|
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.
|