The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 26 May 2019, 10:40 PM   #1
Speedbird-1
"TRF" Member
 
Speedbird-1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Steve.
Location: UK
Posts: 6,010
Explorer thoughts.

The Explorer; As Rolexes, ruffty-tuffty, go anywhere with Sir Edmund Hilary or Sir Ranulph Feinnes and survive-it-all timepeice.
Would it's overall, survivabilty be improved with crown guards?
The GMT is so equipped for the rigors and hazards of the flight deck/cockpit.
So wouldn't they be more relevant on the 214270 ?
Its sister, the 216570 has them, after all.
Speedbird-1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26 May 2019, 10:45 PM   #2
brandrea
2024 Pledge Member
 
brandrea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Brian (TBone)
Location: canada
Watch: es make me smile
Posts: 73,100
There’s the 216570 for that
brandrea is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26 May 2019, 10:46 PM   #3
Hub6152
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 893
Obviously not otherwise they’d have had them by now!!
Hub6152 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 May 2019, 10:59 PM   #4
mui.richard
"TRF" Member
 
mui.richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 673
My Tudor OysterPrince has no crown guard and managed to survive almost 70 years of use. YMMV

Sent from my Mi MIX 2S using Tapatalk
mui.richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 May 2019, 11:12 PM   #5
kohe321
"TRF" Member
 
kohe321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 260
Remember that the screw down crown in and of itself acts as a of crown guard of sorts. By fastening the crown to the case it can endure bumps and shocks without moving the stem in the tube, protecting the movement and maintaining the seal of the gaskets.

Of course the double protection of having crown guards hugging the already screwed down crown is better, but still, just having it screwed down to the case makes it very solid. More than enough to handle most of what life will throw at you.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream
kohe321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 May 2019, 11:29 PM   #6
Speedbird-1
"TRF" Member
 
Speedbird-1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Steve.
Location: UK
Posts: 6,010
Are we saying crown guards are unnecessary then?
Speedbird-1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26 May 2019, 11:30 PM   #7
kohe321
"TRF" Member
 
kohe321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts View Post
Are we saying crown guards are unnecessary then?
No. They provide extra protection, but they're not essential for a tool watch.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream
kohe321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 May 2019, 11:32 PM   #8
Sunny Arizona
"TRF" Member
 
Sunny Arizona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Brad
Location: Colorado
Watch: 16613
Posts: 1,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by mui.richard View Post
My Tudor OysterPrince has no crown guard and managed to survive almost 70 years of use. YMMV

Sent from my Mi MIX 2S using Tapatalk
Ranger is a nice timepiece.
Sunny Arizona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26 May 2019, 11:54 PM   #9
Speedbird-1
"TRF" Member
 
Speedbird-1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Steve.
Location: UK
Posts: 6,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by kohe321 View Post
No. They provide extra protection, but they're not essential for a tool watch.
I hear what you are saying.
Perhaps, as you point out, they are not absolutely necessary, given the apparent, robust qualities of the screw-down crown.

My original question was: would the survivabilty be improved?
I see the guards as a kind of insurance against the unforeseen, and, given the Explorers' heritage it seems slightly surprising that the case wasn't updated.
As we know, the early GMT's were guard less.

Maybe, after all they are just a 'styling cue' for today's 'tool watches' most of which probably wouldn't qualify for that title.
Speedbird-1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 12:02 AM   #10
Slider817
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Real Name: William
Location: New York
Watch: Journe, AP & Lange
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts View Post
I hear what you are saying.
Perhaps, as you point out, they are not absolutely necessary, given the apparent, robust qualities of the screw-down crown.

My original question was: would the survivabilty be improved?
I see the guards as a kind of insurance against the unforeseen, and, given the Explorers' heritage it seems slightly surprising that the case wasn't updated.
As we know, the early GMT's were guard less.

Maybe, after all they are just a 'styling cue' for today's 'tool watches' most of which probably wouldn't qualify for that title.
I think you pretty much answered your own question, of course crown guards would enhance the durability. However, so could many other “enhancements” like a sunken crystal below the bezel, faraday cage, and many others.

It’s really an aesthetic choice, to remain somewhat true to the original, and the way the Explorer I is currently configured will be adequate.

If you like the look or utility of Crown guards, there are many other Rolex models to choose from, personally the simplicity and clean looks of the Explorer I is the main draw of that watch.
Slider817 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 12:58 AM   #11
TK-710
2024 Pledge Member
 
TK-710's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Upstate
Watch: 116600
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt Virgil Hilts View Post
The Explorer; As Rolexes, ruffty-tuffty, go anywhere with Sir Edmund Hilary or Sir Ranulph Feinnes and survive-it-all timepeice.
Would it's overall, survivabilty be improved with crown guards?
The GMT is so equipped for the rigors and hazards of the flight deck/cockpit.
So wouldn't they be more relevant on the 214270 ?
Its sister, the 216570 has them, after all.
I don’t have the answer but I’ve pondered the same question.
TK-710 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 01:03 AM   #12
Brew
"TRF" Member
 
Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Real Name: Larry
Location: Finger Lakes
Posts: 6,007
Interesting question.

Would it still be an "Explorer," if Rolex included crown guards, or would Rolex name a new reference?
Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 02:18 AM   #13
Pauln
"TRF" Member
 
Pauln's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Real Name: Paul
Location: Colorado
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 1,543
Just heritage IMO. And as a true GADA, would lessen its versatility, I think.
Pauln is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 02:30 AM   #14
rtalk
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Seattle
Watch: 16710T
Posts: 547
Ahhh I want an Explorer so bad. Stop tempting me.

Seriously I’m going to trade for a 1016.
__________________
116519 Grey dial Oysterflex Daytona. 116500 Black. 116710BLNR. 16710T. Rolex Explorer I 39MM. 4 digit DateJust. JLC Master Control with Sector Dial. Omega FOIS. Grand Seiko Four Seasons (Spring Version). Tudor Royal. IWC Cal 83 (~1940s). 41MM sub. Omega CK859.
rtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 02:50 AM   #15
RyanJ
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Atlantis
Posts: 1,427
Please Rolex, don't make any changes to the Explorer case. It is, in my opinion, nearly a perfect watch.
RyanJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 05:15 AM   #16
Speedbird-1
"TRF" Member
 
Speedbird-1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Steve.
Location: UK
Posts: 6,010
Icon11

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanJ View Post
Please Rolex, don't make any changes to the Explorer case. It is, in my opinion, nearly a perfect watch.
Nearly?

For it to be 'perfect', wouldn't Geneva have to make changes?
Speedbird-1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 06:22 AM   #17
rtalk
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Seattle
Watch: 16710T
Posts: 547
I’m strongly debating trading my 116500LN for a mint 1016.
__________________
116519 Grey dial Oysterflex Daytona. 116500 Black. 116710BLNR. 16710T. Rolex Explorer I 39MM. 4 digit DateJust. JLC Master Control with Sector Dial. Omega FOIS. Grand Seiko Four Seasons (Spring Version). Tudor Royal. IWC Cal 83 (~1940s). 41MM sub. Omega CK859.
rtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 06:26 AM   #18
ExplorerTime
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Watch: 116200/14270
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtalk View Post
I’m strongly debating trading my 116500LN for a mint 1016.
if it's truly a "Mint" 1016 then you should make that trade.

That is all.
ExplorerTime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 May 2019, 07:14 AM   #19
rtalk
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Seattle
Watch: 16710T
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExplorerTime View Post
if it's truly a "Mint" 1016 then you should make that trade.

That is all.
I’m not sure if I am worthy of such greatness. Honestly.
__________________
116519 Grey dial Oysterflex Daytona. 116500 Black. 116710BLNR. 16710T. Rolex Explorer I 39MM. 4 digit DateJust. JLC Master Control with Sector Dial. Omega FOIS. Grand Seiko Four Seasons (Spring Version). Tudor Royal. IWC Cal 83 (~1940s). 41MM sub. Omega CK859.
rtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.