ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

synth19 · 2 January 2011, 07:43 AM

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 · 2 January 2011, 07:46 AM

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

synth19 · 2 January 2011, 07:50 AM

Quote:

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 · 2 January 2011, 11:56 PM

I agree.

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

689maple · 2 January 2011, 07:48 AM

Sub No Date, timeless

slcbbrown · 2 January 2011, 07:48 AM

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

Kanger · 2 January 2011, 08:05 AM

Explorer, end of discussion.

Sixxgrand1 · 2 January 2011, 08:12 AM

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 · 2 January 2011, 09:33 AM

Submariner no date...

The GMT Master · 2 January 2011, 09:54 AM

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

Sixxgrand1 · 2 January 2011, 11:18 AM

Quote:

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. · 2 January 2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

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 · 3 January 2011, 02:51 AM

Quote:

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. · 3 January 2011, 05:55 AM

Quote:

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 · 2 January 2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

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 · 22 February 2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

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 · 2 January 2011, 10:48 AM

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

Speed · 2 January 2011, 10:52 AM

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

Just my opinion.

phantom357 · 2 January 2011, 10:55 AM

Submariner no date, classic piece

Sent from my Evo using Tapatalk.

sea-dweller · 2 January 2011, 11:35 AM

Get the Sub...

DT14 · 2 January 2011, 11:49 AM

Be unique, get the explorer!!

Ken Cox · 2 January 2011, 12:41 PM

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 · 2 January 2011, 12:36 PM

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 · 2 January 2011, 12:45 PM

My vote goes to the Sub ND.

Boopie · 2 January 2011, 12:48 PM

My vote is for the Sub as well.

jglassjr · 2 January 2011, 12:59 PM

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 · 2 January 2011, 01:08 PM

Sub ND for me!!

Genevapics · 2 January 2011, 01:39 PM

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 · 2 January 2011, 01:42 PM

For me it would be easy to choose the Explorer.

Gob Bluth · 2 January 2011, 01:45 PM

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.

2 January 2011, 07:43 AM	#1
synth19 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: USA Posts: 51	Torn- Sub ND vs. Explorer I (39mm) 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,

2 January 2011, 09:33 AM	#9
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,196	Submariner no date... __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

2 January 2011, 10:48 AM	#17
Perdu "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Gary Location: GMT-6 Watch: GMT Posts: 3,350	Don't worry about popularity, get the one YOU like. __________________ Omega Seamaster 300M GMT Noire Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 8500 Benson 1937 Sterling Silver Hunter

2 January 2011, 11:35 AM	#20
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	Get the Sub... __________________ TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)

2 January 2011, 01:08 PM	#27
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 64,008	Sub ND for me!! __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

2 January 2011, 07:46 AM	#2
WARVET "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: Vincent Location: Louisiana Watch: 16710 Coke Posts: 448	Submariner all the way. I never understood the advantage to the explorer when you could have a Pepsi GMT

2 January 2011, 11:56 PM	#4
WJGESQ Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 3,753	I agree. And the Explorer looks kind of, shall we say, "delicate", by comparison.

2 January 2011, 07:48 AM	#5
689maple Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Russ N. Location: Western N.C. USA Watch: 116718 PP & B Bay Posts: 323	Sub No Date, timeless

2 January 2011, 07:48 AM	#6
slcbbrown "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Real Name: steve Location: dallas area Watch: 50's TT t-bird Posts: 3,689	For me, no question-- Sub. I particularly like the no-date version.

2 January 2011, 08:05 AM	#7
Kanger Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: North Carolina Watch: Sea Dweller Posts: 5,524	Explorer, end of discussion.

2 January 2011, 08:12 AM	#8
Sixxgrand1 Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Canada Watch: EXP I & II Posts: 825	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.

2 January 2011, 09:54 AM	#10
The GMT Master "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: England Posts: 8,150	The Explorer, no question. Has an all-new movement, and a far, far superior bracelet. For me, it's a no-brainer

2 January 2011, 10:52 AM	#18
Speed "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 19,706	I say Sub No Date ---- but Non COSC version!!! Just my opinion.

2 January 2011, 10:55 AM	#19
phantom357 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jack Daniels Land Watch: me drink Guinness! Posts: 373	Submariner no date, classic piece Sent from my Evo using Tapatalk.

2 January 2011, 11:49 AM	#21
DT14 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Dallas Watch: Daytona, Explorer Posts: 218	Be unique, get the explorer!!

2 January 2011, 12:41 PM	#22
Ken Cox "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Ken Cox Location: Bend, Oregon, USA Watch: GMT Master II Posts: 469	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.

2 January 2011, 12:36 PM	#23
rosspanics "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Rocky Mountains Watch: Exp2, Exp1 Posts: 727	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.

2 January 2011, 12:45 PM	#24
Rolex Freak "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Real Name: Sandro Location: Canada Watch: Rolex/GS Posts: 4,412	My vote goes to the Sub ND.

2 January 2011, 12:48 PM	#25
Boopie "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Beverly Hills, CA Watch: Yachtmaster Posts: 3,952	My vote is for the Sub as well.

2 January 2011, 12:59 PM	#26
jglassjr "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Jim Location: michigan Watch: Explorer Posts: 60	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

2 January 2011, 01:39 PM	#28
Genevapics "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Andre Location: Delaware Watch: Submariner Posts: 296	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. __________________ *–Andre´*

2 January 2011, 01:42 PM	#29
Art 1 Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Florida, Canada Watch: Rol/Seik/Tud/Omega Posts: 30,244	For me it would be easy to choose the Explorer.

2 January 2011, 01:45 PM	#30
Gob Bluth Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Chicago Watch: 16610LV & 16710 Posts: 530	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)