Quote:
Originally Posted by speicher1
Hey David. Great thread! To me, the Explorer II has been something of an enigma in the Rolex line. All I know if that I've wanted one for a long time; that is until I tried on a Sea Dweller. I compared them side by side at an AD and ultimately decided that the Explorer II wasn't for me. I think the relative unpopularity of the Explorer II can be attributed to a few things (in my opinion):
1. Esoteric and weird marketing- Cave exploration? C'mon. I can believe that there are quite a few divers in TRF. Shoot. I might even say some of you high rollers here might be yachters or even work in auto racing. But speleogists?
2. Legacy (or pedigree)- Rolex likes to use the Explorer II for their Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay ad. But in fact, Sir Edmund wore an Explorer I (which looks more like a dress watch, than something used for summitting Everest). So in this sense, the Explorer II is something of an unproven bastard child in Rolex's sport watches.
3. Design- If the watch is really that rugged, then why the average water resistance rating and twin-lock crown? The 24hr hand is certainly notable, but it wasn't enough to sell me on the watch. I think if somebody really needed a rugged Rolex, then the Sea-Dweller or 14060M would be better choices.
|
All valid points definitely but I just have a few questions...
When you say that the legacy of the Explorer II is all contributed from the first Explorer that went up Mt Everest, would not the same principle apply to the GMT Master? Because Chuck Yeager did not wear a GMT II when he broke the speed of sound on a jet, he wore the first GMT. So the legacy of the GMT II is inspired by the first GMT and exact same should apply for the Explorer II, so why do you consider to Explorer II to be a "bastard child" in this case? I, for one, believe the legacy of the Exp II to be just like that of the GMT.
Secondly, I already believe the Explorer II is the most rugged designs in the sports models. You know what adds to that ruggedness? The fact that it is the one of the only sports models manufactured ENTIRELY in SS besides the SD, ND Sub, and Milgauss. While I consider the SD and ND Sub to be the most rugged, I believe the Exp II is more rugged than the GMT, Sub Date, Daytona, Yacht Master, and Milgauss. Especially since it has a matte bracelet and bezel and every part of the watch is SS, even the bezel.