What would you buy...considering a first Rolex.

[judoman]

Get the explorer Il 42mm. They at have at authenticwatches.com cheap.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[sager]

Sub

[niseko]

Sub


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Twin1]

SubC

[datejust24]

I'd get a Sea Dweller personally....and no....definitely. NOT the 43mm version, but rather the classic 16600 or 16600....perfect piece....

[strafer_kid]

Originally Posted by datejust24

I'd get a Sea Dweller personally....and no....definitely. NOT the 43mm version, but rather the classic 16600 or 16600....perfect piece....

Yes, Seadweller 16600 would be a good one okay, though any of the ones mentioned by the OP would also be good. Just be careful re the Explorer II though...it does tend to wear 'big' depending on wrist size. Good luck!

[derekstlmo]

Sub

[youngp5]

GMTc

[porschejeff]

Sub for sure from your choices.

[kearez]

Head into a AD you never know what might start singing to you. Could be a yachtmaster..

[henrylee]

SubC

[ThyEmperor]

If you want to be typical go with a sub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LBC4225]

I got a Daytona 116500 Ceramic.
That's how I roll!

[Ruud Van Driver]

Sub C would make an awesome first Rolex, it's what drew me to the brand over 30 years ago. However, if you're planning on building a collection, then I wouldn't write off the Exp II

[LakerRaider]

Explorer 2

[dave023]

Sub

[1William]

Submariner.

[WEST HAM ROLEX]

Sub No Date..

For sure

[ExpSubGMT]

Since most say Sub, that tells you what NOT to get.

The correct answer is an Explorer, 214270.

[Glenn068]

Seadweller

[fishingbear]

Originally Posted by AK797

Try the GMTc as well and then just pick the one you love the most, all winners.

Yep, this.

[Tridor]

SubC Date ... your BB already lacks a date, so the SubC Date will give you a bit of variety.

[MTdweller]

I vote the Sub for its iconic look, ceramic bezel, and innovative Glidelock clasp.

[todd.hepburn]

Thanks for all the replies! I think I'm going to agree with the majority and go for the 114060. I was able to source one for a 7% discount on my visa or 13% for cash - what's appropriate in Canada?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[lhawli]

Originally Posted by todd.hepburn

Thanks for all the replies! I think I'm going to agree with the majority and go for the 114060. I was able to source one for a 7% discount on my visa or 13% for cash - what's appropriate in Canada?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Dude, if you're in canada, check out CWC!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BubbleDate]

I could write "Sub" or "ExpI" too, but that wouldn't help me, so I'm guessing that probably wouldn't help you. Most people are looking for WHY in these threads.

If it were me and I really needed the date or dual time, Explorer II. If not and or you are looking for something really special (that you don't have to pay for in gold) my default choice would be Sub C. Also consider Explorer II is bigger than Sub C and Explorer I if size matters to you.

If it helps, lately some people have been choosing the Explorer I as they see it as a versatile piece. I don't. I feel its a classy sports watch and would rather go a OP 36 or a Sub ND. My 2 cents

[Rogdogg]

I'd go with the Exp II.
You should be able to find a very good price on one if you look around.
It's a fantastic watch but a little bigger than the others on the wrist.

[mschafer]

Usage first. I personally use a second time zone frequently and prefe the Rolex tool watch look, hence I prefer the GMT LN which combines the need and the classic sub appearance. If the EXP II is more your speed have a good look and the Polar, it's kind of unique and pairs very well with any collection. Otherwise a ND is as straight forward as it gets. All I say, and only if you don't need the technical improvements, consider vintage, maybe birth year, graduation, etc....