Why Such a Radical Departure on the Original Explorer II Design?

[BristolCavendish]

In terms of overall appearances, the GMT and Submariner models have remained relatively stable over the past several decades and I'm curious as to why the 1655 changed so radically.

Was it due to poor initial sales, a cluttered dial (with the 2.5 minute markers) or simply that a specialized cave exploration model holds little allure for a potential Rolex customer seeking an alternative sports model?

Personally speaking, I like the original design and am assuming that for Rolex to have radically changed/altered an original design indicates that something was not right either from the beginning (or later down the road).

An acquaintance owns one of these earlier models and he had an interesting story to convey as to how he eventually settled on a 1655 as his first Rolex purchase back in 1973.

(1) He was initially considering an Omega Speedmaster but the watch seemed kind of large on his wrist and he wasn't into manually winding the movement.
(2) His next consideration was a 1675 'Pepsi' but upon trying one on, he felt it was a bit flashy in overall appearance.
(3) So he considered an SS Daytona which at the time was also a manual winder. The AD advised him that with the multiple functions, periodic servicing would be costlier compared to other more straightforward models.
(4) Next up was a TT Datejust but then the AD mentioned 'Why would you want a Rolex model everyone else is wearing?"
(5) Finally the AD pulled out a 1655 and it seemed to cover all of the bases as it was a Rolex, self-winding, a sports model and relatively low key in appearance. The result: purchase completed for $395.00 + sales tax.

Over time, it turned out to be a wise purchase (although not fully realized at the time). After 40+ years, the tritium hands/dial no longer glow in the dark and the watch is seldom worn on a regular basis. It currently sits in one of those plastic urine specimen containers (an unused one) as the original green box + papers were discarded a long time ago.

In retrospect, I'm wondering whether the AD was simply trying to move a Rolex model that may have been sitting idly in his display case for over a year or so as this particular 1655 is a Mark I/straight second hand.

[R.W.T.]

I passed literally 10's of them for years in pawn shops at 350-500 usd...nobody wanted them. I didn't either I was still looking for the new version in white with the WG surrounds (not the black ones that came later which I ultimately bought new)....it was a weird looking watch to me..and a bit too much like an accutron astronaut maybe. I've grown to appreciate it more but I was really startled when they went up so quickly in value.

[Vincent65]

I think you answered your own question. Busy dial - not so easily legible, and pales next to the mighty sub and gmt in popularity. I like them, but haven't bought one...

[swish77]

Perception of everything, not just watches, changes with time, and the 1655 has become a super funky, retro reminder of the '70s. It's the coolest, most unique Rolex dial design ever. I would imagine that Rolex changed the design at the time just as an update and because, well, the '80s brought a lot of changes in design.

I don't find the 1655 cluttered or tough to read at all. There are three white hands on a black dial (not including the GMT hand, of course). What's hard about that? Mine is my favorite vintage Rolex with a date feature. It's also the only vintage Rolex that's ever drawn compliments from strangers while on my wrist. There's something about that big orange hand and massive 12 o'clock triangle!

I'm biased, of course, but I find them way undervalued in the crazy world of vintage Rolexes. The red 1680s are catching up, and in some cases, surpassing, the 1655 in cost nowadays. As cool as the red 1680s are, it still looks just like a regular date Sub from a foot away, but there's nothing like the 1655 out there.

[Pict]

Aaron, your 1655 ^ is stunning

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by R.W.T.

...it was a weird looking watch to me..and a bit too much like an accutron astronaut maybe.

Now that you mentioned it, it does! Except that the Astronaut functions more like a GMT with its rotating bezel.

The skeleton 'see through' Astronaut is kind of cool in its own way.

All things considered, the 1655 and the Astronaut are very clean designs.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

All things considered, the 1655 and the Astronaut are very clean designs.

Maybe it's just me...and I'm sure it is!...but, I don't really see the 1655 as a "clean" design, per se.
You've got THREE different size markers on the minute track, a gigantic 24 hr hand that's black, white and orange, which comes to an arrow point...THEN they've added on a thin stick at its tip!

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Maybe it's just me...and I'm sure it is!...but, I don't really see the 1655 as a "clean" design, per se.
You've got THREE different size markers on the minute track, a gigantic 24 hr hand that's black, white and orange, which comes to an arrow point...THEN they've added on a thin stick at its tip!

Rolex probably could have done without those small 2.5 minute dial markers on the 1655. They're not a critical time indicator and as the watch gets older, it's just another tritium 'tidbit' to be concerned about. Maybe Rolex took a cue from the earlier Astronaut dial design.

Other than that, I like the lines of both the 1655 and the Astronaut. The case/bezel designs are subdued yet unique in their own way. The more pronounced lugs on the Oyster-styled 1655 adds ruggedness and makes for a better-looking watch IMO.

[GTS Dean]

Originally Posted by swish77

Perception of everything, not just watches, changes with time, and the 1655 has become a super funky, retro reminder of the '70s. It's the coolest, most unique Rolex dial design ever. I would imagine that Rolex changed the design at the time just as an update and because, well, the '80s brought a lot of changes in design.

I don't find the 1655 cluttered or tough to read at all. There are three white hands on a black dial (not including the GMT hand, of course). What's hard about that? Mine is my favorite vintage Rolex with a date feature. It's also the only vintage Rolex that's ever drawn compliments from strangers while on my wrist. There's something about that big orange hand and massive 12 o'clock triangle!

It's really quite similar in general appearance to the Omega Flightmaster's dial and hands - less the super-funky case.

[FTX I]

The Milgauss had the most radical change IMHO. Would easily be my favorite watch today if the original design remained somehow preserved.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Pict

Aaron, your 1655 ^ is stunning

Thanks!

And the Accutron! Another super cool watch. And you can buy great examples for a pittance compared to the crazy money being thrown around on vintage Rolex sports models.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by swish77

I would imagine that Rolex changed the design at the time just as an update and because, well, the '80s brought a lot of changes in design.

Outside of some minor cosmetic variations, how did the GMT/Submariner series manage to survive significant design changes with the advent of the 1980s? Was this primarily due to them being older, well-established designs whereas the 1655 was relatively recent at the time?

[springer]

Interesting topic. I've never owned an Explorer II 1655 and do not see that happening anytime soon. Very uninteresting watch and the "dead" 24-hour hand kills it for me. Too bad the bezel didn't rotate - it would definitely have been more functional.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Now that you mentioned it, it does! Except that the Astronaut functions more like a GMT with its rotating bezel.

The skeleton 'see through' Astronaut is kind of cool in its own way.

All things considered, the 1655 and the Astronaut are very clean designs.

My 50+ year old, old-timey Astronaut approves of this thread. X-15s, Mercury missions, and tuning forks rule.

[RolexPD]

The 1655 is my grail Rolex.

But the 216570 with the orange GMT hand comes pretty close.

Time for me to start saving my pennies.

[Nikita70]

I love vintage. Just wish my bank account agreed with me. If I had the money to have a vintage Rolex collection the 1655 would have a place. Till then I’ll make do with my 16760.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by FTX I

The Milgauss had the most radical change IMHO. Would easily be my favorite watch today if the original design remained somehow preserved.

Concurring on the radical change Flavio. The older 6541 is a far more interesting looking watch than the modern version. It has a more technical appearance as well.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Concurring on the radical change Flavio. The older 6541 is a far more interesting looking watch than the modern version. It has a more technical appearance as well.

Great pic. First time I see this one. Thanks BC.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by springer

Interesting topic. I've never owned an Explorer II 1655 and do not see that happening anytime soon. Very uninteresting watch and the "dead" 24-hour hand kills it for me. Too bad the bezel didn't rotate - it would definitely have been more functional.

You should try one. I bet you end up loving it! For a guy who works in the world of art and design, I find the dial of the 1655 absolutely beautiful. It's not just cool and different. It's straight-up stunning, and very interesting. I think that's a big reason why a lot of vintage watch lovers/collectors are willing to shell out upwards of $20K for them nowadays, for great examples anyway.

And that massive orange 24-hour hand is indeed helpful at times. Such as when you've been stuck in a dark cave for days and you don't know if it's 3pm or 3am!

[springer]

Originally Posted by swish77

You should try one. I bet you end up loving it! For a guy who works in the world of art and design, I find the dial of the 1655 absolutely beautiful. It's not just cool and different. It's straight-up stunning, and very interesting. I think that's a big reason why a lot of vintage watch lovers/collectors are willing to shell out upwards of $20K for them nowadays, for great examples anyway.

And that massive orange 24-hour hand is indeed helpful at times. Such as when you've been stuck in a dark cave for days and you don't know if it's 3pm or 3am!

I agree, absolutely retro and a beautiful dial. But, with that said, I'll take a GMT any day - much more functional for me.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by swish77

And that massive orange 24-hour hand is indeed helpful at times. Such as when you've been stuck in a dark cave for days and you don't know if it's 3pm or 3am!

Chance are the tritium no longer glows in the dark so you'll probably need a flashlight to check the time. Then again, outside of a 'man-cave', it's safe to assume that few 1655 owners actually spend their time exploring caves.

Been keeping an eye out for one of these models as my next Rolex-related purchase. At roughly $16K to $20K+, they're not cheap by any means.

The ones who bought them early on did well considering the appreciation in value of the 1655.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Chance are the tritium no longer glows in the dark so you'll probably need a flashlight to check the time. Then again, outside of a 'man-cave', it's safe to assume that few 1655 owners actually spend their time exploring caves.

Ha, yes indeed. I was actually joking about cave exploration. I believe that was the Rolex marketing explanation at the time, which is silly, of course. That 24-hour hand, while fabulous looking, isn't all that helpful.

[sensui]

Agree with springer/swish77....GMT is definitely more functional by a mile. But I really do love the 1655 because it's just so so different from the other Rolex references. Part of the reason why I'm searching for another one loosely....

I also like the current gen of 216570 too actually.....built like a tank and shows it through the size and the nod with the orange hand to the 1655 is awesome. One of the most legible Rolex dials by far with the maxi markers and matte dial IMO.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

I think you answered your own question. Busy dial - not so easily legible, and pales next to the mighty sub and gmt in popularity. I like them, but haven't bought one...

Yeah, I like the dial, too, but Oliver Shepard even had Rolex put a GMT dial on his Exp II for his Transglobe expedition, likely because of legibility. This was certainly the inspiration for the next Exp II dial. Talk about a grail watch:

[springer]

Originally Posted by swish77

Ha, yes indeed. I was actually joking about cave exploration. I believe that was the Rolex marketing explanation at the time, which is silly, of course. That 24-hour hand, while fabulous looking, isn't all that helpful.

Yes, that marketing was very "silly." I'm sure anyone doing serious cave exploring had plenty of flashlights and batteries to check the time on a watch if they were going to home late for dinner or took a wrong turn somewhere.

[twitch54]

just picked my new Explorer II (white dial) today, absolutely love the new design, especially the bracelet 5mm compensation ability.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by springer

Yes, that marketing was very "silly." I'm sure anyone doing serious cave exploring had plenty of flashlights and batteries to check the time on a watch if they were going to home late for dinner or took a wrong turn somewhere.

For a watch that was specifically designed for cave exploration, you'd think that Rolex could have come up with at least one noteworthy speleologist (no matter how obscure in name recognition) to promote the 1655 in their National Geographic ads.

An example. Most folks had never heard of Red Adair until his appearance in the Rolex/National Geographic ads.

While 'big name' splelunkers are a rare breed, Bill Steele was pretty well established by the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_S...(cave_explorer)

BTW. You have to click again on the (Do you mean: 'Bill Steele (cave explorer)?' reference in order to bring up his wikipedia profile.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

For a watch that was specifically designed for cave exploration, you'd think that Rolex could have come up with at least one noteworthy speleologist (no matter how obscure in name recognition) to promote the 1655 in their National Geographic ads.

An example. Most folks had never heard of Red Adair until his appearance in the Rolex/National Geographic ads.

While 'big name' splelunkers are a rare breed, Bill Steele was pretty well established by the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_S...(cave_explorer)

BTW. You have to click again on the (Do you mean: 'Bill Steele (cave explorer)?' reference in order to bring up his wikipedia profile.

If there must be a "Batman" wouldn't this have been the ref to hang it on? It's a cool watch, but this silly nickname is far a more appropriate fit for a silly marketing angle that supposes the wearer spends an inordinate amount time hanging around in caves. It makes a lot more sense than the no-connection-whatsoever "Steve McQueen" moniker as well.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by CRM114

If there must be a "Batman" wouldn't this have been the ref to hang it on? It's a cool watch, but this silly nickname is far a more appropriate fit for a silly marketing angle that supposes the wearer spends an inordinate amount time hanging around in caves. It makes a lot more sense than the no-connection-whatsoever "Steve McQueen" moniker as well.

You've made a valid point. But then again, a lot of these inane Rolex model nicknames are a recent phenomena. Back in the 70s, folks weren't assigning pet monikers. A GMT was a GMT and so on.

As far as Batman is concerned, it works to a certain extent but why tarnish the 1655 'legacy' (even though Steve McQueen never actually wore one and speleologists are a somewhat obscure breed of adventurer who don't ordinarily wear these particular watches)?

[Swearengen]

Just OT, the Flightmaster is a mad watch, 7 hands, 3 crowns and 2 pushers. Becoming more appreciated now as vintage Speedy prices go ever upwards

Originally Posted by GTS Dean

It's really quite similar in general appearance to the Omega Flightmaster's dial and hands - less the super-funky case.