Originally Posted by Rolexiva
One year ago and for some months I was shopping for a new daily wearer that would assist me in answering that question: “Hey man, what time is it?” To wear from suit to sea, peak to opera house was the thinking. Legibility, durability, distinctive but not flashy were among the criteria. Some previous watches included a 1997 Victorinox GMT (still going strong); a titanium Tissot One-Touch (binned it—what a piece of junk); and, a 1956 Bulova (still great condition but gold and small-size limit its range for sure). A Rolex was new ground for me.
And some months spanned before I began to better appreciate the Rolex line to include especially the Explorer I. Rolex appeared more to be “old man watches” (sorry) or too much a trophy. Less keen about polished steel, the Explorer I appeared too shiny at first. Polished bezel, shiny numbers—what “explorer” would wear that watch to even the Marriott in Kathmandu? I thought the Arabic numbers were overly odd and large. At least with a Panerai (112 or 176) there is the 12 o’clock digit to provide continuity around the dial. Legacy of the Explorer I held in suspicion.
What I did appreciate about the Explorer I from the get-go was the fit on my wrist. Only an older (1978) Submariner no-date felt as comfortable and symmetrical. I tried to warm to the Explorer II given the brushed steel bezel and return to the original “Steve McQueen” maxi dial. White was too pale and the white gold rimming the markers on the Black was too distracting. The new Explorer II also felt too top heavy on my wrist. I also tried the new Omega Planet Ocean (8500 movement), Blancpain’s 50 Fathoms, and several Panerai. Being less inclined towards the Diver tradition and more to the mountains, the dive watches were less appealing. There also appeared the tendency for many watches to be up-sized, to be a trophy of sorts rather than a simple, rugged, and versatile timepiece.
On that point this Explorer I does appear somewhat bloated on my 7-inch plus wrist. I would hasten to have a watch any thicker. This Explorer I is heavier than I expected, but maybe that weight is necessary given the movement’s upgrades to include durability to shocks.
The bracelet is of course first rate and “scratch magnet” it is not! I love the easy link extension. That is practicality to the maximum when it comes to wearing daily.
The above were the initial impressions after wearing the watch for three months. One year later I wear this watch all-the-time. And after shopping for a second watch (a mental disease to be sure) gave me additional perspective on this Explorer I.
The Dial
The applied dial markings provide sufficient depth to always add interest and depth to a dial color I otherwise consider monochrome and uninteresting. Perhaps this understated style but depth in quality is part of what can make the Rolex sport watch line continually attractive.
I considered the critique of the minute hand being a tad short-- being a design flaw in other words. I wondered at times why did Rolex not go with the conventional longer minute hand. Did the Rolex designers simply screw up? While no horologist I tend to think the minute hand’s length was very deliberate on the part of Rolex. For one, the white luminous portion of the minute hand exactly align with the luminous portion of minute markers. More significantly, the length of the minute hand may very well be a tribute to the previous generation (and smaller dial) Explorer I. From a distance, especially when worn when passing a full length mirror—say, in a gym—the minute marker does look distinctively short, but to be longer would make the watch look like any other plain faced watch, maybe even a pilot’s watch (yikes). The short minute hand keeps the look swift, sufficient, and compact, keeping linkages to its 36mm predecessor. My theory for your consideration.
The dial is helpfully legible even when peering for the time at an angle. That the Arabic numbers are not luminous makes getting the time right at night because that gap in luminosity helps ensure I am reading the dial correctly. The luminosity is just enough to tell the time without making time at ungodly hour too imperative. During the day the Arabic numerals are similarly useful as there is less chance of mistaking seven for eight o’clock, ten for eleven o’clock, etc. when wanting to know the time at a quick glance.
A watch without complications means a watch that underscores simplicity and what is important. The lack of a date demonstrates that the day does not matter but the moment. A wise man once said: “the most important place is where you are right now.” If you agree then a GMT function only is helpful if it is very legible and in no way distracts from informing you about the most important place: where you are standing. If traveling across time zones and even datelines, the Explorer I makes all simple: just change the time and keep going.
The Bracelet
Only after searching for a complement to this watch did I again come back to relishing the bracelet of this 214270. Cold of winter, humidity of summer, right out of the shower, quintessentially comfortable and sufficiently adjustable for 24+ hours, awake or asleep, consisting of metal that for some reason is just plain enriching on the skin of my wrist, are among the hallmarks of this bracelet. Of additional note are the solid pins that will better resist the reported stretching incurred in previous generation bracelets.
The Movement
Hah! I know nothing of movements except what everyone else says and I like the idea that this watch will keep ticking for years without the hood needing to be lifted. Additionally helpful is that I can leave the watch off over a weekend and it will still be ticking Monday AM.
General Construction and Aesthetics
I have had my share of Timexes, advertised to “take a licking and keep on ticking”(!) and that of course resonates better as advertising than reality; whereas, this Rolex is rock-solid. Clunking someone over the head with this seemingly modest sized watch (by today’s trends) would really hurt! And I have yet to understand the attraction of a transparent caseback. It would probably reduce the resiliency of the case. Besides, I seldom look at the back of this watch (because I am wearing it) and glad that Rolex and this Explorer I have stayed away from that crystal case back trend.
Conclusion One Year Later.
I’m keeping it.
The blue bezel GMT and recently released watches by other manufacturers have enticed me to ponder trading in this Explorer I. Yet, I keep coming back to this watch. The combination of quality, understated disposition, legibility, potential range of wear, and legacy make this watch a relief in a world that can otherwise be complex. Moreover I have yet to see anyone else wearing the Explorer I. Datejust, Panerai, Submariner abound, while the Explorer I stands alone.
|