Why is the New Explorer II 42mm not more popular?

[andyol1966]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

I think it basically comes down to conservatism. Most people when spending a large amount of money on a watch will want to go for the "safe bet". The Explorer II, with it's prominent orange hand (its most endearing feature, if you ask me) doesn't fit this - by Rolex standards, it's the wild and wacky choice. If you look at the most popular watches in the range (Sub Date, Daytona, steel & gold Datejust on champagne dial), they are all fairly conservative, and, dare I say it, dull. Simple colours, nothing to rock the boat, and that makes them extremely marketable.

Anyone who knows watches knows that the Explorer II is one of the very best all-rounders in the line up. As a multiple time zone watch, few do the job better. It has heritage. It has a bigger case, but has retained the classic Rolex case lines. It's the most legible watch in the range. It is a properly thought out watch that takes the best aspects of the original model (orange hand and floating hands, if you have the black dial version), and applied it to design philosophy of the modern Explorer II. It has resulted in a bold, exciting, well executed watch that any WIS would be proud of. However, to your average Rolex buyer, it'll remain the weird one, and, more likely than not, will be passed over in favour of the headline watches. It's a shame, but that means those who do go for it get to be in a far more exclusive club

Chris

Well said Chris. As ever your posts are extremely intelligent, unlike some others on here

[MP5]

The hands are clownish and the dial proportions are all wrong. I would take the previous version over it 10/10 times

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[nauticajoe]

Historically, the Sub & GMT have always been more popular. The Exp's are nice because they fly below the radar.

[Bugsy]

It's one of my favs...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[floater156]

Originally Posted by zion_rasta

The ugliest rolex in the lineup is the polar explorer II . Even if I had it for free I would be embarrassed to wear that thing. To me it looks like a glorified timex.

It does have the best movement. The design is horrendous.

This may be the ugliest response I've read on here in quite some time.

[Doctorsti]

ha, I must be a fringe Rolex wearer as I've had the "unpopular" ones:
Explorer II 42mm white dial, both black dial and green crystal Milgauss, and the oh so hated and despised DSSD.

So far I've kept the DSSD atrocity, the mismatched green LVc, and the old garbage design Explorer II 42mm White

[Piloto]

For me, it's the 42mm. Almost, and possibly will be a deal breaker.

I'm still on the fence between this and the GMT IIc. If this new Explorer was still 40mm, I'd already have one. I however have serious doubts that I can pull off a 42mm size. Shame.

Time will tell. It is growing on me, but all I have to do is see a size comparison between it and a Sub and I run away scared.

[Flyjet601]

The Datejust out sells all sports models combined. So all the sports models are less popular by that bench mark. Yet somehow the Sub is iconic IMO only on this forum it is. If James Bond wore a Bubbleback or something else on a cheap strap, everyone would be raving about that watch........product placement is very effective marketing apparently.

Unless someone has actually sales figures of each watch, these debates are somewhat pointless other then mild entertainment.

I own a Exp 2 42 polar and love it. That's all that matters to me. People obviously have a hard time buying what they like, more buying what they think they should have.
Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one. Nothing more.

[benlee]

Originally Posted by Tony-GB

Did you take that pic? It's bloody stunning!!

Thank you! Yes I did. With my Nikon D5100 DSLR.

Here's another one :

[Ravager135]

I can't help but point out the hypocrisy on here. So many members go on and on about Rolex models being made at 42mm then they complain the larger, and in my opinion more proportioned, hands on the Explorer II are cartoonish. These are the same people who complain about the "small" hands on the Explorer at 39mm. Its cool not to like the model but hate it because you don't like 42mm watches. The Explorer II has some of the best lines because of its proportions including the larger hands. If anything I find the maxi dial on the 40mm models a tad crowded.

[zeroshiki]

All i can say to the explorers haters: give it a chance. I promise you'll love it. I used to hate it too after trying it at the AD for the first time. After a few more visits, the exp starts to speak to me. After owning one and giving it a chance before deciding i like it enough to keep it, the explorer turned out to sing the loudest!

[itchy243mhz]

I never paid any serious attention to this watch, until now. I need to see one on my wrist.

[HongNinja]

Originally Posted by itchy243mhz

I never paid any serious attention to this watch, until now. I need to see one on my wrist.

It's a beauty!

[Dr. Robert]

too big.

[GreatCircle]

Clownish ? not for me, I even added a teaspoon of "clownish" wearing it like this during the summer.....
This is clearly my favourite Rolex (on steel, colour-Nato experiment is just for the fun of it)

And the funny thing is I have gotten the most compliments (by far!)of non-WIS friends and collegues on my EXII-42, compared to SS sub or SS Daytona.


Blue2.jpg
Blue_Lume_2.jpg

And the lady of the house moves one step further....

blue_orange.jpg

[Rogdogg]

Originally Posted by GreatCircle

Clownish ? not for me, I even added a teaspoon of "clownish" wearing it like this during the summer.....
This is clearly my favourite Rolex (on steel, colour-Nato experiment is just for the fun of it)

And the funny thing is I have gotten the most compliments (by far!)of non-WIS friends and collegues on my EXII-42, compared to SS sub or SS Daytona.


Attachment 364891
Attachment 364892

And the lady of the house moves one step further....

Attachment 364894

I love that strap. Looks very cool. Nice pictures of it too

[MP5]

nah, not at all

[xxthe_remedyxx]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

too big.

Disagree. It all depends on wrist size.

[Reese's TimePieces]

Originally Posted by zion_rasta

The ugliest rolex in the lineup is the polar explorer II . Even if I had it for free I would be embarrassed to wear that thing. To me it looks like a glorified timex.

It does have the best movement. The design is horrendous.

This comment is almost ban worthy.

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

too big.

Originally Posted by xxthe_remedyxx

Disagree. It all depends on wrist size.

I agree with xxthe_remedyxx, I find it quite perplexing that people who prefer smaller watches loathe larger watches. It is quite prevalent on this forum!

Also, wrist size and body structure play a integral part in choosing a watch for any individual. I have a proclivity toward the larger models that Rolex offers, since they look substantially better on me. I dislike smaller watches, but I do not feel the need to constantly criticize what others wear, unlike some members of this forum.

[Psmith]

I believe the modest size increase alone has accounted for increased sales over the old 39 mm model. My local ADs tell me the 42 mm size is what attracts many people to the Exp II.
As is usually the case, seeing and handling the watch in person is quite different from gazing at large photos on the internet. Perhaps the naysayers should try it for themselves before posting their remarks (oops, I mean opinions )

[rohardi]

Originally Posted by Psmith

I believe the modest size increase alone has accounted for increased sales over the old 39 mm model. My local ADs tell me the 42 mm size is what attracts many people to the Exp II.
As is usually the case, seeing and handling the watch in person is quite different from gazing at large photos on the internet. Perhaps the naysayers should try it for themselves before posting their remarks (oops, I mean opinions )

The increase to 42mm is what really brought me in.

[TAKUYA]

6.25 wrist and love it as its guy watch:

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by itchy243mhz

I never paid any serious attention to this watch, until now. I need to see one on my wrist.

I haven't been to G&H since they got their new stock in a few weeks ago. They may have brought in some Explorer IIs at that time. I bought my white dial from there almost a year ago. You should definitely go and see one in person.

[zion_rasta]

[QUOTE=Reese's TimePieces;3994124]This comment is almost ban worthy.

Sorry, I did not mean to insult anyone. Maybe my comment was too harsh. So again I apologize. Sometimes people ask for opinions and if it happens that you are passionate about the specific topic, you can get carried away.

The explorer serves a specific market. Some people are into big watches. I would never wear a 42mm watch regardless of the brand.

So again, my bad. If you like your watch enjoy it.

[warrior]

42mm sport watches are actually on the smaller side of the spectrum these days as it is.

[sierra11b]

I wonder just how many people have actually seen the 216570 in the flesh?

I ask because I was on the fence about hand proportions judging by pictures alone. Now I own it and it's my all time favorite Rolex sports watch.

[HongNinja]

Originally Posted by sierra11b

I wonder just how many people have actually seen the 216570 in the flesh?

I ask because I was on the fence about hand proportions judging by pictures alone. Now I own it and it's my all time favorite Rolex sports watch.

Comments like this is why I am also drawn to this watch. I've always owned dive watches from Rolex(Sub/SD), but after handling this piece a few times, I gawk every time.

[herbie911]

Popular or not. The explorer 2 is a beautiful watch. I think the white dial version probably is the sportiest looking Rolex out there. If I got a bigger wrist, I would had bought one.

[rohardi]

I have worn my new black 216570 all weekend. I am beyond in love with it. My other watch is a Sub C and I love that as well. It's going to be an out right battle for wrist time.

As Far as the "size" goes, I have to agree that the 42mm is on the smaller side for current "sport" watches. If you look at an AP ROO diver, It's listed as a 42, but it appears closer to a 45mm (as do most of the ROOs From what I can tell) Here's a comparison between a 42mm Diver and a P.O. 45mm. Even the smaller planet ocean is a 42mm. Don't get me started on Breitling and size. I just got rid of my 48mm Super Avenger. That was a BEAST. Surprisingly though it wore very comfortably. In the end, I just wanted something a little more refined so I flipped it for the explorer.

http://rolexforums.com/showthread.ph...ighlight=diver

[dddrees]

I don't think the Explorer has ever been as popular as the Sub, GMT, and some others.


Doesn't really matter as long as you like it anyway.