatar
 
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.
floater156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 06:25 AM   #17
Solo118
"TRF" Member
 
Solo118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior View Post
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.
This is what I was thinking. The bezel is just a bit too shiny and in your face if you know what I mean. The old Sub could be worn under the radar and was near perfect (visually) the upgrades on the newer models are very appealing to me. I am over the old bracelets (which is why I am selling my 16710)

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.
Solo118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 08:47 AM   #18
nauticajoe
"TRF" Member
 
nauticajoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Joe
Location: PA
Posts: 14,774
I'd keep the SubC.

Good luck!
nauticajoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 09:41 AM   #19
john333
2024 Pledge Member
 
john333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Gotham
Posts: 1,246
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.
john333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 10:17 AM   #20
Art 1
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida, Canada
Watch: Rol/Seik/Tud/Omega
Posts: 30,244
Easily the Ex2.
Art 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 10:32 AM   #21
Psmith
"TRF" Member
 
Psmith's Avatar
 
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
__________________
Psmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 11:09 AM   #22
warrior
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: massachusetts
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 1,640
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:
Originally Posted by Solo118 View Post
This is what I was thinking. The bezel is just a bit too shiny and in your face if you know what I mean. The old Sub could be worn under the radar and was near perfect (visually) the upgrades on the newer models are very appealing to me. I am over the old bracelets (which is why I am selling my 16710)

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.
warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 11:22 AM   #23
shoota70
"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.
shoota70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 11:43 AM   #24
karmatp
"TRF" Member
 
karmatp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Real Name: Trevor
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior View Post
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.
X2

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:
karmatp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 11:54 AM   #25
Psmith
"TRF" Member
 
Psmith's Avatar
 
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
__________________
Psmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 11:56 AM   #26
andrew79
"TRF" Member
 
andrew79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Andrew
Location: Indonesia
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 2,277
sub C for me....
__________________
Baume & Mercier Riviera
Rolex GMT II c, DJ 116234, Sub 16610, EXP 2 16570
Panerai 111 , 232
andrew79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 01:05 PM   #27
htc8p
"TRF" Member
 
htc8p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Bert
Location: philippines
Watch: 116710 ln
Posts: 3,434
The Sub over exp 42 for me!
htc8p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 02:16 PM   #28
FremStar
"TRF" Member
 
FremStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Sam
Location: Gotham City
Watch: Wall Street
Posts: 9,954
Icon11

Quote:
Originally Posted by john333 View Post
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.
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
FremStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 02:48 PM   #29
Solo118
"TRF" Member
 
Solo118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,056
Thanks all, I am continuing to debate this decision. I do appreciate all of the comments. I think I am leaning towards the EXP II... Matte dial, a little kick of color with that GMT hand.... I don't know its a bit more unique in my eyes.
Solo118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 September 2012, 03:48 PM   #30
WatchingTime
"TRF" Member
 
WatchingTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo118 View Post
Thanks all, I am continuing to debate this decision. I do appreciate all of the comments. I think I am leaning towards the EXP II... Matte dial, a little kick of color with that GMT hand.... I don't know its a bit more unique in my eyes.
You nailed it! Everybody and their brother has a Sub, and a ceramic bezel is just not enough to make a difference. IMHO, The new EXP II 42mm is an instant classic. I have been were you are very recently, and asked the same question (I also threw the Omega Planet Ocean w/ 8500 movement in the mix). I have put a lot of thought and time into this and...

the more I researched, asked questions, thought about it, and went into my AD over and over, the EXP II just rose to the surface. Have you Googled reviews on the EXP II, they are raving to say the least.

Here are a few of my personal observations:

1) EXP II 42mm was more comfortable on MY wrist (your wrist may differ)
2) Love the original look! Love the orange hand!
3) No future repair bills for trouble shooting rotating bezel in future from sand at beach (are you a diver? Would you dive w/ your Sub? If not, no rotating bezel is really necessary).
4) Love the Luminated markers!
5) EASY TO READ dial. A big seller for me here! Do yourself a favor, and definitely compare the two watches while on your wrist. the larger 42mm maxi dial and markers easily win here! (no debate needed).
6) Love the larger 42mm watch. Why didn't Rolex increase the size of the Sub in the most recent launch?? Don't know, but I'll take a 42mm over its 40mm brethren any day. It just feels better.
7) Sub is unfortunately one of the most copied watches of all times. Flattering yes... but do you really want a watch that A) Screams Rolex B) Potentially screams fake Rolex by the untrained eye?
8) I am a diver. NO ONE has ever gone down 300 feet sport diving, so who cares if the Sub can go to 1000? (can you say "Dead Diver"?)
9) Glidelock clasp? +1 for Sub-C. Rolex, you big dummies, what were you thinking? Was the EXP II not deserving enough?
10) The EXP II sings to me the loudest.

One thing you will here consistently on this forum is "Rolex got this one right" in referring to the 42mm EXP. Wow... how often do you here that?

Good luck. You cannot make a bad choice here. Determine what is important to YOU, and choose accordingly.

Let's look at some great photo's! (All photos taken from other TRF previous post, in which I do not have names to give credit. If you see YOUR watch photo... thank you, and feel free to claim credit!)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg expii8.jpg (51.6 KB, 1799 views)
File Type: jpg expii3.jpg (136.9 KB, 1814 views)
File Type: jpg EXP_VS_SUB.jpg (186.3 KB, 1836 views)
File Type: jpg Sub_EXP2.jpg (162.2 KB, 1827 views)
WatchingTime is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.