Torn- Sub ND vs. Explorer I (39mm)

[synth19]

Hello, new to the site and looking at my first Rolex. It's really come down to two watches. I'm looking at late model pre-owned:

1. Submariner ND (for some reason, the ND looks cleaner to me).
2. Explorer 214270 (39mm version)

Although I've read tons of threads that Rolex's will go with anything, the sub still seems a bit sporty with the rotating bezel. I need something versatile- watch I can wear with a suit, sweater, or jeans.

I've also seen various threads comparing both, but seems as if the overwhelming favorite is the sub. Anyone else in the same predicament, and if you chose the exploer over the sub- why?

Looking forward to your thoughts. Cheers,

[WARVET]

Submariner all the way. I never understood the advantage to the explorer when you could have a Pepsi GMT

[synth19]

Originally Posted by WARVET

Submariner all the way. I never understood the advantage to the explorer when you could have a Pepsi GMT

I would consider the GMT, if I was looking at an Explorer II. However, I like the Explorer I which doesn't have the rotating bezel.

[WJGESQ]

I agree.

And the Explorer looks kind of, shall we say, "delicate", by comparison.

[689maple]

Sub No Date, timeless

[slcbbrown]

For me, no question-- Sub. I particularly like the no-date version.

[Kanger]

Explorer, end of discussion.

[Sixxgrand1]

Submariner no date - but it would have to be the two line model not the four line with the COSC script.

The new Explorer...short hands and a matte face with poor lume spoil the new model IMHO.

[Rags]

Submariner no date...

[The GMT Master]

The Explorer, no question. Has an all-new movement, and a far, far superior bracelet. For me, it's a no-brainer

[Sixxgrand1]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

... and a far, far superior bracelet. For me, it's a no-brainer

Far superior....how do you draw that conclusion??
Millions sold and still wearing perfectly on the previous design...?
No credit to the new design because there have not been millions sold and no actual in situ use or decades of testing in real life situations??

I do not agree with you. The new bracelet is only PERCEIVED as better - NOT PROVEN to be.

[Richard.]

Originally Posted by Sixxgrand1

Far superior....how do you draw that conclusion??
Millions sold and still wearing perfectly on the previous design...?
No credit to the new design because there have not been millions sold and no actual in situ use or decades of testing in real life situations??

I do not agree with you. The new bracelet is only PERCEIVED as better - NOT PROVEN to be.

It's true that the old bracelets have (generally) proved themselves over many years, but it's equally true that the newer ones are clearly of superior build quality, particularly when compared to the inferior model fitted to the Sub. ND. They are also much more comfortable. I don't own the new Explorer (yet), but doesn't it have the Easylink? I find that feature extremely useful on my GMT IIc.

Having said that, and in response to the OP, I would probably buy the Sub. as a first Rolex, but it would probably spend most of it's life on a NATO. Go and try them both on.

[Sixxgrand1]

Originally Posted by Richard.

It's true that the old bracelets have (generally) proved themselves over many years, but it's equally true that the newer ones are clearly of superior build quality, particularly when compared to the inferior model fitted to the Sub. ND. They are also much more comfortable. ....

I ponder how many of the millions of Rolex Sub owners feel that their bracelets were Generally okay, and not that comfortable....and know they are wearing an INFerior model on their wrist....

[Richard.]

Originally Posted by Sixxgrand1

I ponder how many of the millions of Rolex Sub owners feel that their bracelets were Generally okay, and not that comfortable....and know they are wearing an INFerior model on their wrist....

Let's be clear- there's nothing wrong with any of them and I am pleased to own several of the older types, but Rolex have made some progress with their bracelets. That on the Date version of the "old" Sub was better than the one they still put on the ND and the latest bracelets are better still. The reason I said "generally" was because the pressed metal type of clasp have been known to crack and break in a way that would seem unlikely to occur with the later ones.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by Sixxgrand1

Far superior....how do you draw that conclusion??
Millions sold and still wearing perfectly on the previous design...?
No credit to the new design because there have not been millions sold and no actual in situ use or decades of testing in real life situations??

I do not agree with you. The new bracelet is only PERCEIVED as better - NOT PROVEN to be.

Well, the bracelet featured on the Sub ND is hideously outdated - yes, it might be functional, but it feels like it's been taken off a £100 throwaway. The bracelet on my Seiko Monster feels nicer on the wrist than the Sub ND's one. You could live with it on a throwaway, but for a £3500 watch, you expect something that feels good as well as performs well. The bracelet on the Explorer is essentially identical to the GMT IIc's band and clasp, bar the fact it's fully brushed - perfectly weighted, practical and beautifully engineered. As you're essentially paying the same money for both the Sub and the Explorer, I'd take the Explorer - it's the logical choice.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Well, the bracelet featured on the Sub ND is hideously outdated - yes, it might be functional, but it feels like it's been taken off a £100 throwaway. The bracelet on my Seiko Monster feels nicer on the wrist than the Sub ND's one. You could live with it on a throwaway, but for a £3500 watch, you expect something that feels good as well as performs well. The bracelet on the Explorer is essentially identical to the GMT IIc's band and clasp, bar the fact it's fully brushed - perfectly weighted, practical and beautifully engineered. As you're essentially paying the same money for both the Sub and the Explorer, I'd take the Explorer - it's the logical choice.

While I agree with all you say, I still would have the Sub ND over the Explorer. Far more masculine and fitting the way I live, dress and feel. The sub just does it for me, whereas the Explorer does not.

[Perdu]

Don't worry about popularity, get the one YOU like.

[Speed]

I say Sub No Date ---- but Non COSC version!!!

Just my opinion.

[phantom357]

Submariner no date, classic piece

Sent from my Evo using Tapatalk.

[sea-dweller]

Get the Sub...

[DT14]

Be unique, get the explorer!!

[Ken Cox]

Sub ND.

The cleanest, most symmetrical, iconic, historic and recognizable watch in the world.

I don't understand why the Explorer has numbers on the dial (3, 6 and 9).

Those numbers really takes away from the Explorer's appearance, for me.

I like the older plain-index Explorers and Air Kings.

[rosspanics]

Can't believe this hasn't been said yet - get both!!!

LOL. I think I'd rather have the 14060, but the Exp I 39mm is quite nice for all occassions.

[Rolex Freak]

My vote goes to the Sub ND.

[Boopie]

My vote is for the Sub as well.

[jglassjr]

I got the explorer.... they are both tough as nails and youll be happy with either ..... I have to say tho that I am leaning towards getting a no date as I have such a love affair with my explorer. Its such a beautiful,elegant, and classy watch that I feel bad when Im changing oil or cutting wood with it on

[HL65]

Sub ND for me!!

[Genevapics]

You MUST try them both on. If able to compare side-by-side all the better, but you must try them on to see which watch speaks to you. After that you will have a good idea of which watch you like the most. If, like many here, you will buy one now and pick up the other down the road...

My one and only Rolex is a Submariner (14060m w/o COSC). I LOVE it, but that is because it is a watch I have wanted all my life.

Good luck to you.

[Art 1]

For me it would be easy to choose the Explorer.

[Gob Bluth]

I tried on the new explorer this weekend and was not impressed. It was nice and the hands are fine but it wasn't anything special. I'd go sub cosc.

Ps the ceramic sub looked great, especially when the bezel was grayish in certain light.