Does every collection need an Explorer 1?

[Andad]

No.

[EvelynWaugh]

My explorer 1 is frequented within my lineup for one reason only: my safety.
It's understated and I feel safe wearing it out in any public settings
My other pieces... not so much as of late...

[subprimero]

I would say that every LARGE Rolex collection needs an Explorer. The Explorer would be 7th or 8th on my Rolex list to buy.

[~JJ]

My advice, question any review that says something as trite as… “this reference is quintessential to XYZ brand and should be a staple to any collection”.

[7enderbender]

Next to my Sea Dweller it’s the only other Rolex I find appealing, so yes.

[kirth]

Are we talking about a generic orthodox collection that checks all of the “proper” boxes? Or, a collection driven by individual passion that is reflective of individual dreams, affinities, and idiosyncrasies? If the former, maybe..I don’t know enough about what is considered essential by the majority’s standards. If the latter, then there exists no universally correct answer. For me, no. But that shouldn’t matter to you.

[Me4u2night]

I'm very happy with my collection and it does not include a Sub, Speedy or an Explorer.

[travisb]

I think the Explorer could easily be a staple in a collection. Clean, classic looks, sporty or dressy when needed, good to go with any activity.
For me it’s a Submariner for all the same reasons.

[Lamontsanders]

Explorer I is a great watch and fits with any collection

[ts3]

I will always need an Explorer 1 style tool watch.

In my case that has been an IWC Mark XV on the pyramid bracelet though.

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by IR201

I've seen a lot of posts about how every collection needs a sub or speedmaster. And obviously it's not true, as collections need whatever people like at whatever level they can afford. But just following that idea, in your opinion, where would the Explorer 1 sit in the hierarchy of "every collection needs one" watches?

Not on the list at all

[101031-28]

Explorer I does nothing for me. Never has, TBH. But I love this one:

[rmagoo57]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

Your collection might. My collect doesn't. If you think your collection needs one, it does.

Amen. Collecting anything is an individual sport! My simple black dial wind and wear choice is the 14060M.

[axljack]

Nope.

For a few it is, but I think that statement died more than half a decade ago. It's a time only watch in a line of tool watches.....a time only watch Imho is not a tool watch. Exp ii maybe not so.

If you're looking at a one watch collection that's time only: Patek calatrava or any time only Seiko (incl grand Seiko, king Seiko etc)

[6XYBE63ST]

probably not

[snyde]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ravager135]

I think of the Explorer as the true "base" sports watch in the Rolex lineup. I briefly owned a 39mm version a few years back. I found it redundant in my collection because I also owned a Submariner and an Explorer II. I appreciated that the Explorer was less "busy" than the other two models, but it didn't fill a niche that my other watches couldn't fill.

I think, and this is just me talking, that the Explorer is an excellent watch to get if you don't plan on owning many Rolex watches or want a piece that is extremely versatile. I would say the same thing about the OP or the Datejust. I would just place the Explorer certainly on the "sportier" end of that spectrum of versatile watches.

[Joe_Row]

Originally Posted by 101031-28

Explorer I does nothing for me. Never has, TBH. But I love this one:

Kinda Ironic that it does nothing for you, but the qoute in your signature was actually spoken with the explorer I in mind! Ian Fleming and James Bond's Rolex(in the books) was the Explorer I.

[Tach24LMS]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

I might get heat for this. But I personally don't think the quality of the speedmaster is enough for the price. I recently went to my AD and tried on the new reference. The pressing the pushers felt terrible. Also winding the watch was very uncomfortable. Love the story of the watch but you are better off with Rolex if you can get one. Nothing get better than the Explorer. Most low key Rolex available.

You’re not wrong. Build quality of Omega is not that of Rolex by a long shot.
And I just bought a Speedy Professional on Monday.
I do love I tho, but 6k is a lot for it.

But realistically, the ONLY Omega out there to not absolutely tank in value from new MSRP purchase is a Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch, full box & papers.

That said I chunked 6k on it because I was watch shopping and actually wanted to buy a watch that day, and it was on my list. I’d have much rather bought a BLNR from the Rolex AD, but that’s not happening anytime soon (but I’ve asked to be put in the list).

[GradyPhilpott]

My first Rolex was a 114270.

I could have stopped there and even gotten rid of all my other watches, if I were not such a watch nut.

The Explorer I is at home in just about any setting, even more so than the Sub, which has that distinction based largely on a scene in a movie and an ad by Rolex.

I won't say that every collection "needs" one, but if every collection started with one, maybe there would be a lot more people with one watch collections.

I'm just not one of them.

[Farsh14]

Absolutely not, if I want a basic boring watch like that I go Hamilton or Seiko. Not trying to spend big bucks on something that has so little to offer.

Maybe if it had a blue dial or something cool

[2nastie]

The Explorer 1 - MK2 39mm is the only Rolex (that is not inherited) left in my collection.

I've gone through DJs, vintage GMT, Daytona, etc. but the one I don't really want to part with is the Explorer.

39mm is perfect balance of the modern sized watch with no BS. Simple design and function that can dress up and down.


...

I've always been fascinated with a 1016, so maybe eventually one of those. The only other watch out of the current line up I still want is the BLRO on jubilee bracelet. Haven't actually gotten the time to try the new 36mm so I would love to compare that.

[Meyrin]

Originally posted by IR201:

"Does every collection need an Explorer 1?"

No. I'll get torched for this, but I do think every collection should have a G-Shock. I recently bought my first one, a solar-powered square 5610! I love it!

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by Lew Archer

Well, I think it depends on the nature of one’s collection. Some collections are a random accumulation of various makes and models, while some are very focused—maybe focusing on a specific brand, even a specific model—or type.

For example, someone might have every variation of Submariner. Or, an array of dive watches. Or, might choose watches according to a theme, or related themes, like the “land, sea, air” posts we see.

If the Explorer is relevant to a particular collection’s theme or focus, it’s a natural choice. One might even collect nothing but Explorers, given the variations over the years.

For example, if “exploration” is a theme of a collection, the Explorer is an obvious choice, along with watches with a link to exploration, such as the Omega Speedmaster Professional, the Explorer II and the Submariner, or Sea-Dweller, or Deepsea.

Now, if your collection—or accumulation—of watches is of a different nature—say you’re into chronographs—then it’s not a “must have”.

However, if you’re into Rolex watches, and want a fair representation of its iconic models, then an Explorer belongs on your list, unless you just don’t like it.

And, if you’re not really a collector, just enjoy owning a few nice watches, the Explorer is a great option if you like its simplicity and its versatility.

I particularly like that it has some of the traits of the professional models, such as a secure clasp on the bracelet, and the triangle marker at 12 o’clock, yet is an understated general purpose watch, like the OP or the DJs on oyster bracelets with dome bezels.

And, I like that “3-6-9” dial, which can also be found on older OPs.

I could not agree more Lew. Very well said.

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by Joe_Row

Kinda Ironic that it does nothing for you, but the qoute in your signature was actually spoken with the explorer I in mind! Ian Fleming and James Bond's Rolex(in the books) was the Explorer I.

Ian wore an Explorer 1016 to be precise.

[KY..]

The 116900 Air King is a lot more interesting to me than the Explorer I…

[Slider817]

I think in your opening post, you basically answered your question. No, every collection doesn’t need any watch, people should just buy what they like.

However, explorer I is a classic watch, and just like the Sub and many other models from Rolex they are generally beloved and highly regarded with a long history.

[DocHorton]

Originally Posted by subprimero

The Explorer would be 7th or 8th on my Rolex list to buy.

I'd push it down to 11 or 12, but I agree with the sentiment.

1. GMT
2. Sub
3. Day Date
4. Sky D
5. Daytona
6. YM
7. DJ
8. Explorer 2
9. Sea Dweller
10. OP
11. Milgauss
12. Explorer 1
13. Air King

[LFFL]

Originally Posted by DCheeta

I would never say that another person’s collection “needs” anything. Each person should have what they want to have.

For me, personally, I think I’d always need one of these two basics (Sub is mine, Explorer is my wife’s).

sick pic!

[interestedinwatches]

Why would it be "needed"? I would argue that no collection should have one if anything. What's cool about it? It is literally the most bland watch Rolex makes.