Explorer ~ which to choose

[TARDIS]

I am undecided. I have an absolute budget of AU$6500. Should I buy a brand new Explorer Model 214270.......

or.......

A pre-owned 'V' series (rehaut ring) Polar Explorer?

My quandary is the pre-owned Polar EXP II is a great timepiece that has a second timezone hand. The case is 40mm. If I choose this, I will have to trust the seller and go on the photo's of it then commit to buy.

The Exp 214270 is 39mm and would be from a respectable AD in Auckland. It doesn't have a 24hr time or a cyclops date. These features are nice but not absolutely essential. Being the latest model, it comes with the new Rolex bracelet, slide clasp, parachrom spring in the movement and the new blue lume. I am 6' 3" and my wrist size is 19cm (7 1/2 inches) I don't think 39mm will look too small, but time is of the essence here as my trip to Auckland is weeks away whereas the online item will be gone soon.



Your advice please guys.

[Feras]

I would be delusional if i convinced myself that i need the 24hours time or second timing, since i dont travel frequently. But i appreciate the verastility of the 214270, the perfect size, wear and the fact that it's an Explorer.
You should know what you need or want and get it after trying out both of them. Goodluck

[Explorertwo]

I tried them both and that said it all. How much i love the 39 ex1, the polar ex2 was better on my wrist, sportier and more 'explorer' to me.
So try them both and one will sing to you!
Still love the 36mm explorer 1 though...... One day..?..

[joe100]

Try on both and pick the one you like

[Hairdude1]

Originally Posted by joe100

Try on both and pick the one you like

Agreed!

[TARDIS]

I guess I'll just have to be patient

[wokafu]

Exp 1

[Lumberjact]

Hi Steve,

These are both great watches, but are so different in many ways that it should really be a simple decision. Look at the features and decide if you need/want date and second time zone. Then ask if you prefer a watch which tends towards the dressier end of the scale or the sportier end. Hopefully your answers will see you towards your choice, but be prepared for the possibility that a GMTII is what you might want instead!

Of course, trying both on will tell you in an instant...!

Best of luck!

[Puffy]

6500 aussie will get you a nice minty 16570 with leftover cash for a few steak dinners

[travisb]

I would take the 39mm Exp of the 2 you have in mind.
Would not be too small on you and the updated bracelet / clasp is a bonus.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

With your wrist size, imho you'd be better off with the Explorer 214270.

[ktam]

I own 214270 39mm and GMT IIc. The 39mm explorer is the classic design and can go with any outfit, simple matt black dial with elegant 369. It's understatement and similar to AP Royal Oak 15x00 series and PP Natilus 5711 series.

for the old polar explorer II, it's not as bold statement as the new polar explorer II, but once you go with two time zones, it's hard to beat the GMT IIc. Try them on to see what fits you. Your budget can definitely get you the 214270.

Also when you compare the dial size, the 214270 is bigger than Explorer II due to the narrower bezel and bigger than GMTIIc too when not considering the bezel for the 24hr mark.

good luck

[TARDIS]

Not long to wait.

[BCNJ]

I'm roughly the same size as you (height, wrist size, 200lbs) and have slowly come back down from the big watch era in my life (Panerai's, Bentleys, IWC all 44mm or bigger). I wear my SubLVC almost exclusively since acquiring it and only really switch it out for a Pepsi GMT II. Next up is a 39mm explorer I. After trying it on, it is plenty big.

[TARDIS]

Nice to hear that Brendan.

[Time2time]

Exp 1 39mm 214270.

By far the nicer looking of the Explorers
If you don't need the 24hr hand and date then go for it.

[koc]

39mm 214270