Ceramic Explorer II ?

[karmatp]

Ceramic blows, I hate it. If Rolex adds ceramic to the Explorer II, they will have ruined another perfect tool watch.

[copperjohn]

Yeah, no. Ceramic does not need to be on EVERYTHING.

[904VT]

What I don't get is the insistence that the Explorer need a stainless bezel to be a tool watch because in all reality you don't need the bezel to track the 24 hour scale. It simply moves one half the scale of the hour hands. The only thing IMO tool about the stainless bezel is that it is cheaper to replace if desired or needed.

[ejvette]

Originally Posted by 904VT

What I don't get is the insistence that the Explorer need a stainless bezel to be a tool watch because in all reality you don't need the bezel to track the 24 hour scale. It simply moves one half the scale of the hour hands. The only thing IMO tool about the stainless bezel is that it is cheaper to replace if desired or needed.

Also it gets so scratched up very easily and looks like crap in a short period of time it would be nice if it was something more durable IMO of course

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by 904VT

What I don't get is the insistence that the Explorer need a stainless bezel to be a tool watch because in all reality you don't need the bezel to track the 24 hour scale. It simply moves one half the scale of the hour hands. The only thing IMO tool about the stainless bezel is that it is cheaper to replace if desired or needed.

The point is that ceramic is more brittle than steel, so you'd be sacrificing durability for the sake of being less scratch prone. That's backwards thinking on a watch designed for bounding around on rocks and whatnot.

[ejvette]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The point is that ceramic is more brittle than steel, so you'd be sacrificing durability for the sake of being less scratch prone. That's backwards thinking on a watch designed for bounding around on rocks and whatnot.

Seriously ..... how many exp II owners are rock climbing and such ..... probably about the same amount of DSSD owners that spend any time 3900m below the ocean

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by ejvette

Seriously ..... how many exp II owners are rock climbing and such ..... probably about the same amount of DSSD owners that spend any time 3900m below the ocean

I live in Oregon and wear my Explorer II doing everything, from riding rapids to climbing, but that's beside the point. Taking away the durable bezel of the Exp II is the equivalent of making the DSSD only 50m WR, since most don't dive with it. The durable bezel was always the differentiating factor between the Exp. II and GMT.

Now, if we want to talk about Rolex wearers who baby their watches and worry about scratching, we've already had plenty of threads started recently.

[chris242]

no thanks!

[Pan Chai]

ceramic or not, I'd love the Explorer 2 to have a black bezel.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by doramas

i do not like. Loses his identity. Also ... It looks a lot like gmt master ll.

Noooooooooooooooooo

x 100000000000

[Ravager135]

The stainless steel bezel on the Explorer II is part of its DNA. Sure practically the change to ceramic would affect little other than ruin a watch that has its own aesthetic.

Why do people want to change the Explorer II into the GMT-Master II? I like that it's a different size. I like that it has an orange GMT hand. I like that the bezel is fixed and stainless steel. Every month there's a thread about the GMT getting a white dial or the Explorer II getting a ceramic bezel. Let them each be their own thing.

[zion_rasta]

And all of a sudden all Rolex look the same with ceramic bezel...

[cmadams]

Yes, you are.

[Seaotter]

Looks like Grand Seiko

[travisb]

One of a few sport models that I hope stays with a non-ceramic bezel.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The point is that ceramic is more brittle than steel, so you'd be sacrificing durability for the sake of being less scratch prone. That's backwards thinking on a watch designed for bounding around on rocks and whatnot.

But a SS bezel getting slammed hard enough that the equivalent ceramic bezel shatters, would also do a pretty good number on a SS Bezel and it would be needed to be replaced as well. Unless that is you prefer dents on your bezel, as I'm sure some do. So bottom line IMO either bezel would need to be replaced after this type of damage and the bezel is unnecessary if ever in an emergency situation because you don't need a bezel to track the 24/second time zone, just the 24 hour hand.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by 904VT

But a SS bezel getting slammed hard enough that the equivalent ceramic bezel shatters, would also do a pretty good number on a SS Bezel and it would be needed to be replaced as well. Unless that is you prefer dents on your bezel, as I'm sure some do. So bottom line IMO either bezel would need to be replaced after this type of damage and the bezel is unnecessary if ever in an emergency situation because you don't need a bezel to track the 24/second time zone, just the 24 hour hand.

No way. I've seen lots of ceramic inserts fractured over the last several years that even the aluminum bezel inserts would have handled, let alone a solid steel bezel. Plus, even if that was the case, an Explorer II bezel is only a few hundred bucks to replace.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

No way. I've seen lots of ceramic inserts fractured over the last several years that even the aluminum bezel inserts would have handled, let alone a solid steel bezel.

To offer a contrary point of view, plenty of people take their ceramic Subs, SD4K, and Deep Sea pieces diving and around plenty of rocks and don't seem to have much of an issue. Again it's just my opinion and I'm sure you and others may disagree, but I think the durability issue is bit over-exaggerated

[Alex_TA]

Originally Posted by Seaotter

Looks like Grand Seiko

More like Timex

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by 904VT

To offer a contrary point of view, plenty of people take their ceramic Subs, SD4K, and Deep Sea pieces diving and around plenty of rocks and don't seem to have much of an issue. Again it's just my opinion and I'm sure you and others may disagree, but I think the durability issue is bit over-exaggerated

Several years ago, there was a poll asking about cracked ceramic, and over 7% responded that their bezel had cracked or broken. While that's not a huge number, I'm guessing Explorer II owners would have about a 0% rate. Seeing how the Explorer II is built to be the most durable of the professional series (which is partly why it had a fixed bezel in the first place,) it wouldn't make sense to raise those odds.

[mannyv11]

I like it and I would buy the polar without a doubt in my mind.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Several years ago, there was a poll asking about cracked ceramic, and over 7% responded that their bezel had cracked or broken. While that's not a huge number, I'm guessing Explorer II owners would have about a 0% rate. Seeing how the Explorer II is built to be the most durable of the professional series (which is partly why it had a fixed bezel in the first place,) it wouldn't make sense to raise those odds.

I agree the SS won't shatter like the Ceramic may.

There is a self-reporting bias built into that sample poll. Users that have experienced an issue of cracking or shattering are a lot more likely to self report the results, while users that have no problem with their ceramic bezels don't necessarily go out of their way to report that. I'm sure 7% in this sample is much much higher of a failure rate than that of the true population size.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by 904VT

I agree the SS won't shatter like the Ceramic may.

There is a self-reporting bias built into that sample poll. Users that have experienced an issue of cracking or shattering are a lot more likely to self report the results, while users that have no problem with their ceramic bezels don't necessarily go out of their way to report that. I'm sure 7% in this sample is much much higher of a failure rate than that of the true population size.

I'd agree if we're talking about new members coming on a forum to report a problem, but polls among forum members are a little different.


Either way, even only 32 people in the entire world had a broken ceramic bezel by 2012, that's probably about 32 more people than had a broken steel bezel. A ceramic bezel goes against the ethos of the Explorer II.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I'd agree if we're talking about new members coming on a forum to report a problem, but polls among forum members are a little different.


Either way, even only 32 people in the entire world had a broken ceramic bezel by 2012, that's probably about 32 more people than had a broken steel bezel. A ceramic bezel goes against the ethos of the Explorer II.

If I was exploring caves, I would be much more worried about my cyclops getting knocked into something than my recessed ceramic bezel...

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by 904VT

If I was exploring caves, I would be much more worried about my cyclops getting knocked into something than my recessed ceramic bezel...

Hey, I'd welcome a plexi crystal like the original 1655, too, as it would make more sense for a watch that is supposed to withstand impact.

My dream watch is probably the one in my avatar. It was custom made by Rolex for Oliver Shepard's crew. It was essentially the 1655, but with a more legible GMT dial, and it was likely the inspiration for the 16550/16570 design. Unfortunately they only made 3, so you can imagine the price.

[PaulChronometer]

40mm, steel, is King

[kelv_w]

so the non ceramic EXII would be discontinued and go up in value?

[904VT]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Hey, I'd welcome a plexi crystal like the original 1655, too, as it would make more sense for a watch that is supposed to withstand impact.

My dream watch is probably the one in my avatar. It was custom made by Rolex for Oliver Shepard's crew. It was essentially the 1655, but with a more legible GMT dial, and it was likely the inspiration for the 16550/16570 design. Unfortunately they only made 3, so you can imagine the price.

Could you imagine being lucky enough to own a piece Rolex only made three copies of! I'm not sure if Rolex would ever do something so limited in this day and age, so pretty cool for sure

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by 904VT

Could you imagine being lucky enough to own a piece Rolex only made three copies of! I'm not sure if Rolex would ever do something so limited in this day and age, so pretty cool for sure

Yeah, no kidding. Here's a great article about it (I believe it's since been confirmed that there were 3 copies of it.) They apparently sent back their regular 1665s and asked for the GMT dial, since it was easier to read, and Rolex obliged.

http://www.woundforlife.com/2014/05/...edition-rolex/

[jdmi32]

I'm not a buyer at 42mm anyways so Rolex can do whatever they want with the Exp II. I'll just make do with the classics.