How do Explorer I models 114270 and 14270 models differ?

[delldeaton]

In the market for an Explorer I, relatively recent model. Trying to decide between the 114270 and 14270, and could use your help. What's the difference between the two?

1. I know they have different movements: Pro's and con's of each?

2. Different bracelets, the newer having SELs and the older w/out.

3. Older 14270s use tritium for illumination: Was this the case w/ all 14270 models? Did all 14270 models have illuminated 3, 6, 9, and triangle markers? if not, when did this change?

4. Were the only changes to the 114270s the ones that have come w/in the last year, w/ "Rolex" repeated inside the bezel, et cetera?

Thanks!

[SPACE-DWELLER]

1. I know they have different movements: Pro's and con's of each?

Both the Cal. 3000 (27 jewels - 14270) and the Cal. 3130 (31 jewels - 114270) are excellent movements. There was a very negative review of the 14270 (Cal. 3000) a while back (Click here to read it), but you should believe ALL 14270's are like that.

2. Different bracelets, the newer having SELs and the older w/out.

It's a matter of personal preference if you like SEL's or not. Personally, I like the old style non SEL's, but since I prefer to by brand new watches from an AD, unfortunately there is only one model left still having the non SEL's (the 14060m COSC and non COSC models).

3. Older 14270s use tritium for illumination: Was this the case w/ all 14270 models? Did all 14270 models have illuminated 3, 6, 9, and triangle markers? if not, when did this change?

The change from Tritium to SuperLuminova happened around 1998. All Explorers with WG markers would have NON glowing 3, 6 and 9 markers. The numbers LOOK as if they are filled out with SuperLuminova / Tritium (depending on serial number), but in fact they don't glow. The triangle does glow in the night, though.

4. Were the only changes to the 114270s the ones that have come w/in the last year, w/ "Rolex" repeated inside the bezel, et cetera?

Yes, the Explorer got the RBR (Rolex Branded Rehaut) recently. Besides that, no other changes were introduced to my knowledge.

[Trurolexer]

Nice info, Bo as always!!!

[delldeaton]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

... 3. Older 14270s use tritium for illumination: Was this the case w/ all 14270 models? Did all 14270 models have illuminated 3, 6, 9, and triangle markers? if not, when did this change?

The change from Tritium to SuperLuminova happened around 1998. All Explorers with WG markers would have NON glowing 3, 6 and 9 markers. The numbers LOOK as if they are filled out with SuperLuminova / Tritium (depending on serial number), but in fact they don't glow. The triangle does glow in the night, though.....

Interesting. Just this morning got an eMail from a guy who swears his 14270 has tritium in the 3, 6, 9 on his Explorer I dial and that those numbers glow.

Glad I asked here.

[Beef]

Originally Posted by delldeaton

Interesting. Just this morning got an eMail from a guy who swears his 14270 has tritium in the 3, 6, 9 on his Explorer I dial and that those numbers glow.

Glad I asked here.

The last Explorer with tritium 3,6,9 was the 1016, discontinued in 1989, I believe. I have a 14270 and think it's a great watch. The Walt Odett article has since been debunked by many. The 114270 was largely Rolex's response to that firestorm of controversy. At the time that article came out, the 14270 was the MUST have watch, particulairly in Asian markets. Some believe that Odett's article was a hachet job to cool off Rolex sales and allow another watch company to gain market advantage. The 114270 changes have been enumerated by the meister above and someday I'll pick one up, but no time soon. Too many other new fish in the sea, as I have a couple of 1016s also.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Yes, the 1016 had glowing numbers.

In old price lists, the dial was described as "Heavy Duty". I once wrote a letter to Rolex (still have the letter, in fact) where I asked about what this "Heavy Duty" meant. I got the explanation that all 5-indices glowed (i.e.: also the numbers). As stated, up to about 1998, the Explorer 14270's with WHITE GOLD trim markers had Tritium, as well.

However, starting from the change from non WG trim to the use of WG trim, the description "Heavy Duty" dial was omitted since the WG trim reduced the surface area of the Tritium. The nightglowing feature of the numbers was removed, as well.

BTW.: A version of the Explorer 14270, the "Black Out", had solid WG 3, 6 and 9's without the white line (resembling a Tritium or SuperLuminova coating) inside the numbers like we know the Explorers 114270 today.

[delldeaton]

Thanks, guys. Hope I haven't come across as questioning anyone here in particular; this is really helping me out a lot!

So-- it's not possible that any 14270 has glowing numbers?

Do all 14270 and 114270 models have the 12 o'clock triangle that glows?

Can anyone recommend further reading on these and/or the 1016 models?

Having read the Odets piece myself and being somewhat familiar w/ the controversy (including the source of the watch he evaluated ), I guess I'm still not sure what would have been in it for him to do a hatchet job on any Rolex. But that's more of an aside, just curious.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

I thought I would take some pics of the two letters that I sent to Rolex back in 1995 and 1996. This was before I used the Internet, so I sent the letters the old fashioned way to Rolex S.A.

I wrote them in German, hence the reply in the same language. I can translate the letters if needed, but it would take some time. I covered my surname and address back then:

[Beef]

Originally Posted by delldeaton

Thanks, guys. Hope I haven't come across as questioning anyone here in particular; this is really helping me out a lot!

So-- it's not possible that any 14270 has glowing numbers?

Do all 14270 and 114270 models have the 12 o'clock triangle that glows?

Can anyone recommend further reading on these and/or the 1016 models?

Having read the Odets piece myself and being somewhat familiar w/ the controversy (including the source of the watch he evaluated ), I guess I'm still not sure what would have been in it for him to do a hatchet job on any Rolex. But that's more of an aside, just curious.

Dell, Ask anything you like, most people on this forum will give their best, most enlightened answer or opinion. answer. I don't know of any 14270 that has glowing numbers. All have the luminous triangles. The "black out" version is quite rare and commands a premium. Why Mr. Odet would do a hatchet job on the watch I don't know. I don't know anything about him personally, but I have read in other forums that he was loosely affiliated with or was a strong supporter of another watch company. This may not be fair to him. However, my own experience with the 14270 has been excellent.Thus, I tend to take his review with a grain of salt.

[Incurable]

I love my 114270... sold a Sub to get it.


What's not to like...

[Marrk]

Inc,

Jeez, that's beautiful. What series is it?

How much will I have to pay for one new from an AD? What's a good price?

Thanks.

M.

Originally Posted by Incurable

I love my 114270... sold a Sub to get it.


What's not to like...

[Incurable]

Originally Posted by Marrk

Inc,

Jeez, that's beautiful. What series is it?

How much will I have to pay for one new from an AD? What's a good price?

Thanks.

M.

Thank you, Mark. It's a P series, mfg. in 2000, bought in 2001. It's essentially identical to today's version with the exception of possibly the engraved rehaut (bling-ring). Model is 114270 w/the 3130 movement, the same as in the Sub NoDate or Air King.

It's been a tough, reliable partner that works hard or cleans up nice for formal outings. Some feel it doesn't have enough 'presence' but I love its understated elegance. Classic field watch looks with the grace of a DateJust. Not sure about current pricing. Used to be around (US) $4250...

[delldeaton]

My questions really relate to "which" Explorer I, as opposed to "whether" I'm going to buy. The answers here are great, so now I've just sorta morphed into "emotional appeal" mode.

At this point I'm anticipating that it will be in wrist rotation time w/ my Sub Date Z-series 16610, which I wear 90% of the time or more. Part of me thinks "stay the same" and newer technology is tougher, which favors the 114270. Part of me says to have something at least a little different, because too much sameness can be a bad thing.

Feel free to weigh in (and point out good sources, if you know any!).

[Incurable]

If you're willing to pay the price, here's something 'different'...

http://www.connectingwatches.com/for...Se&Author=8755

Just my opinion but, unless you go back to the 1016, the 14270 and 114270 aren't different enough to justify the added cost of buying the older, 'vintage' piece.

[rolexsmurf]

Does anyone know when the 114270 was introduced, and when the RBR engraving appeared? (is it on all 114270 models?)

Thanks.

Update: after a ton of searching it seems the 114270 became available around 2001: (some awesome pictures in the link, go take a look :))
http://rolex.watchprosite.com/show-n...ost/ti-406036/

So they can make small changes like the RBR engraving without updating the model number? (sorry, new to watches and Rolex) :)

[DaveInLA]

Originally Posted by delldeaton

4. Were the only changes to the 114270s the ones that have come w/in the last year, w/ "Rolex" repeated inside the bezel, et cetera?

I have a just-purchased 114270 (from AD), and mine doesn't have ROLEXROLEXROLEX inside the bezel. Is mine not updated enough? I kind of like that mark...

[jac67]

It is possible for a Tritium dial to still give a glow.

My 1973 DRSD has a very, very faint glow in a pitch black room, and allowing time for your eyes to adjust.

I woke up one night (around 4am), and noticed it on my bedside table. I thought I was dreaming............so I got up and sure enough a faint glow.

Also I believe the 14270 had lug holes, whereas the 114270 doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong.


John.

[sea-dweller]

Here's mine. It's a Y series. It's lightweight, rugged, understated and elegant.

[stanislav]

I bought 114270 on Monday, very nice for my 6.2" wrist, I was looking also at the Exp II but a bit too big for my tiny wrist, paid 3500 eur (from 3800 eur face value, 20% VAT we have here), could have saved 200 eur going through web dealer (again with card and everything) but why bother. It went +2 sec for a day, but face down during night dropped 1 sec, good for now. Looks very elegant and tough at the same time. Perfect for small wrists.

I was also looking at the Omega AT too. But had doubts about the crystal back, the movement - not entirely inhouse and co-ax still new and with some problems, eventually went for the classic and trusted. The Omega AD is worse than the Rolex AD, poor stocks and does not take orders, bad pricing, had to go through web dealer if i had decided for an Omega.

Mine is M with RBR and crown engraved on crystal (not centred on the 6 marker). It had just arrived cause the previous was bought and the same guy ordered another one so 2 new pcs arrived last week at the AD (Bulgaria) and I got the second. My first Rolex and I am glad. It looks much better on you wrist than on most pics. And it feels heavy to me, just below 100 gr (2 links out). Can't imagine how people wear gold watches over 200 gr.

[DaveInLA]

Mine doesn't have the RBR...

Does anybody have pics of the Explorer I with the RBR? When did this exactly happen? I just bought mine 2 weeks ago from AD!

[TimeOnHand]

The Explorer 1 is a beautiful watch... Its next on my must have list...
USD $4925.00

Good Luck and post pictures.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

1. I know they have different movements: Pro's and con's of each?

Both the Cal. 3000 (27 jewels - 14270) and the Cal. 3130 (31 jewels - 114270) are excellent movements. There was a very negative review of the 14270 (Cal. 3000) a while back (Click here to read it), but you should believe ALL 14270's are like that.
(...)

Just went back to this thread and discovered a mistake in my old reply.

Of course, it should say:

"Both the Cal. 3000 (27 jewels - 14270) and the Cal. 3130 (31 jewels - 114270) are excellent movements. There was a very negative review of the 14270 (Cal. 3000) a while back (Click here to read it), but you should NOT believe ALL 14270's are like that."

[DaveInLA]

Originally Posted by DaveInLA

Mine doesn't have the RBR...

Does anybody have pics of the Explorer I with the RBR? When did this exactly happen? I just bought mine 2 weeks ago from AD!

anyone?

[Incurable]

Not sure I've ever seen an Explorer w/the bling-ring... Rolex's site itself doesn't show the Explorer w/the engraved rehaut. That doesn't mean much though. I much prefer mine without...

[adr]

I always have the passion for Explorer I because of its simplicity & arabic 369.
This watch is a hot grab in Asia since 2000 & could not even see 1 on display.
Until 2006 I finally put a stop & purchased it. At first i thought the 369 will glow, but sadly no. Small point regreat.

[GradyPhilpott]

I just bought an Explorer Z series. It doesn't have the "bling-ring."

What is a CEL and what does "black-out" mean?

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

What is a SEL and what does "black-out" mean?

You meant SEL, instead of CEL, didn't you?

SEL stands for Solid-End Link.

I'll get back with you, when I figure out how "black-out" relates to Rolex watches.

[Chicawolverina]

I guess by the time the 14270's appeared Rolex had made the decision to be a luxury only type of watch company, thus the higher-ups decided it was an interesting fashion head-game choice to have numbers that looked like they should glow but in the the dark their fuse is blown. I would modify them with lume, something pretty maybe!

[psv]

Most timeless and elegant sport Rolex. Ever. Love my 114270.

[shoota70]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

1. I know they have different movements: Pro's and con's of each?

Both the Cal. 3000 (27 jewels - 14270) and the Cal. 3130 (31 jewels - 114270) are excellent movements. There was a very negative review of the 14270 (Cal. 3000) a while back (Click here to read it), but you should believe ALL 14270's are like that.

2. Different bracelets, the newer having SELs and the older w/out.

It's a matter of personal preference if you like SEL's or not. Personally, I like the old style non SEL's, but since I prefer to by brand new watches from an AD, unfortunately there is only one model left still having the non SEL's (the 14060m COSC and non COSC models).

3. Older 14270s use tritium for illumination: Was this the case w/ all 14270 models? Did all 14270 models have illuminated 3, 6, 9, and triangle markers? if not, when did this change?

The change from Tritium to SuperLuminova happened around 1998. All Explorers with WG markers would have NON glowing 3, 6 and 9 markers. The numbers LOOK as if they are filled out with SuperLuminova / Tritium (depending on serial number), but in fact they don't glow. The triangle does glow in the night, though.

4. Were the only changes to the 114270s the ones that have come w/in the last year, w/ "Rolex" repeated inside the bezel, et cetera?

Yes, the Explorer got the RBR (Rolex Branded Rehaut) recently. Besides that, no other changes were introduced to my knowledge.

Very interesting article.