214270 for a 114060?

[fania123]

I Love them both, but if you were given a choice what would you choose and why?

[maxbaris]

214270: Price, simplicity, looks, relative unpopularity.

[AK797]

Date or no date, I love the Sub.

[busytimmy]

Sub, imho

[Swilder916]

Sub.. no doubts.. just got my 114060 on Saturday.

[1995akcoop]

sub, so versatile

[Ravager135]

Owned both. Loved both for different reasons. I think the Explorer is a classic and has some of the strongest history behind it. It's a little more unusual and is really a beloved watch as it really is the forerunner of all Rolex sport models.

The Submariner is a classic due to its popularity. I ended up getting rid of my Explorer shortly after getting my Submariner because the 114060 just ended up stealing all my wrist time. It's a tad bigger which was also a factor in my decision.

If you are truly 50/50 on the aesthetics of the two, decide which is more practical. The Explorer is great if you want something versatile. It's probably the only watch more versatile than the Submariner. It is simple and probably all the sport watch you need and more for the rest of your life. The Submariner is slightly more robust, has more military heritage, and is a tad more "sport." I prefer a Submariner, not because I am a serious deep sea diver, but moreso because I live by the beach participate in water sports frequently so the watch fit more into my aesthetic. If you are more into the woods, hiking, climbing, etc the Explorer might be a better choice.

[Choo Yao Chuen]

I had the same problem as you years back and ended up having both.

After a while, the Explorer looked kinda boring, i guess due to the brush steel bezel. The Sub's beauty just grew by the day; and I ended up selling off the Explorer. I'm still in love with my Sub C till this day.

[sickened1]

I own both but if I have to choose only one then... hmm.. I don't know. Save up and get both?

[Seaswirl]

Both great, but I'd go Sub.

[Watchvirgin]

Sub!

[toneafficianado]

Sub or change the Explorer option to Polar Explorer 2 42mm and make the decision even harder!

[Fabrice M]

I love both. There are no wrong choices... To me the sub is a little more versatile not to mention that I am diver. The 214270 is more Sophisticated yet understated. I like that, those details say a lot about the wearer.

[Urosfan]

Sub

[Evad3]

+1 on the 114060

[Catyack]

Explorer. Far more versatile style-wise than the Sub, has a more robust movement with the paraflex shock system, and a historic icon.

Beautiful, bulletproof, and minimalist cool. Winner.

[Jabberjaw]

Sub - better resale value in case you change your mind down the road. Glidelock worth every penny as well.

[jjnd08]

Sub. Love the iconic look, symmetrical dial, and ceramic bezel.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by Catyack

Explorer. Far more versatile style-wise than the Sub, has a more robust movement with the paraflex shock system, and a historic icon.

Beautiful, bulletproof, and minimalist cool. Winner.

Style and history aside, there's nothing more robust about the 3187 movement. Incabloc has been around since 1934 (?) and Rolex has been using KIF for over 20 years in their movements. Rolex only started using Paraflex in 2008, IIRC for the 3155 movement (not exactly a sports model), to better control its vertical supply chain. Paraflex has anecdotally more stability due to its design but the 3 points of contact KIF has been used in many movements with great success. The reality is they're all about the same performance.

[Catyack]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Style and history aside, there's nothing more robust about the 3187 movement. Incabloc has been around since 1934 (?) and Rolex has been using KIF for over 20 years in their movements. Rolex only started using Paraflex in 2008, IIRC for the 3155 movement (not exactly a sports model), to better control its vertical supply chain. Paraflex has anecdotally more stability due to its design but the 3 points of contact KIF has been used in many movements with great success. The reality is they're all about the same performance.

Rolex claims Paraflex has 50% better shock absorption performance, so to say it doesn't would be something to take up with both their engineering and marketing departments. The fact that developing/producing something in-house better controls their supply chain certainly doesn't refute the performance claim, there doesn't only have to be one upside. It seems rather doubtful that Rolex marketing would be making unsupportable claims with regards to engineering, especially for something that can be proven through testing.

And why wouldn't they put their best, new shock protection system in their top-of-the-line DD first, and then the Explorers? All Rolexes are built to be tough, including DDs, and the term "sports model" isn't one Rolex uses.

[FTX I]

Sub. No brainer

[Kokoshawnuff]

Only sub that I would consider trading the 214270 for would be the modern ceramic date, or a vintage non-date.

Both choices are classics, but as someone mentioned the explorer is more versitle when it comes to modern styles and definitely fewer of them out there. If you do anything more than go swimming or to the beach occasionally, then the sub wins in terms of tool versatility, otherwise they're pretty equal on an every day basis.

[toomuchtalk]

Originally Posted by Catyack

Explorer. Far more versatile style-wise than the Sub, has a more robust movement with the paraflex shock system, and a historic icon.

Beautiful, bulletproof, and minimalist cool. Winner.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by Catyack

Rolex claims Paraflex has 50% better shock absorption performance, so to say it doesn't would be something to take up with both their engineering and marketing departments. The fact that developing/producing something in-house better controls their supply chain certainly doesn't refute the performance claim, there doesn't only have to be one upside. It seems rather doubtful that Rolex marketing would be making unsupportable claims with regards to engineering, especially for something that can be proven through testing.

And why wouldn't they put their best, new shock protection system in their top-of-the-line DD first, and then the Explorers? All Rolexes are built to be tough, including DDs, and the term "sports model" isn't one Rolex uses.

I'm not dismissing Rolex's marketing claims about the performance of the Paraflex system - although a 50% improvement of a small number is still a small number. I'm questioning the unsubstantiated implication that the 3187 movement is any more robust than the 3135.

[DateAperture]

Tough choice. I have a Black Bay that itches my need of having a shiny clicky diver, which allows me to focus on solely lusting for a 214270 Explorer for its simplicity and versatility. You should probably get the Sub first otherwise that itch will be real annoying to settle, after which you can aim for the Explorer at leisure.

[Grail]

Sub, as many have said...no brainer

[PTruong]

Sub.

[SALTY]

It so depends on age, occupation, lifestyle and what else in your stable.

The Explorer I is pure understated ruggedness - with a heritage.

The ND Sub is cool but, other than the ND part, everybody and their barber's brother-in-law has a Sub.

If I was a young guy, dressed casual or office casual most of the time - I would go with the Sub ND.

If I was a bit older, dressed in a S&T much of the time and did not have to scream R O L E X, I would definitely go with the 241270. In fact, that's exactly what I did!

Truth moment. I also have a SD and a DSSD. My bad.

[judson]

If I had to do it over again I would get the 214270 first. It's on my plate for the next Rolex, but that will be years down the road. That with a Polar EXP II and you have nearly evey base covered. White/Black, GMT/Simplicity, Sporty/Everything. Plus I think the understated ruggedness of the EXP I is awesome.

[Nobody.Move]

Get the 214270.