Best value for money Rolex - New Explorer I

[Oscarpapa]

Originally Posted by noshame

I actually quite like the new Explorer, very well proportioned; however, I don't like how they moved the "Explorer" text back to the top of the dial. I understand that's where it was originally, but the dial looks unbalanced now with too much empty space below. Anyone else agree?

Agree, the text looks like it's been squeezed into a too small space.

[vlps]

the text looks sandwiched together on the top

[Lash L]

They should have left “explorer” on the Bottom Then they wouldn’t be going entirely backwards.

[cardiel]

are all the folk coming here to say 36mm is too small new to the watch hobby I wonder?

[Andrews148]

I was waiting for a 39, but I'm very happy with the switch to 36mm. I sometimes wear a Casio F91W - and they're tiny!

[2nastie]

Originally Posted by cardiel

are all the folk coming here to say 36mm is too small new to the watch hobby I wonder?

Nope... to say it's small or good size is relative. To the actual vintage collector, 36mm is the right size since it is truer to its original form. To a smaller wrist size, better fitting.

To the majority of actual consumers (whether is modern trends, wrists, etc.) the 36mm is small. 38-39mm is typically the right balance for a sportier watch that fits both larger and smaller wrists.

You launch another standalone watch as a 36mm, or if Rolex made the Daytona 37mm again and 100% if not 1000% of people will be say: "are they crazy" why would you make it so small. For some odd reason people think differently about the Explorer.

I love the Explorer line-up as whole from the 1016 to its current form. Perhaps my favorite Rolex model in general, but I would say the 36mm is small for modern standards. And I have a 6.5 inch wrist so naturally the 36mm is better fitting. If it's vintage absolutely the right size; on a modern piece, 39mm is better IMO. I'm with the camp that I think Rolex will launch a 41mm eventually (although I hope they don't. I like the Explorer being a single sized offering).

[cardiel]

Originally Posted by 2nastie

Nope... to say it's small or good size is relative. To the actual vintage collector, 36mm is the right size since it is truer to its original form. To a smaller wrist size, better fitting.

To the majority of actual consumers (whether is modern trends, wrists, etc.) the 36mm is small. 38-39mm is typically the right balance for a sportier watch that fits both larger and smaller wrists.

You launch another standalone watch as a 36mm, or if Rolex made the Daytona 37mm again and 100% if not 1000% of people will be say: "are they crazy" why would you make it so small. For some odd reason people think differently about the Explorer.

I love the Explorer line-up as whole from the 1016 to its current form. Perhaps my favorite Rolex model in general, but I would say the 36mm is small for modern standards. And I have a 6.5 inch wrist so naturally the 36mm is better fitting. If it's vintage absolutely the right size; on a modern piece, 39mm is better IMO. I'm with the camp that I think Rolex will launch a 41mm eventually (although I hope they don't. I like the Explorer being a single sized offering).

I hear what you are saying.....but I still don't really understand.....36 is the sweet spot.

[GST15]

Originally Posted by oystersteel

too small

+1

[Epanerai12]

Going out on a limb here, but I'd say the Explorer 1 (39 or 36) is actually the worst value in the lineup. Had 3, and each time would say its the best value in the range, but truthfully, its one of the worst - the value proposition never adds up when you do away with Everest malarkey.

$7k USD for a time only steel watch with no other functions. I love that it exists and its time served in the lineup, but its not worth the money when there are better options in the Rolex pro range and elsewhere. Apples to oranges some might say, but a new Seamaster is $5,200 retail, less with an AD discount. Secondary market not factored in, the fact that this exists makes the Explorer 1 a bad watch for the money.

At this stage, with the new 36mm its even worse (less Oystersteel in its construction! lol) and at $6,450 USD, its now on par with the AK pricewise and I'd recon the AK edges it out now at equal price. Still both poor values. Now, a Rolex holding its value is an important criteria for some (maybe the only criteria), so from that perspective, any pro model is a good buy when you have little risk of loss, instant arbitrage or a long-term store of value. Explorer 1 is no better than others in this regard, so not a factor.

Love the watch, don't think its worth the money. Staying within the Rolex family, a smooth bezel SS Datejust on Oyster is such a better value prop than the EXP. and within the pro range, the EXP 2 is so much more watch for not that much more money (33% more $, 300% more features/functionality), it's not even close (and no, I don't own a DJ or an EXP 2). Now, for those who I upset....be gentle....

[FTX I]

Not a watch I would consider. 36 is way too small for my liking on a modern watch.

[liberalclown]

Originally Posted by Epanerai12

Going to go out on a limb here, but i'd say the Explorer 1 (39 or 36) is actually the worst value in the lineup.

I agree on some of your reasoning and disagree on others. I think if you start comparing Rolex to other brands, not only Exp but most of the line up if not all are worse in value. If you compare Rolex with Rolex then I agree with you. Not because Exp 2 can be had $2k more and better watch but OP36 can be had almost $1k less and its the same watch.

If we look at the half empty, in the past OP39 didn't have the easy link and flip-lock clasp, so Exp 39mm was a better deal out there for the ones who considered buying time only black dial watch, and dial was matte and Arabic numerals gave a different charm, alongside the mercedes hands. But if you look at the lines now, OP36 and Exp 36 are not that different anymore. OP being $5600 and Exp $6450, I don't see justification solely comparing the technicals. Both have easy link, glossy dials, white gold hands, almost the same case if not the bezel and the only difference is the flip lock clasp, which is not a deal breaker on a 36mm watch assuming Rolexes are not true sports watches although a perfect daily watch.

If we look at the half full, Explorer with its inexplicable charm, branding, value retention, not a bad deal at MSRP. OP36 is still the better deal out of two, yet I will definitely try to get the Exp 36 from my AD because of that inexplicable charm and never considered the OP36.

[Epanerai12]

Originally Posted by liberalclown

I agree some on your reasoning and disagree on others. I think if you start comparing Rolex to other brands, not only Exp but most of the line up if not all are worse in value. If you compare Rolex with Rolex then I agree with you. Not because Exp 2 can be had $2k more and better watch but OP36 can be had almost $1k less and its the same watch.

If we look at the half empty, in the past OP39 didn't have the easy link and flip-lock clasp, so Exp 39mm was a better deal out there who considered buying time only black dial watch, and dial was matte and Arabic numerals gave a different charm, alongside the mercedes hands. But if you look at the lines now, OP36 and Exp 36 are not that different anymore. OP being $5600 and Exp $6450, I don't see justification solely comparing the technicals. Both have easy link, glossy dials, white gold hands, almost the same case if not the bezel and the only difference is the flip lock clasp, which is not a deal breaker on a 36mm watch assuming Rolexes are not true sports watches although a perfect daily watch.

If we look at the half full, Explorer with its inexplicable charm, branding, value retention, not a bad deal at MSRP (but OP36 is still the better deal out of two). Yet I will definitely try to get the Exp 36 from my AD because of that inexplicable charm and never considered the OP36.

Nice points made here.

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by Danny83

I think they will sell good to women

Of course. Women are smart and know a good thing when they see one!

[RotorSelfWinding]

Originally Posted by Lash L

They should have left “explorer” on the Bottom Then they wouldn’t be going entirely backwards.

I agree with this. I wear the 39mm and a 36mm datejust and honestly the 36mm doesn't bother me. The explorer on top just doesn't look balanced to me.

[Ensign]

Originally Posted by Epanerai12

Going out on a limb here, but I'd say the Explorer 1 (39 or 36) is actually the worst value in the lineup.

Rolex hasn’t been about complications/functions, steel, ...or even price for quite some time.

[Just_Watch]

Originally Posted by Lash L

They should have left “explorer” on the Bottom Then they wouldn’t be going entirely backwards.

The Explorer was alway above the spindle on the later 36mm references, so nothing new there.

A lot of wearing a 36mm watch is getting your eye used to it, once you adjust to looking at it you realize that the dial is nearly as big, if not bigger than many 40mm dive watches.

[ervelo]

Agreed. This is perfect for wrist sizes 7' or under imo. The perfect understated everyday Rolex piece that literally can be a one watch collection

[JRique]

Originally Posted by liberalclown

If we look at the half full, Explorer with its inexplicable charm, branding, value retention, not a bad deal at MSRP. OP36 is still the better deal out of two, yet I will definitely try to get the Exp 36 from my AD because of that inexplicable charm and never considered the OP36.

OP has 0 heritage when you compare it with the Explorer, OP is generic watch that Rolex produces to the mass, everybody can go to an AD and get a OP.

It costs 900 USD less? Yes, but is a generic watch with a Rolex crown, just it, when you buy a Explorer you buy all the history attached to it.

The hands, dial and clasp are not the same anyway...

[JRique]

Originally Posted by Just_Watch

The Explorer was alway above the spindle on the later 36mm references, so nothing new there.

A lot of wearing a 36mm watch is getting your eye used to it, once you adjust to looking at it you realize that the dial is nearly as big, if not bigger than many 40mm dive watches.

It's a matter of perspective, I see all the time folks using bricks in their wrists and saying it "fits" like a glove... To sport a SUB how it should be worn you need a 7.5in wrist minimum.

[GooseHoward]

It's one thing to say that 36mm is too small in your own opinion, but what bothers me are all the comments stating it as some sort of fact; it's as if all these guys are personally affronted by the existence of this size of watch and have created a bunch of made-up rules to justify their feelings.

I wear a 16800 daily and my wrist size is exactly 6.5". I sold my 14270 a while ago to eventually purchase my Sub and while I do absolutely love owning and wearing the Sub, I will still be looking to buy this new 36mm Explorer as soon as I can get one from my AD because the Explorer was the most comfortable watch I have owned and was just proportioned perfectly for my size.

I get that ideal watch size is subjective, but again, I've seen an uptick in comments all over the place from people who seem to feel the need to designate a specific size to gender or emasculate others simply because they like a particular sized watch. It's a display of insecurity and ignorance.

[Tone]

Originally Posted by Oscarpapa

Agree, the text looks like it's been squeezed into a too small space.

Agree. I see a lot of people moaned about the empty space with the 39mm but I just don’t see it and having the Explorer text on the bottom gives the dial such a better balance than the 36

[Gerry.GEG]

36mm is personal taste and if you have over a 7.5" wrist it will certainly look small based on some outlandish proportions that have come out over the years. Curiously, I have a 35mm Seiko that is one of the most legible watches I own regardless of size.

[Twinlockandload]

I have a 7.5+ inch wrist and wear a XXXL glove; I will be rocking the heck out of the new Explorer 36 as soon as my AD calls me!

[waynorth]

I wear an older Omega Seamaster 36mm from the 90's, along with several 40mm Rolex; the 36mm Explorer is probably the correct proportion of this watch. Looks great. Plus a 36mm disappears on the wrist.

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by JRique

OP has 0 heritage when you compare it with the Explorer...

Technically, you have that backward.

That being said, I love the idea of the new 36mm Exp. even though I was waiting for 8 months for the 39mm version to no avail.

[drrd]

Originally Posted by JRique

OP has 0 heritage when you compare it with the Explorer, OP is generic watch that Rolex produces to the mass, everybody can go to an AD and get a OP.

It costs 900 USD less? Yes, but is a generic watch with a Rolex crown, just it, when you buy a Explorer you buy all the history attached to it.

The hands, dial and clasp are not the same anyway...

Whatever, sounds like you made your mind up before you started this thread.

Oyster predates Explorer by a few decades and was doing explorer duties before the Explorer existed.

Oyster is much more versatile.

If you can get an OP on demand then do. Post pictures.

If you think 36mm Explorer is a better 'value' than a 36/41mm OP coloured dial then suggest you check the resale market.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Marcjvr

This is better

39mm was and is perfect

I agree but if you're wrist is skinny guess the 36mm may better. I wanted to buy the 39 eventually but not at $12k now that it's been discoed. Moving on to other greener pastures.
And to be honest the watch looks too small to me in the op's photo.

[NoVaSubowner]

Originally Posted by t60

No different than people that have to drive big trucks. People are too used to big watches and like having dinner plates on their wrists.

I like the 36mm. Fight me.

Let's be honest about the 36mm Vs 41 mm debate, the majority of 41 mm wearers that think the smaller case sizes are for women, look like they are wearing dinner plates on their wrists.

[travisb]

Still a great looking watch but prefer it at 39mm.

[DLRIDES]

Originally Posted by oystersteel

too small

x2