ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
21 January 2017, 12:12 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Real Name: Mike
Location: Canada
Posts: 83
|
Another Submariner vs Explorer Thread
Hello everyone,
I have another sub vs explorer thread, but I truly can't make up my mind. I am looking at the 2016 Rolex Explorer 39mm and the Submariner. I love the 14060, but the bracelet on the 114060 makes me lean there. I have an SKX007, SKX009 and a Baume and Mercier Clifton. I also have an Omega Speedmaster, a vintage Seiko from my father and a gold Seiko from my father-in-law. Is the logical choice the Explorer? or should I throw logic out the window and go with the classic sub? I know we have seen many of these threads before, but hoping you can guide me in the right direction! Thank you Mike |
21 January 2017, 12:33 AM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: USA
Watch: the tide roll in..
Posts: 1,138
|
In an either/or debate, the Submariner wins for me almost every time (unless circumstance warrants a more subdued watch.) Don't get me wrong, the Explorer is a classic watch in its own right, but the Sub is, well, the Submariner!
In your case, where you've already got a Speedy, you have to get a Sub to complete the Astro-Aqua set |
21 January 2017, 12:37 AM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: FL
Watch: platinum sub
Posts: 15,884
|
you cant go wrong with any of the three. glidelock and ceramic bezel to me is where it is at.
__________________
If you wind it, they will run. 25 or 6 to 4. |
21 January 2017, 12:39 AM | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2014
Real Name: The Enabler
Location: South Cackalacky
Watch: me crash my bike
Posts: 5,564
|
Have you tried those watches on? That may help you decide.
|
21 January 2017, 01:04 AM | #5 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Real Name: Mark
Location: Washington State
Watch: SUBS and GMT's!
Posts: 9,664
|
Submariner. Like both, but will always go with a Sub in a one or the other for a first Rolex.
Cannot go wrong with either 5 or 6 digit model. Had both and for a long time was a die hard 4 and 5 digit guy. I now prefer the 6 digit Subs. While the Bluesy is my favorite watch the 114060 is close to perfection for all around wearability.
__________________
Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today? Ty: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score. Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers? Ty: By height. |
21 January 2017, 01:06 AM | #6 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Neil
Location: UK
Watch: ing ships roll in
Posts: 59,298
|
I don't think with your collection either watch is more logical so go for the one that's best for you and sounds like it's the Subc.
|
21 January 2017, 01:09 AM | #7 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NJ/PA
Watch: Omega PO 37.5
Posts: 278
|
Quote:
But really, try them both on in person. IMO, they are very different watches. The Submariner is my pick because I like the sport look with the bezel. Good luck with whichever you choose! |
|
21 January 2017, 01:13 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Real Name: Mike
Location: Canada
Posts: 83
|
Thanks everyone!
I wear a suit or sport jacket daily, and I normally wear the speedy. I have tried both on multiple times and love the look of both. Obviously, they are different watches. |
21 January 2017, 01:34 AM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: United States
Watch: 214270 MK2
Posts: 56
|
Was in the same position as you two days ago. Those were the same exact watches I considered. I went with the Explorer ('16) and I could not be happier. I'm more of an under the radar guy, though, and love the fact that 99% of the time, no one will even know that I'm wearing a Rolex. I also have to dress up M-F, and the Explorer looks great with a suit or sport coat.
|
21 January 2017, 02:00 AM | #10 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: U.S./Vienna, AT
Posts: 1,967
|
I have both, get them in whatever order suites you. They complement each other.
|
21 January 2017, 02:14 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: England, UK
Posts: 293
|
Another explorer vs sub thread
After having both I can say the following. Not sure I know which one I prefer to look at however I know which one I prefer to wear. |
21 January 2017, 02:19 AM | #12 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: London
Watch: 116610LN & 214270
Posts: 490
|
I have an Exp 39mm Mk1 also a SubC black with date.
Both very nice watches to wear but the watch to wear at all occasions must be the Explorer, excellent for hiking to the gym & black tie dining and places in between. But the watch I prefer to wear for those places 'in between' is the Sub! The Exp is the more practical and more comfortable to wear watch. It fits in anywhere and it's more under the radar! |
21 January 2017, 03:01 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,618
|
Unless maybe your wrist is over 8"+, I'd split the difference and go 114270. You'll get SELs in a classic sized, comfortable, do everything watch.
|
21 January 2017, 03:05 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: in my house
Posts: 357
|
both are good for any occasion. but i would lean toward the SUB with the cerachrom bezel
pips it a little bit more in my eyes... but to each his own. |
21 January 2017, 03:18 AM | #15 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 304
|
Perhaps getting both will be a good solution to your queries, just saying... |
21 January 2017, 03:22 AM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Real Name: Sandy
Location: England.
Watch: 14060M 2 liner
Posts: 3,204
|
Sub hands down. To me there's no comparison.
|
21 January 2017, 04:05 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 761
|
I like the 2016 Explorer for its cleaner looks, it is not over the top in any way. The sub imo is a bit of a show-off and coversation piece. I own a Exp1, it is my only Rolex.
|
21 January 2017, 04:07 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: United States
Watch: 214270 MK2
Posts: 56
|
^^^ Agree.
|
21 January 2017, 04:16 AM | #19 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: NJ
Posts: 31
|
I actually experienced the opposite. I had a mk1 Explorer which I sold to fund a SubC date. I got maybe a handful of comments on the Explorer and not one on the sub.
|
21 January 2017, 04:25 AM | #20 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: United States
Watch: 214270 MK2
Posts: 56
|
I also tend to go for things that are less common. It's always been that way for me. I feel that around here, every person who makes their first $8-10k gets the obligatory SS Sub. Small business owner, construction worker, IT guy, etc. I wanted something that few people would recognize. If I get no one for the rest of my life that knows it's a Rolex, all the better. Hell, if the Explorer was all brushed stainless, even on the bezels and sides, it would be even better. Zero bling. That'd be great. I couldn't get over how shiny the Ceramic Subs are. They really scream.
|
21 January 2017, 04:28 AM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: England, UK
Posts: 293
|
I love the sub, can't crib it look wise.
I just found it a tad uncomfortable that's all, otherwise it would have stayed. Rgds Matty |
21 January 2017, 05:40 AM | #22 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,618
|
Quote:
For me, the 16570 is best combination of features. It's got the thinner profile, lighter weight, and matte finishes, and it really flies under the radar. The only time anyone has mentioned it to me was when I had it on a Rubber B, of all things. |
|
21 January 2017, 06:30 AM | #23 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Batman
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 1,184
|
If it helps, I got the explorer and will acquire the sub 114060 soon
|
21 January 2017, 06:54 AM | #24 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Netherlands
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 545
|
I have both the sub en the explorer. If you forse me to sell one, it will be the sub.
Anyway, that is my logical side speaking. Rolexes however, do not obey logic. |
21 January 2017, 07:07 AM | #25 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Larry
Location: Kentucky
Watch: Yes
Posts: 34,574
|
Which one do you like better?
If there's not a clear winner, then go with the more expensive choice. That way, you won't get hurt if you change your mind. |
21 January 2017, 07:10 AM | #26 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: The Netherlands
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 545
|
|
21 January 2017, 07:16 AM | #27 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: United States
Watch: 214270 MK2
Posts: 56
|
It's almost like wearing nothing at all.
|
21 January 2017, 10:32 AM | #28 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Socal/LA
Watch: 116610LN Ceramic
Posts: 3,219
|
Sub /thread
__________________
♛ Sub 116610LN 2011 ♛ GMT 126710BLNR 2021 ♛ GMT 126711CHNR 2020 ♛ Datejust 16233 X-series 1993 Ω Speedmaster Mitsukoshi 2019 č Cartier Tank w5200025 2021 |
21 January 2017, 11:36 AM | #29 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,150
|
I was facing a similar decision, but went with the SubC Date, for the simple reason of functionality. The Sub Date has three key functions I need that the Explorer doesn't:
1. Glidelock provides 18mm of adjustability in 2mm increments, so the watch will always fit right. The Explorer has the Easylink, which is an all-or-nothing 5mm extension. It's actually the finer graduations on the Glidelock that serve me better than the the full range of its adjustability. Most days, I only need to adjust the Glidelock one position in or out to accommodate the contraction or expansion of my wrist. Given that, it's clear the 5mm extension would not work as well for my needs. 2. The elapsed-time bezel comes in handy for timing any number of situations, whether it's parking meters, coffee breaks, pizza orders ("it'll be ready in 15 minutes"), or whatever. I'm always using it, and would miss not having it. The Explorer doesn't have it. 3. A date function. Since you're looking at the 114060, this is a moot point for you. For me, a date is really helpful. I have an Omega Seamaster 300, which does not have a date, and as much as I like that watch, I find it frustrating if I want to know the date, and I look down at my wrist and can't see it. I realized getting an Explorer (or the 114060, for that matter) would perpetuate the frustration, so I went with the Sub Date. Of course, the Sub also has greater WR than the Explorer, but I don't need it, so it wasn't a factor in my choice. I think the Explorer is a great watch, and the tweaks Rolex made to the 2016 release perfected the 39mm version. But it simply wouldn't offer the functionality I seek in a daily-wear watch, which made my decision pretty easy, once I resigned myself to the greater expense of the Sub Date. That doesn't mean I won't someday get an Explorer; it just wasn't tops on the list. Good luck with your decision. |
21 January 2017, 11:39 AM | #30 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: NYC
Posts: 151
|
submariner by a mile.
the explorer is a very boring watch by comparison. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.