ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Which Explorer, 1 or 2? | |||
2016 Explorer 1 (39mm) | 58 | 53.70% | |
Explorer 2 (42mm) | 50 | 46.30% | |
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
22 June 2016, 06:04 PM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: U.S.A.
Watch: Always!
Posts: 557
|
Explorer 1 (39mm) or Explorer 2 (42mm)?
Which Explorer do you guys appreciate more and which is your pick?
The 2016 all lume/clean dial Explorer 1(39mm)? Or The Explorer 2 (42mm) and GMT/date functions? |
22 June 2016, 06:09 PM | #2 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 34,376
|
For me, the 2. On paper and pictures I really like the Explorer, but on my wrist, it lacks a "spark" for me and leaves me a little cold.
|
22 June 2016, 06:12 PM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 6,117
|
I voted with my wallet (and above) for the white dial 216570.
I have not seen the new Exp but from photos I think I actually prefer the 214270 with the WG 3 6 & 9 markers. The short hand is a non-issue to me in real life. This is my feeling right now anyway. The new one may grow on me over time.
__________________
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum |
22 June 2016, 08:21 PM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2013
Real Name: Jack
Location: The Triangle
Watch: Several
Posts: 6,614
|
Neither of the poll choices.
To me it's a clear choice for the 214270, version 1. The WG numerals are a great feature, the hands a non issue. In my opinion, Rolex fixed something that wasn't broken.
__________________
Sub 116613 LN; GMT 116710 LN; Sinn 104R; Exp 214270; GS SBGM221; Omega AT |
22 June 2016, 10:45 PM | #5 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Real Name: Josh
Location: Canada
Watch: undecided
Posts: 4,776
|
i like them both equally. they are very different watches and both very nice for their own reasons.
|
22 June 2016, 10:46 PM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: flv
Location: asia
Posts: 241
|
|
22 June 2016, 11:14 PM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: New York, NY
Watch: 5513
Posts: 1,169
|
I'm so glad to hear others who don't mind the current 214270. I actually prefer the white gold numerals. I may get it today but will probably hear how much everyone loves the newer explorer I so I may have to ignore those threads.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk |
22 June 2016, 11:52 PM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 1,262
|
You need both
|
23 June 2016, 12:10 AM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: New York, NY
Watch: 5513
Posts: 1,169
|
^enabler!
|
23 June 2016, 12:13 AM | #10 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Mark
Location: Maine, USA
Watch: 42mm Explorer-II's
Posts: 489
|
I have a pair of 42mm Explorer-II 216570's....and LOVE them!
However, I think the standard 39mm Explorer-I 214270 is as cool as any watch available. If it was 42mm I'd own a pair of them also. I have 8-inch wrists and think the Ex-I would be too small. |
23 June 2016, 12:16 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: FL
Watch: platinum sub
Posts: 15,861
|
The problem is the exp 2 can be had for less than the new exp 1. I mean some are sub 4k....I'd go with the exp 1 still but it's close.
__________________
If you wind it, they will run. 25 or 6 to 4. |
23 June 2016, 12:23 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: New York, NY
Watch: 5513
Posts: 1,169
|
If you have a smaller wrist, explorer i. If you have a larger wrist, explorer ii.
|
23 June 2016, 12:28 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Real Name: Keith
Location: NYC
Watch: AK 126900/SM 300M
Posts: 1,664
|
I'm another fan of the "mark 1" 39mm Explorer.
Even against that one though, I'd still vote 42mm 216570. I think it's the best sports model Rolex makes. |
23 June 2016, 12:31 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Travis
Location: FL / NYC
Watch: Yes..
Posts: 32,027
|
I'm gonna take a good look at the Explorer with new dial but I think the Polar 216570 would still be my choice.
|
23 June 2016, 12:45 AM | #15 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: TX
Watch: 114270,16710,14060
Posts: 22
|
I vote new Explorer 1 and I have a deposit on one. But if the Explorer 2 was 40mm I would probably get the Explorer 2.
I actually have been debating getting an older Explorer 2 but I am turned off by the fact that Rolex screwed up by not putting the orange hand which I think is a trademark of the watch from the first model. |
23 June 2016, 01:44 AM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Real Name: Gary
Location: Oregon
Watch: 214270 216570
Posts: 707
|
I have both. When I got the Explorer II, the 214270 languished in the watch box for months. Then a North Flag superceded them both. Now I've taken to wearing the Explorer more and more. I prefer the hands on the 2016 model--not so much because they are longer but that they are a bit wider which would help visibility. The white gold 3-6-9 numerals are just fine.
|
23 June 2016, 03:36 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 2
|
I like the explorer 1 and plan to buy one in the future. I did finally try one on the other day and liked it. I didn't realize though that they don't have open backs like I thought but owell, it's still a great watch.
|
23 June 2016, 04:03 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 64
|
As other say, both are the perfect choice!
|
23 June 2016, 04:05 AM | #19 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Mexico
Watch: Tudor Big Rose
Posts: 34,329
|
Do you need a dual time zone watch?
__________________
JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner |
23 June 2016, 04:22 AM | #20 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Chuck
Location: SW Florida
Watch: 16233,16610,214270
Posts: 11,182
|
As Grady said in his post. I certainly don't need a dual time zone watch so a GMT is useless for me plus I think the dial on the 39mm explorer is elegant looking.
__________________
16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer 114300 Oyster Perpetual 76200 Tudor Date+Day |
23 June 2016, 04:57 AM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Real Name: Paul
Location: Europe
Watch: Horage Array
Posts: 192
|
Current and new 39mm Exp are almost perfect.
I would incline towards the II if it were 40mm. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.