ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

dafuture · 12 April 2018, 04:42 AM

The short hands haven't bothered me in the slightest and I love the WG numerals. Nothing wrong with the Mk1 if you can get a good deal.

Wcdhtwn · 12 April 2018, 04:43 AM

I prefer the 2016 model.

Pavlos · 12 April 2018, 09:43 AM

Looks like it will be 2016 when I have the funds

mmmmp · 12 April 2018, 09:57 AM

[QUOTE=JacksonStone;8474008]I think you should go for the watch you want. If you really want the 2016, then the 2010 is no deal, regardless of price. (edited)

Never has it been said so succinctly. I'll repeat it:

"Buy the watch you *want*.

Should be every WIS's credo.

Mark

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Tapatalk

Air Rescue 5 · 12 April 2018, 10:02 AM

MK2 no question

thedips · 12 April 2018, 03:40 PM

Lumed 369 all day every day and twice on Sunday. Long hands too? Not even a fair contest

xIZeitgeistIx · 12 April 2018, 05:34 PM

I also prefer the 2016 model.

TacticaLCawacoL · 12 April 2018, 06:16 PM

I would go for the most recent version.

faz · 12 April 2018, 06:44 PM

Seems like you are already set on MK2. Beautiful watch, go for it.

I own the MK1 and did buy it because of the WG 3/6/9, adds elegance and makes it dressier in my opinion. The MK2 lume makes it sportier and more modern. Both beautiful, pick the one you like the best.

Funny how people on forums have this idea that they know a ‘mistake’ and the ‘fix’ for it. (Same thing happens on motorcycle forums). Majority of those who insist on calling it a mistake would not spend their own money on either the mistake or the fixed version anyway, and are just sharing their critical opinion on the subject. Those who put their money towards buying one are usually purchasing it based on their personal likes and whether a model speaks to them or not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fskywalker · 12 April 2018, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krh7

is now a bad time to say the 36 has better proportions? ;)

Never a bad moment to tell the truth!

wisguy · 12 April 2018, 09:45 PM

Go for the full line version if you can.

I own the first version and while it looks great, the newer version is just perfect.

On the other hand, aren’t the Explorer and the OP39 too similar? Practically the same watch with a different dial and clasp.

Perhaps look elsewhere in the lineup?

Thuilln · 12 April 2018, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fskywalker

Never a bad moment to tell the truth!

Agree!!

mps354 · 12 April 2018, 11:16 PM

2016 version for me

Boothroyd · 12 April 2018, 11:41 PM

Your decision is made. I have the Mk1 and prefer it to the Mk2 for reasons stated in the thread. One thing though...I love the proportions of the 39mm Explorer and OP models. I look forward to seeing the new white dial 39mm OP to complement my Explorer.

torrente · 12 April 2018, 11:42 PM

It would be great if Rolex offered 2016 Exp both in 36 and 39. I would buy 36 if that would be my only Rolex, that would open the Exp to ladies that want somewhat big watches too, while I consider Exp design quite masculine.

12 April 2018, 04:42 AM	#31
dafuture "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Location: NYC Posts: 1,943	The short hands haven't bothered me in the slightest and I love the WG numerals. Nothing wrong with the Mk1 if you can get a good deal. __________________ Current Rolex Submariner 126610LN \|\| Cartier Tank Americaine

12 April 2018, 03:40 PM	#36
thedips "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Jay rey Location: CA, bay area Watch: el presidente Posts: 263	Lumed 369 all day every day and twice on Sunday. Long hands too? Not even a fair contest __________________ ------------------------ YG - DAYDATE-PRESIDENT TT - DATEJUST-JUBILEE SS - DATEJUST-JUBILEE

12 April 2018, 06:16 PM	#38
TacticaLCawacoL "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Milky Way Galaxy Watch: Sunray/Meteorite Posts: 311	I would go for the most recent version. __________________ .__. I don’t mind the value of a Rolex, i just admire the technology and the beauty of it .__. 16600/2005, 116233/2008, 214270/2014, 116234/2016, 116618LB/2017, 116200/2017, 118239/2017, 116622/2018, 326.30.40.50.02.001/2018.

12 April 2018, 06:44 PM	#39
faz "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2016 Real Name: Faz Location: Bay Area, CA Watch: like'em all Posts: 4,655	Advice needed on Explorer 1. Please help. Seems like you are already set on MK2. Beautiful watch, go for it. I own the MK1 and did buy it because of the WG 3/6/9, adds elegance and makes it dressier in my opinion. The MK2 lume makes it sportier and more modern. Both beautiful, pick the one you like the best. Funny how people on forums have this idea that they know a ‘mistake’ and the ‘fix’ for it. (Same thing happens on motorcycle forums). Majority of those who insist on calling it a mistake would not spend their own money on either the mistake or the fixed version anyway, and are just sharing their critical opinion on the subject. Those who put their money towards buying one are usually purchasing it based on their personal likes and whether a model speaks to them or not. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ -Faz Instagram @fazmoto

12 April 2018, 09:45 PM	#41
wisguy "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Earth Posts: 2,406	Go for the full line version if you can. I own the first version and while it looks great, the newer version is just perfect. On the other hand, aren’t the Explorer and the OP39 too similar? Practically the same watch with a different dial and clasp. Perhaps look elsewhere in the lineup? __________________ 5230G / 5146G / 124060 / BB58 / '59 Constellation

12 April 2018, 04:43 AM	#32
Wcdhtwn "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Houston Watch: SkyD, SD43, GMT2 Posts: 4,975	I prefer the 2016 model.

12 April 2018, 09:43 AM	#33
Pavlos "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: London Posts: 760	Looks like it will be 2016 when I have the funds

12 April 2018, 09:57 AM	#34
mmmmp "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Mark P Location: Toronto Watch: SS Wimbledon DJ41 Posts: 2,046	[QUOTE=JacksonStone;8474008]I think you should go for the watch you want. If you really want the 2016, then the 2010 is no deal, regardless of price. (edited) Never has it been said so succinctly. I'll repeat it: "Buy the watch you want. Should be every WIS's credo. Mark Sent from my SGH-I547C using Tapatalk

12 April 2018, 10:02 AM	#35
Air Rescue 5 Banned Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Los Angeles Watch: GMT MII Posts: 247	MK2 no question

12 April 2018, 05:34 PM	#37
xIZeitgeistIx "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Switzerland Watch: DaytonaC & Sub Posts: 116	I also prefer the 2016 model.

12 April 2018, 11:16 PM	#43
mps354 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: Mike Location: CT Posts: 8,972	2016 version for me

12 April 2018, 11:41 PM	#44
Boothroyd 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Daniel Location: Minneapolis, MN Watch: Wilsdorf(s) Posts: 10,186	Your decision is made. I have the Mk1 and prefer it to the Mk2 for reasons stated in the thread. One thing though...I love the proportions of the 39mm Explorer and OP models. I look forward to seeing the new white dial 39mm OP to complement my Explorer. __________________ Explorer 214270 MK I/Datejust II Black 116300/Tudor Heritage Black Bay Black 79220N

12 April 2018, 11:42 PM	#45
torrente "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 551	Advice needed on Explorer 1. Please help. It would be great if Rolex offered 2016 Exp both in 36 and 39. I would buy 36 if that would be my only Rolex, that would open the Exp to ladies that want somewhat big watches too, while I consider Exp design quite masculine.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)