A few thoughts on the upcoming (?) new Explorer II - a suggestion

[AndersB]

It seems one thing that has troubled Rolex for some time (perhaps as far back as the launch in the 70s) is how and where to make the Explorer II fit in in the range of sports models, how to niche it in a purposeful way.

As far as the present model is concerned, the only thing that really made it differ from the GMT II was the lack of rotable bezel. As of now - there are perhaps somewhat bigger differences between the Exp II and the present GMT IIc but those two watches are still quite similar at least in terms of function - not so much when it comes to looks though.

Anyway - what Rolex could do to differentiate the Explorer II even further when they (if they..) update it in 2011 is to take away the jump hour-hand movement and insert a GMT movement without that function (i.e. one where the 24hour hand follows the hour hand without the ability to set it separately). That would allow for a quick-date function too.

And (!) the Explorer II would then become more like the original GMT which was discontinued in the late 1990s or early 2000s. Currently there is no watch in the Rolex range with such a movement, and there could be demand for it.

A "simple" GMT movement would also make it, perhaps, even more of robust watch. And it would fit the reintroduction (if that's what's coming up) of the orange 24hour hand, since the old 70s model which feateured such a hand had that kind of movement (not the jump-hour hand). And the price could be set slightly lower I guess..

Any thoughts..?

[Dan Pierce]

Not sure why you'd want a GMT watch without either the rotating bezel or adjustable 24 hour hand. Then there's no need for the EXP II bezel as it would be rendered useless.
dP

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Not sure why you'd want a GMT watch without either the rotating bezel or adjustable 24 hour hand. Then there's no need for the EXP II bezel as it would be rendered useless.
dP

x2......I suppose if you wanted to differentiate the Explorer II a little more, looks-wise at least, Rolex could reintroduce a dial similar to the original Explorer II.

But, I think the interest in having strong family DNA, looks-wise, out-weighs such a cosmetic modification.

[al_bongo]

That would only be a step backwards just to restore the quick set date function. Plenty of other models in the Rolex line up with the quick set date function.

[AndersB]

Originally Posted by al_bongo

That would only be a step backwards just to restore the quick set date function. Plenty of other models in the Rolex line up with the quick set date function.

Quite so. But not with a 24hour hand.

[Tools]

That would be an interesting concept..

But, it would make the watch less useful and it woud require that Rolex build up another movement just for it..

Personally, I see the Exp II as a watch for the travelling adventurer... It's perfect for a trip to the outback, Alaska, or any cross country outing.. It's just not for cavedwellers any more.............

[AndersB]

But you've got to keep in mind that the first Exp IIs launched in the 70s didn't have 24hour jump hand (or a rotable bezel for that matter). They just had a 24hand which followed the hour hand, nothing else.

Originally Posted by springbar

If a customer isn't crazy about how the Explorer II looks, he sure isn't going to want it any more if Rolex sabotages the GMT feature.

Probably depends a bit on how Rolex decides to price it too.

Originally Posted by Tools

But, it would make the watch less useful and it woud require that Rolex build up another movement just for it..

Couldn't they just use the movement they used for the 16700 GMTs ?

[springbar]

Watches are differentiated primarily by appearance. If a customer isn't crazy about how the Explorer II looks, he sure isn't going to want it any more if Rolex sabotages the GMT feature.

[Mockingbird]

I can sort of see your point, but I feel they would lose a lot of buyers by making the 24 hour hand dependant. That just basically downgrades the watch in my eyes.

[acce1999]

My thoughts?

1. If you are going to take such a huge step backwards, you should also introduce a thick acrylic crystal for improved capability to take impacts.

2. It would be a poor "improvement" to re-introduce the 3175 (which is the caliber you're talking about).

The Explorer is not only a robust option to the GMT with its fixed bezel (no bezel to drop in case of an impact), it also offers a great design.

Best,

A

[mike]

As stated that sounds like a re-introduction of the 3175. While a great movement without a rotating bezel it renders the watch to a Military Time watch only (as were the original 1655s).

I agree the EXP II has always been in the shadow of the GMT (though it has it's own following). The EXP II was originally discribed as the "Hard Rolex". No doubt in reference to it's original place in the line of specialized Rolex watches.

Perhaps a revisit of the original dial/orange hand concept might be the ticket.

[Speed]

Well, since Rolex "pulled" the new / old Orange Hand Expy from the Basel show in March at the very last second, one would think the features were final and tooling, parts etc. for the new watch run were in place...but perhaps Rolexes Capital Expenditure and plans are much more flexible...

What I am saying is, maybe there will be changes to function as we know it today since it will be a full 12-18 mos from now before anyone will see them in retail.

It may be that by that time with the Sub ramping up sales, the Rolex does keep the Expy II in the current case size and monkeys with cosmetics like dial, hands etc...but I doubt new / less complications... Just my

[Saxon007]

Originally Posted by mike

Perhaps a revisit of the original dial/orange hand concept might be the ticket.

The original 1655 dial looks great but it is a bit busy, perhaps even confusing at quick glance. On the new orange hand Explorer II I'd like to see the current dial with square hour markers and the old style straight hands.

Please forgive my lame photoshop skills...

[mike]

Originally Posted by Saxon007

The original 1655 dial looks great but it is a bit busy, perhaps even confusing at quick glance. On the new orange hand Explorer II I'd like to see the current dial with square hour markers and the old style straight hands.

Please forgive my lame photoshop skills...

Yeah, that was always a complaint by some that the dial wasn't as easily read in some circumstances as the GMT.

Here's the one I had (bought it new back in the day).



That is an interesting concept you have. Especially using the hands set.

[acce1999]

Don't apologize! That is a watch I would buy! I like it. It has an attitude. Combine that with a thick plexi, and it would be the most robust Rolex.

[nickriebe]

Blasphemy! Leave it the way it is... It has all the features I want and that's why I bought it. I love the design, fit and function. The GMT IIC is a completely different class of watch in my opinion... movement may be the same but some very obvious differences. I say "Bravo Rolex" for the current design... 3186 is nice!

[Autobot]

I agree with Nick. Don't touch it. After seeing the videos that were released, I now just have to wait until it comes out next year (hopefully) and I hope it comes the way it was shown, maxi dial, orange hand and orange lettering of EXP II...just wish it came out this year...

[Jolu]

I like the idea. People wanting to keep up with several different timezones already have the GMT. May decrease sales, but I for one have more use for a watch telling me if it's day or night...:)

And if you pair that movement with Saxon007's dial? Aiaiai. Beautiful.

[vtsnowplow]

does anyone have pics of the new one? does it come with the new case as well as the maxi dial and orange?

[Speed]

Originally Posted by vtsnowplow

does anyone have pics of the new one? does it come with the new case as well as the maxi dial and orange?

Do a search here. Someone had a post of the video from Basel.

It had the old case no maxi dial I believe...just orange hand. The latter appeared to be the only difference I think. Don't beat me if I am mistaken.

[springbar]

It seems doubly pointless to downgrade a component nobody can see. Why not also reduce the Explorer II's depth rating while we're at it?

I'd like to see the return of the 1655 dial, hands and bezel. The Explorer II used to be a very distinctive watch, and then Rolex tossed all that out and replaced it with GMT-II parts. No wonder it has an identity crisis.

[AndersB]

Thanks to all who have contributed. Good and valid points I'd say! And Saxon007's photoshopping looks great.

[redsrover]

Personally I think the EXPII is indeed a unique piece in the Rolex line of sports watches. The fixed bezel is less "flashy" than the Pepsi or Coke or even black bezels on the GMT Master II. It's thinner profile and simpler design make the EXPII more robust, to me at least.

My EXPII is the one I take camping or running around in the woods or hunting with. I think the Sub is next in line for robustness, it's triple lock crown being offset by the rotating bezel that "could" come off if whacked hard enough. Then the Pepsi GMT just seems more fragile to me, and is usually for dress work or something less taxing.

So, there's my $0.02 worth...

[tomchicago]

Anders I thought the same thing as you-- that there is little distinction between the EII and the GMT II. I own a GMT II Pepsi & recently bought a Polar Explorer II. It wasn't until I saw EII in person AND TRIED IT ON that I appreciated the difference. The difference is substantial, but you just have to wear it to understand. I think the upcoming Maxi dial crowds the face too much, and the orange hand is simply not as contrasting on the Polar face as the current red arm 24h hand. It also seems to crowd the face. However, I think it will look great on the black face, but I wanted a white faced watch which I think is more appropriate for office wear and just a lower key face overall.

[petespendthrift]

I think the original Exp2 is an example of poor functional design. It features a cluttered and much harder to read dial/hands whilst the fixed bezel and fixed hour/24 hour relationship has virtually no use.

No one who uses 24 hour time regularly needs help from their watch "converting" am/pm to 24 hour - pretty much everyone outside the US, Australia and NZ uses it without even thinking (timetables, alarm clocks, TV listings etc.). How many people spend days underground exploring caves or in perma-day-night polar regions? - not many.

On the other hand how many people (including some expeditions) cross timezones and want to track a second timezone, home or GMT? The current movement covers all bases and a change backwards would loose many sales and there is no reason to think it would in some way make the watch more robust. Also the current dial uses the best quick read design principles - the hour markers and hands are differentiated by our eyes/brain easily because of their size, shape, contrast and relative position. Make them all square/oblong and similar size and they will be much harder to read.

The current design is superior and should not be messed about with too much. Rolex were a bit slow off the mark in getting the Exp 2 design right but they have done it and it wears like a very different watch to the GMT2 (particularly in white dial form) but maintains the useful function.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

I think the original Exp2 is an example of poor functional design. It features a cluttered and much harder to read dial/hands whilst the fixed bezel and fixed hour/24 hour relationship has virtually no use.

No one who uses 24 hour time regularly needs help from their watch "converting" am/pm to 24 hour - pretty much everyone outside the US, Australia and NZ uses it without even thinking (timetables, alarm clocks, TV listings etc.). How many people spend days underground exploring caves or in perma-day-night polar regions? - not many.

On the other hand how many people (including some expeditions) cross timezones and want to track a second timezone, home or GMT? The current movement covers all bases and a change backwards would loose many sales and there is no reason to think it would in some way make the watch more robust. Also the current dial uses the best quick read design principles - the hour markers and hands are differentiated by our eyes/brain easily because of their size, shape, contrast and relative position. Make them all square/oblong and similar size and they will be much harder to read.

The current design is superior and should not be messed about with too much. Rolex were a bit slow off the mark in getting the Exp 2 design right but they have done it and it wears like a very different watch to the GMT2 (particularly in white dial form) but maintains the useful function.

Very good post, thanks. At the end of it, I looked down at my Explorer II white dial w/ red hand and smiled.

[Jolu]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

How many people spend days underground exploring caves or in perma-day-night polar regions? - not many.

Speak for yourself

How many do you think use their Daytonas timing race cars? Even fewer. How many use the gas escape valve, or even the rotating bezel (nervous fiddle and boiling eggs aside), on their SeaDwellers? Except for one or two on this forum, probably nobody.

The Explorer booklet use a cave explorer on the front page, and advertise using well-known polar heroes. Still, people that never have entered a cave or left a footprint in the snow are buying. It is not so much about useful functions as the feelings the model awakes in the potential buyer.
I take back my "may decrease sales" comment above - I actually think it would increase the coolness factor and boost the ExplorerII's popularity. But I can see I'm with the minority in this thread...

[AndersB]

Originally Posted by Jolu

The Explorer booklet use a cave explorer on the front page, and advertise using well-known polar heroes. Still, people that never have entered a cave or left a footprint in the snow are buying. It is not so much about useful functions as the feelings the model awakes in the potential buyer.

Jolu - from Rolex's point of view you're spot on I think, especially considering the way they seem to look at marketing and advertising today.

[springbar]

Originally Posted by Jolu

How many do you think use their Daytonas timing race cars?

Not many, to be sure, but anybody can use a Daytona to time something. A chronograph is a useful feature.

A 24-hour hand with a fixed bezel and without a jump-hour movement doesn't do anything but perform multiplication by two, which isn't particularly compelling. It's only use is as an elaborate AM/PM indicator. But with the GMT-II movement, it can be so much more useful.

[jmsrolls]

There is only one improvement I would make to the current EXPII and I have made it:



Fr. John†