Why is the New Explorer II 42mm not more popular?

[jcclx1]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1362148456.522959.jpg
Unpopular not really, less common than Sub C, and GMT's yes. ;). BTW not a bad thing IMHO!

[Nitedeuce]

The only personal solution I can come up with is to have both. I had a GMTIIc but did not like the PCLs and had no use for the 24 hour rotating bezel. The Sub Date is more to my taste for a ceramic bezel sports Rolex (I like to time things with the bezel). But for a GMT the Explorer is tops in my opinion. It is lower key, the size is better (for me), it has a respectable history and it is very rugged. I don't dive, so it is plenty water resistant. I owned the black face, but flipped it and will buy the Polar in the coming months. I've been trying to decide between the Sub Date and the Polar, but just can't. I want both. That may take more time to finance, but I feel like I can be at peace with the idea. I always liked the mountaineering background of the watch. Ed Viesturs is an ambassador and represented with the polar. That watch just says mountain expedition to me. I did not feel the strong urge to pull the trigger until the new 42mm model was released. I bought the black face as a "Sub or Explorer" choice. I already had a white faced sports watch. However, after I had it, I was still lusting for the polar. So... I sold the GMTIIc and the black Explorer and am SURE that a Sub Date and Polar 42 is my dream combo. If I could only have one... That's just too hard. The Sub is so iconic. For what I actually use it for and what I can more personally relate to, I think the Explorer is more 'me'.

[Castor]

I find that the supposedly overlarge and overbearing hands and markers on the 216570 aren't in the wild; the watch as a whole wears a lot smaller than the photographs would imply.
The orange hand jumps out at you in photographs, but on the wrist it is a lot more subdued.
This watch is beautiful; flies under the radar; does not scream Rolex; and the hands and markers are large and legible, even for my eyes.

[tinger]

I like the watch but its too big for me.

I hang out in the city alot.. mostly Chelsea, Tribecca and Soho.
I've never seen the 42exp2 in the wild.
Was at SD26 last night, saw 3 subs, 1 daytona and 2 ROO at nearby tables.

[themast]

There is another thread going on in these hours that exemplifies why the EXP II is "less popular"
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=283703

The usual dilemma: EXP II - SUB - GMT II often gets resolved in favour of the SUB (or the GMT II) for a series of reasons that make the SUB (and the GMT II) what they are... it's a vicious circle! Someone should step up and break the EXP II curse!

[themast]

double post

[Wrist Watcher]

Not sure what others think (or care honestly), but I have the polar and it's my favorite watch right above the SubC.

[yld2rob]

I think the problem is what someone else stated. For the same money as a sub c almost (even though you could get a bigger discount on the exp II) it doesn't look as high end. The Polar EXP II I think should be $1000 or so less than the sub c. I was debating making the EXP II my next purchase or the sub LV, what made me choose the sub was the bezel. If you care about scratches, the Exp II would not be a good choice. The ceramic bezel on the sub is durable. It might be my next choice?????? I saw a recent photo of Price Harry in his uniform wearing the polar. Cool.

[union thug]

Who knew the Explorer was out of favor.

[Mccamp4]

I would argue that the Explorer II could be priced the same if not more than the sub c. Newer movement, better shock absorption, bigger, more rugged case and the added complication of the of the 24 hour hand. The glide lock clasp is nice but I'm not wearing a sub over a 5mm wetsuit. IMO the only thing they could have done to make it better was add a trip lock crown, but even without that the crown sits nicely tucked in between its guards.

It was mentioned on another thread today that people vote for an explorer II over a sub tend to write the reasons why and I think that is bc it is a watch that warrants description and it excites those that own it. Polar or black, both dials pop and have beautiful contrast with the orange gmt hand. The sub is a great looking watch and there is no denying it is a classic that I do hope to own one day, but you can describe the look of it in far less detail than that of the new explorer II.

[zeroshiki]

On a recent visit to singapore i had sightings of the explorer II as many times as the sub c. That shows the exp is popular in the country.

[xxthe_remedyxx]

Originally Posted by Mccamp4

I would argue that the Explorer II could be priced the same if not more than the sub c. Newer movement, better shock absorption, bigger, more rugged case and the added complication of the of the 24 hour hand. The glide lock clasp is nice but I'm not wearing a sub over a 5mm wetsuit. IMO the only thing they could have done to make it better was add a trip lock crown, but even without that the crown sits nicely tucked in between its guards.

It was mentioned on another thread today that people vote for an explorer II over a sub tend to write the reasons why and I think that is bc it is a watch that warrants description and it excites those that own it. Polar or black, both dials pop and have beautiful contrast with the orange gmt hand. The sub is a great looking watch and there is no denying it is a classic that I do hope to own one day, but you can describe the look of it in far less detail than that of the new explorer II.

Although I love the look of the triplock crown, I never understood why it protrudes past the crown guards. The whole point of the guards is to protect the crown. The Explorer crown IMHO is perfectly executed.

[Ferrari 312T]

Not sure

I had a Gmt master Pepsi from 2000 which I sold to get the 42mm polar explorer. Why did I do this and what are my early thoughts. IMHO of of course

The case size at 42mm is better for a modern sports watch. 40mm is too small. It s just right. I have a 45 mm planet ocean an a 44mm panerai which are great but I think for a sports rolex the 42 is just right.

The orange Gmt hand is striking and is easy to see. I found you had to look more than once on the old Gmt hand on my Gmt master

The bracelet is great. The clasp is far more robust and the bracelet is more substantial. I think there is not a watch on earth that has a bracelet that is more in tune with the watch head than a sports rolex with a oyster bracelet.

The maxi dial and hands are great. I felt the old polar explorer had too much white dial and not enough going on. Looked a bit plain. Not a problem now.

The size of the case and the bracelet lug with are perfect. I love that there is still a taper on the lugs.

In the end the explorer ii will never be the most popular rolex. Most non WIS's will always go for the sub first which is the iconic Rolex to get. After the sub i imagine the gmt master would be the next sports rolex (although i don't fancy the current model at all). i never looked twice at the old explorer ii.

In 2010 I got my first rolex after buying 3 omegas and a Breitling. I loved the Gmt master but I still did not get it(remember I am a wis so a purchase of a rolex is more based on the watch rather than what it is perceived to represent in the non wis world). With the new explorer ii I now get it. A watch that is worthy of the rolex reputation

[Rogdogg]

Originally Posted by andyol1966

I don't want this to become too popular..I enjoy having something you don't see very much in the wild

I think this is a great picture. Shows it off very nicely.
I love mine and wouldn't change it. It's a great piece.
On the topic of it being unpopular I wouldn't agree with that. I think that in the last couple of months there has been quite a surge in the amount of people posting about it compared to the months before, which also had it's steady stream of postings

[zion_rasta]

The ugliest rolex in the lineup is the polar explorer II . Even if I had it for free I would be embarrassed to wear that thing. To me it looks like a glorified timex.

It does have the best movement. The design is horrendous.

[floater156]

The sub has always been the most popular sport model. The new ExpII may scare some off with its size at 42mm. Personally, I really like the black dial ExpII. It is a little under the radar and a lot of people that buy Rolex probably want the bling factor to show off a bit, I mean if they're spending that kind of money on a watch they want someone to notice!

[Rich2putt]

Originally Posted by ClemsonTC

Not sure what others think (or care honestly), but I have the polar and it's my favorite watch right above the SubC.

x2

[sea-dweller]

For some reason, the Explorer watches do not seem as popular as the Subs or GMT models. But, I love all three models!

[Mccamp4]

Originally Posted by zion_rasta

The ugliest rolex in the lineup is the polar explorer II . Even if I had it for free I would be embarrassed to wear that thing. To me it looks like a glorified timex.

It does have the best movement. The design is horrendous.

I respect your opinion, but...

[scarlet knight]

I wear my polar Explorer 2 42mm more than my GMT. The GMT feels a little small in comparison, but I like them both.

[xxthe_remedyxx]

Originally Posted by zion_rasta

The ugliest rolex in the lineup is the polar explorer II . Even if I had it for free I would be embarrassed to wear that thing. To me it looks like a glorified timex.

It does have the best movement. The design is horrendous.

I respectfully disagree as well. I think both dials are beautiful, I went for the black.

[Exhausted]

Just left my AD. Went to try on the polar Explorer ll. Boy did it ever speak to me. Confirmed it's my next one.

[GEO_79]

Originally Posted by zion_rasta

The ugliest rolex in the lineup is the polar explorer II . Even if I had it for free I would be embarrassed to wear that thing. To me it looks like a glorified timex.

It does have the best movement. The design is horrendous.

I think your watches are the ugliest in the lineup. IMO

[marathonmatt]

Can't time a frozen pizza very well with a fixed bezel. Maybe that's the rub.

Great looking watches, IMO. Love the orange.

[mrhy]

The Explorer ll ,is my favorite Rolex.i have a blackface 16570,currently at theRSC ,here in new york.The 216570 polar is sure to be my next watch.

[Tony-GB]

Originally Posted by zion_rasta

The ugliest rolex in the lineup is the polar explorer II . Even if I had it for free I would be embarrassed to wear that thing. To me it looks like a glorified timex.

It does have the best movement. The design is horrendous.

What you've written isn't clear- you do or you don't like it...?

[Tony-GB]

Originally Posted by benlee

I agreed with you. I think the Explorer II is understated but elegant. It does not draw attention or scream "Rolex!" like the other models in Rolex's lineup. But look closely and there's lots of attention to detail, from the brush bezel that reflects light like a Rolex fluted bezel to the orange and tri-star hands to the clasp and bracelet to the finely crafted crown. It's my daily wearer and I absolutely love it. It's heck of a lot of quality for the price. Looks and liking for watches are personal and subjective, but the Sub is definitely more popular, judging by the new buyers that announce their new purchase in this forum.

Congrats on your new Explorer! Mine says Hi.

Did you take that pic? It's bloody stunning!!

[TAKUYA]

i like it if it's not more popular. because i don't wanna see it around often, so my black one should be rare. i love every details on this model, and even more with the movement, and especially the black dial changing the color. The size is perfect size these days.

[The GMT Master]

I think it basically comes down to conservatism. Most people when spending a large amount of money on a watch will want to go for the "safe bet". The Explorer II, with it's prominent orange hand (its most endearing feature, if you ask me) doesn't fit this - by Rolex standards, it's the wild and wacky choice. If you look at the most popular watches in the range (Sub Date, Daytona, steel & gold Datejust on champagne dial), they are all fairly conservative, and, dare I say it, dull. Simple colours, nothing to rock the boat, and that makes them extremely marketable.

Anyone who knows watches knows that the Explorer II is one of the very best all-rounders in the line up. As a multiple time zone watch, few do the job better. It has heritage. It has a bigger case, but has retained the classic Rolex case lines. It's the most legible watch in the range. It is a properly thought out watch that takes the best aspects of the original model (orange hand and floating hands, if you have the black dial version), and applied it to design philosophy of the modern Explorer II. It has resulted in a bold, exciting, well executed watch that any WIS would be proud of. However, to your average Rolex buyer, it'll remain the weird one, and, more likely than not, will be passed over in favour of the headline watches. It's a shame, but that means those who do go for it get to be in a far more exclusive club

Chris

[andyol1966]

Originally Posted by zion_rasta

The ugliest rolex in the lineup is the polar explorer II . Even if I had it for free I would be embarrassed to wear that thing. To me it looks like a glorified timex.

It does have the best movement. The design is horrendous.

Ugly? Embarrassed to wear that thing? Don't be so rude about other people's choice of watch