Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppyjr
I’ve quoted an old post.....
The newer model is (at least subjectively) more attractive, but it’s true that most Rolex buyers get a Rolex because they want it to be recognized as a symbol of success. They therefore gravitate toward the more recognizable models like the Datejust, Submariner, GMT, and Daytona.
I agree that the Explorer II is just as functional as the GMT and, in its current form with the 3187 movement, likely more durable. This is surely aided by the fixed bezel.
I’ve owned the GMT 16710 and should have never sold it. I’ve also owned and sold the 116710 GMTc and I don’t miss that one. In fact, I’ve sold every ceramic bezel model I’ve owned. I just don’t care for the flashy looks.
While lacking a rotating bezel, the 216570 reminds me of the last generation sport models. The generation that could withstand almost anything. While the current ceramic bezel watches are surely robust, they leave me with the feeling that they are more fragile.
The Explorer II is one that would suggest function over form. A working watch.
Long live the Explorer II.
 |
Good post. And I agree. I loved looking at my BLNR but ultimately I couldn’t shake the reality that as I walked through doorways I was forever guarding against knocking the bezel. The one that I never turned. The 16710 is a fantastic watch but I even prefer the 16750 or 16700. Two time zones is quite enough for me.
But either way the ceramic dial sparkle just wore off for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk