Possibility for a Ceramic Explorer 2 216570

[aalyu]

What are your thoughts of the possibility for a Ceramic Explorer 2?

[2th_doc]

Every Rolex sports watch doesn’t need a ceramic bezel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[richrichy]

Doubtful

[chloebear]

I'm not of fan of that happening, but it's been a while since they've made any changes to the Explorer 2, so it could happen. If they were to make a change, I would prefer they bring back the bezel from the 1655. Either way I'll be keeping my 216570.

[drdunc]

I personally think it will ruin the watch...current Exp 2 with brushed bezel is perfect.
Agree....not everything needs to be ceramic!!!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[r8t3d_M]

I’d prefer they didn’t. I don’t think ceramic bezels go well with every reference but that’s just my opinion.

[Maxy]

Originally Posted by aalyu

What are your thoughts of the possibility for a Ceramic Explorer 2?

My thoughts prior to Basel 2017.. and it remains the same for 2018!!

Why Explorer II won't have Ceramic bezel..
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=521034

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by 2th_doc

Every Rolex sports watch doesn’t need a ceramic bezel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Agreed

Seconded.

[DoctorA]

Originally Posted by aalyu

What are your thoughts of the possibility for a Ceramic Explorer 2?

Highly doubt it! It would get killed by the ceramic GMT and ceramic sub imho

[Vaxe]

Wouldn’t look as nice imo. Great the way it is.

[climblaw25]

Explorer II has never had an aluminum bezel, or any other bezel except brushed SS. (I could be wrong, but I believe this is accurate.) The ceramic made sense for the Sub and Daytona because of their DNA, but the Explorer II does not have this same heritage. I can't see ceramic on an Explorer II -- ever.

[JR16]

Exp2 has been a slow mover so while many of us would hate to see this, I could see it happening


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jrs146]

Doubt it but I think it would be sharp and I bet it would sell well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watchwatcher]

I don't think the "super sizing" of the EXP2 had the effect on the market that Rolex intended. No hard data here, just a thought...they have been very soft on the secondary market.

So, there could be some tweaking to the model. Like they did to the Explorer. So...while I wouldn't bet on a ceramic bezel (the mock ups look terrible, IMO), I wouldn't be shocked to see some change to the line.

[karlsbad69]

Originally Posted by 2th_doc

Every Rolex sports watch doesn’t need a ceramic bezel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, however if any Rolex sports watch could actually be in need of one. It would be the EXP II with the direction of the brushing its a tough one to refinish.

Ceramic makes sense on this model.

[Dynamite_Kid19]

I love ceramic bezels but it would ruin my favorite Rolex. The all brushed stainless just makes it look so utilitarian. I'd rather they change to a darker orange text and GMT hand. The newer reference just doesn't look right to me.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Royalex]

It has happened to daytona, why not ex2?

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by karlsbad69

Yes, however if any Rolex sports watch could actually be in need of one. It would be the EXP II with the direction of the brushing its a tough one to refinish.

Ceramic makes sense on this model.

Disagree. It was a model originally intended for exploration by speleologists. They could have just as easily called it a Cave Dweller. With its propensity to break and chip, ceramic would not work for this model's purported purpose.

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by 2th_doc

Every Rolex sports watch doesn’t need a ceramic bezel.

[sager]

Originally Posted by climblaw25

Explorer II has never had an aluminum bezel, or any other bezel except brushed SS. (I could be wrong, but I believe this is accurate.) The ceramic made sense for the Sub and Daytona because of their DNA, but the Explorer II does not have this same heritage. I can't see ceramic on an Explorer II -- ever.

Agree with your points. I just hope rolex sees it this way as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ravager135]

When I hear the most frequently suggested alterations to the Explorer II, they involve adding a ceramic bezel and changing the size back to 40mm. Might as well just purchase a GMT-Master II...

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

With its propensity to break and chip, ceramic would not work for this model's purported purpose.

Huh? Based on what ?
I know statistics for Rolex are hard to come by, but I’ve not heard or read about any propensity for ceramic bezels to break or chip. They’ve been in use for years now and incidents reported here and other boards are statistically insignificant, virtually non existent. May be more than I’m aware of, but nothing that suggests they have a propensity to chip or break.

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by Jack T

Huh? Based on what ?
I know statistics for Rolex are hard to come by, but I’ve not heard or read about any propensity for ceramic bezels to break or chip. They’ve been in use for years now and incidents reported here and other boards are statistically insignificant, virtually non existent. May be more than I’m aware of, but nothing that suggests they have a propensity to chip or break.

Ceramic as a material is more likely to shatter or chip than steel or aluminum. It is obviously very unlikely to scratch. I have seen several threads here with shattered ceramic bezels. Now as far as how likely this is to happen, I agree with you, it's very low. The point I believe he was making was that if you drop or bang a ceramic bezel it is far more likely to shatter than a steel or aluminum bezel.

We don't have a lot of incidents of this happening because most people don't use their Rolex watches for situations in which damage could occur. I will tell you without hesitation that I'd much rather drop an aluminum or steel bezeled watch than a ceramic bezeled one ignoring damage to the rest of the case or crystal.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Jack T

Huh? Based on what ?
I know statistics for Rolex are hard to come by, but I’ve not heard or read about any propensity for ceramic bezels to break or chip. They’ve been in use for years now and incidents reported here and other boards are statistically insignificant, virtually non existent. May be more than I’m aware of, but nothing that suggests they have a propensity to chip or break.

I don't have statistics, but I have seen a number of anecdotal reports of breakage, including pictures. I think it's a relatively rare occurrence, but still a risk. Certainly ceramic would be much more likely to break or chip than steel when taking a direct impact. One need not have statistics or a degree in physics to understand that.

A key point here is that, with the exception of the Daytona, all of Rolex's ceramic "bezels" are inserts inside metal surrounds. In those watches, direct hits on the ceramic itself are limited by design. The ceramic bezel being proposed for the Exp. II is a full bezel, not an insert, which means the ceramic would be exposed directly to whatever knocks the case would encounter from certain angles. That apparently isn't a problem on the Daytona, but it would not be appropriate on a watch intended for rugged action in rocky environments. If Rolex does make the switch, it would do away with any remaining sense of actual purpose in the watch, and confirm it really is just jewelry.

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I don't have statistics, but I have seen a number of anecdotal reports of breakage, including pictures. I think it's a relatively rare occurrence, but still a risk. Certainly ceramic would be much more likely to break or chip than steel when taking a direct impact. One need not have statistics or a degree in physics to understand that.

A key point here is that, with the exception of the Daytona, all of Rolex's ceramic "bezels" are inserts inside metal surrounds. In those watches, direct hits on the ceramic itself are limited by design. The ceramic bezel being proposed for the Exp. II is a full bezel, not an insert, which means the ceramic would be exposed directly to whatever knocks the case would encounter. That apparently isn't a problem on the Daytona, but it would not be appropriate on a watch intended for rugged action in rocky environments. If Rolex does make the switch, it would do away with any remaining sense of actual purpose in the watch, and confirm it really is just jewelry.

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I don't have statistics, but I have seen a number of anecdotal reports of breakage, including pictures. I think it's a relatively rare occurrence, but still a risk. Certainly ceramic would be much more likely to break or chip than steel when taking a direct impact. One need not have statistics or a degree in physics to understand that.

A key point here is that, with the exception of the Daytona, all of Rolex's ceramic "bezels" are inserts inside metal surrounds. In those watches, direct hits on the ceramic itself are limited by design. The ceramic bezel being proposed for the Exp. II is a full bezel, not an insert, which means the ceramic would be exposed directly to whatever knocks the case would encounter from certain angles. That apparently isn't a problem on the Daytona, but it would not be appropriate on a watch intended for rugged action in rocky environments. If Rolex does make the switch, it would do away with any remaining sense of actual purpose in the watch, and confirm it really is just jewelry.

I see your point on the inserts, they are somewhat protected. And yes, it would be a concession they’ve moved away from the tool watch.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Disagree. It was a model originally intended for exploration by speleologists. They could have just as easily called it a Cave Dweller. With its propensity to break and chip, ceramic would not work for this model's purported purpose.

Then wouldn’t the sapphire crystal defeat the purpose as well?

Personally I like the ss bezel better from an aesthetic point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rolex fan 61]

I hope not!!!!!!

[FTX I]

Really don't know.