Possibility for a Ceramic Explorer 2 216570

[capote]

Yes its possible, I mean it wouldn’t be the first Rolex with a ceramic bezel

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

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

The sapphire is protected by the steel bezel. It could still shatter from a direct hit, but glancing blows on the side of the case won't make direct contact with the crystal, and don't pose the same threat. A full ceramic bezel will be much more exposed to direct impacts and prone to damage. For desk cave divers, that probably isn't much of a threat, but for people who intend to use the watch for its stated purpose, it could be a problem.

[jets]

I'd be happy if they just got rid of the orange.

[SeaDweller50]

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.

This and the fact it would look totally hideous.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Ra_88

This and the fact it would look totally hideous.

Well, yeah.

[Wcdhtwn]

Originally Posted by 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...

There's was speculation in a recent thread that the GMT LN will be discontinued this year. While I doubt that will happen, if it does I could see the Explorer II getting a ceramic bezel, but not going back to 40mm.

[Raza_actual]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, 216570s have been a little soft on the used market, but it’s not like 16570s have shot up or anything. The Explorer II just doesn’t seem to be a big seller for Rolex. And I kind of get it. It’s a newer model relative to the Submariner, Explorer, and GMT, it doesn’t have the coolest story behind it (designed on the off chance some spelunkers wanted to use it versus being one of the first modern dive watches, a connection to the watch that climbed Everest, or being made at the behest of Pan Am), and it seems to appeal to the general public. I think there’s a reason Rolex made the Explorer II 42mm before it touched much else (sure, the DeepSea pre-dates the 42mm model, I believe, but the DeepSea was a new model and they kept the 40mm SD alongside it); the Explorer II seemed expendable compared to gambling with a 42mm Submariner or GMT.

Seems to be doing well enough that they killed the 40mm Seadweller in favor of a larger size model, though. But time will tell if the SD43 has staying power.

[GreatScott]

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 broke a ceramic bezel before, but never a steel one.

[sager]

Question:

Given that the Explorer 42 is not as desirable as other SS models, would changing it increase value and demand on the current ones or would their value drop in favor of the new ones?

I know this is all speculation but I am curious what you guys think since I am thinking of adding a polar to my collection soon.



Sent from my SM-N9500 using Tapatalk

[A.I.]

I owned the Exp II and moved it on because I marked the bezel and it stood out a mile. I really liked that watch but the bezel design was not great and for me it had to go.

Now a ceramic bezel? It just might talk to me...

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by 2th_doc

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

x2

[Cru Jones]

Brushed grey ceramic that matches the case could be pretty cool, IMO.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Royalex

It has happened to daytona, why not ex2?

Daytona didn't always have a steel bezel.

[BNABOD]

Plenty of watches out there w ceramic bezels that are not protected by a steel rim. The argument that it should not be done because one might break it going cave dwelling is a tad ridiculous in my book. I wouldn’t take my expII near rocks just because to me that is just idiotic but I do swim w it. Having a ceramic bezel would be cool because the SS bezel now is a scratch magnet and most exp II rarely leave the office


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by BNABOD

Plenty of watches out there w ceramic bezels that are not protected by a steel rim. The argument that it should not be done because one might break it going cave dwelling is a tad ridiculous in my book. I wouldn’t take my expII near rocks just because to me that is just idiotic but I do swim w it. Having a ceramic bezel would be cool because the SS bezel now is a scratch magnet and most exp II rarely leave the office

So should Rolex do away with the entire marketing angle of the watch, no longer acknowledge its history, and sell it solely as a watch for office workers? I know the concept of a multi-thousand-dollar tool watch is largely a fiction, but a lot of Rolex's appeal as a brand is its heritage of well-executed, performance-specific designs. What does the brand have to gain by modifying its designs in ways that are not consistent with their stated purposes?

[BNABOD]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

So should Rolex do away with the entire marketing angle of the watch, no longer acknowledge its history, and sell it solely as a watch for office workers? I know the concept of a multi-thousand-dollar tool watch is largely a fiction, but a lot of Rolex's appeal as a brand is its heritage of well-executed, performance-specific designs. What does the brand have to gain by modifying its designs in ways that are not consistent with their stated purposes?

They can do as they please all I am saying is that in my book a ceramic bezel would not change the appeal of a watch labeled “explorer” . It seems to me that the watch is meant for the outdoors so adding a ceramic bezel would fit right in as long as it does not rotate. Now if one wants to say historically it was always metal and should always remain metal then the same argument could be made toward the sub aluminium bezel insert. I see the ceramic bezel as simply an advancement of technology just like a silicon hairspring (except you can see it) and not as a way to dismiss your past history .



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by BNABOD

They can do as they please all I am saying is that in my book a ceramic bezel would not change the appeal of a watch labeled “explorer” . It seems to me that the watch is meant for the outdoors so adding a ceramic bezel would fit right in as long as it does not rotate. Now if one wants to say historically it was always metal and should always remain metal then the same argument could be made toward the sub aluminium bezel insert. I see the ceramic bezel as simply an advancement of technology just like a silicon hairspring (except you can see it) and not as a way to dismiss your past history .

There is a difference between history and intended purpose. A ceramic bezel on a Submariner is not inconsistent with its function as a dive watch. Likewise, a full ceramic bezel on a Daytona is not inconsistent with its purpose as a speed measuring device for racing drivers. A ceramic bezel on an exploring watch deemed to be "the most rugged of all Oysters" (Rolex's words, not mine) makes no sense, irrespective of how most buyers actually wear it. That's not a slavish adherence to history, but a logical conclusion based on the stated purpose and characteristics of the watch.

The irony of this whole thread is that Rolex has shown zero inclination to put ceramic on an Explorer. We keep having these conversations every year because some guy with a blog and some Photoshop skills floats the idea as a possibility for no other reason than he thinks it would look cool. Even if the naysayers like me are right and Rolex never does it, we will still see these threads because every year represents another chance of it happening in the minds of those who desire it.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Brushed grey ceramic that matches the case could be pretty cool, IMO.

I would love to see a mock up of that.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

So should Rolex do away with the entire marketing angle of the watch, no longer acknowledge its history, and sell it solely as a watch for office workers? I know the concept of a multi-thousand-dollar tool watch is largely a fiction, but a lot of Rolex's appeal as a brand is its heritage of well-executed, performance-specific designs. What does the brand have to gain by modifying its designs in ways that are not consistent with their stated purposes?

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

There is a difference between history and intended purpose. A ceramic bezel on a Submariner is not inconsistent with its function as a dive watch. Likewise, a full ceramic bezel on a Daytona is not inconsistent with its purpose as a speed measuring device for racing drivers. A ceramic bezel on an exploring watch deemed to be "the most rugged of all Oysters" (Rolex's words, not mine) makes no sense, irrespective of how most buyers actually wear it. That's not a slavish adherence to history, but a logical conclusion based on the stated purpose and characteristics of the watch.

The irony of this whole thread is that Rolex has shown zero inclination to put ceramic on an Explorer. We keep having these conversations every year because some guy with a blog and some Photoshop skills floats the idea as a possibility for no other reason than he thinks it would look cool. Even if the naysayers like me are right and Rolex never does it, we will still see these threads because every year represents another chance of it happening in the minds of those who desire it.

The last time Rolex showed the Explorer II anywhere near caves was decades ago. Today, it's an adventure's watch with a GMT function (not the original "heritage" day/night function, by the way). And I think that the majority of Rolex consumers would welcome a bezel that is more scratch resistant. I don't think that would be inconsistent with the watch's purpose (in over a decade, the number of busted ceramic inserts seen on this forum doesn't exceed 10).

But, most importantly, I think the chance of a ceramic Exp II is close to 0.01%.

[Boothroyd]

Originally Posted by 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

I could just as easily see the EXP II line being retired for a period of time.

[BNABOD]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

The last time Rolex showed the Explorer II anywhere near caves was decades ago. Today, it's an adventure's watch with a GMT function (not the original "heritage" day/night function, by the way). And I think that the majority of Rolex consumers would welcome a bezel that is more scratch resistant. I don't think that would be inconsistent with the watch's purpose (in over a decade, the number of busted ceramic inserts seen on this forum doesn't exceed 10).

But, most importantly, I think the chance of a ceramic Exp II is close to 0.01%.

That is my take as well and also unlikely to occur .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk