Any love for the Explorer I?

[JohnFM]

Every since I saw my Dad's Tudor watch in the mid-1960s, I've been a big fan of Tudor and Rolex, especially the Datejusts, Subs, and Sea Dwellers. I currently own a 16610 Sub and 16600 Sea Dweller, courtesy of Patrick Aziz (ocrolexguy). So many fine sellers here on TRF -- love this forum, not sure my wallet does though.

One problem I've noticed is that I'm interested in the same watches that many of you are! These include Sea Dwellers and the 16610LV, both of which are quite high in price at this point (at least compared to where they were a couple of years ago).

Which brings me to the Explorer I (not the II). As you know, the simple, no-date 36mm Explorer I was recently updated and increased in size to 39mm. What are your thoughts on these two watches compared to one another and to other Rolexes? By the way, my wrist size is 6.75".

Despite the efforts of Sir Edmund Hillary, the Explorer I seems to be a somewhat underappreciated, under-the-radar watch today. Would you agree? Do you see this changing over time, especially as Rolex introduces larger, 'shinier', more expensive watches, such as ceramic Subs and Deep Seas?

I'm considering buying a 36mm Explorer as a traditional Rolex classic. I'm also considering the 14060M no-date Sub for some of the same reasons, though I know this watch receives a whole lot more attention (and maybe more love) here on TRF.

Appreciate your input. I'll take my answer off-line -- I mean on-line!
John

[capote]

I do agree that Exp1 is a Rolex classic and it is also somewhat underappreciated as you state. I guess that is because most people go for the Sub-c and/or GMT2-c as their Rolex, and most people doesn't have a dozen Rolexes (outside TRF). I find the 36mm Exp1 very nice and I would like to pick one up later on, but I'm in no hurry since it is already discontinued.

[Boothroyd]

John, I agree with your general sentiment, but for many people the lack of a date function eliminates the Explorer 1 from consideration. As far as the comparison, start with some of the threads that have already weighed in on the topic (use the Search function). Here's a good example: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=172560&highlight=Explorer+I

[floater156]

Based on the size of your wrist I think it would look good.

[FremStar]

I have plenty of love for the Explorer 1. So much so that I am currently deciding between a vintage 1016 and the blackout... To be continued

[capote]

Originally Posted by FremStar

I have plenty of love for the Explorer 1. So much so that I am currently deciding between a vintage 1016 and the blackout... To be continued

The 1016 is awesome. But I thought the 1655 was your ultimate watch, the last fix, are you saying it is never enough?

[FremStar]

Originally Posted by capote

The 1016 is awesome. But I thought the 1655 was your ultimate watch, the last fix, are you saying it is never enough?

Daniel aka Kevin Bacon the 1655 is my all time favorite Rolex reference no ifs, ands, or buts about it... The 1016 is another segway into me building out a small Explorer collection within my collection if that makes any sense

[nowzen]

Originally Posted by FremStar

Daniel aka Kevin Bacon the 1655 is my all time favorite Rolex reference no ifs, ands, or buts about it... The 1016 is another segway into me building out a small Explorer collection within my collection if that makes any sense

...dont want to SEGUE to another subject, but segwaying to a new Rolex makes perfect sense to me!

[Lumberjact]

It is certainly the under-the-radar Rolex, which in my view is great. While many tap into the brand for the sake of the name and the bling, the Explorer embodies the ultimate in timelessness without being an overt Rolex. Perfect, in other words, since most people will not even recognise it as a Rolex, and just see a damn good-looking, quality timepiece.

[Tridor]

Nope. I don't care for it at all.

[cedargrove]

Love it. My first Rolex came down to the Explorer or Milgauss. Went with the latter, but have always admired the Explorer.

[chris333]

Lots of love for the Exp 1 from me. (And the ND Sub!) - Either is a great choice.

Re 39mm v 36mm: I have long awaited a (38mm, no crown guard) watch from Rolex - I think it is a nice size, which is not really offered (unless you go back to the bond subs etc) - but for some reason I cant quite define, the 39mm Exp just doesn't get it quite right. Having said that I haven't tried it on, so who knows?!

[apan]

The 1016 is personally my favorite Rolex..

Understated, durable and suits both sporty and formal occasions well

Oh, and the dial is to die for

[capote]

Originally Posted by apan

The 1016 is personally my favorite Rolex..

Understated, durable and suits both sporty and formal occasions well

Oh, and the dial is to die for

[Hairdude1]

Love my explorer I!!!!!

[chris333]

Gratuitous wrist shot, just because we all love pics!

[capote]

Originally Posted by chris333

Gratuitous wrist shot, just because we all love pics!

That is a classy watch if I ever saw one

[franklin]

I love my explorer 1.

[7east]

I would absolutely love to own an Explorer I, but I use the date function on my Omega almost as much as look at the time. That, unfortunately, puts it on the back-burner as far as watch priorities go. I'm seeing a Sub in my future.

[kyle L]

Lately I have been thinking about trading for a 1016.

[GradyPhilpott]

I love my 114270.

[JohnFM]

Grady,

What is your wrist size? The watch looks great but smaller than I would have thought.

Thanks.
John

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by JohnFM

Grady,

What is your wrist size? The watch looks great but smaller than I would have thought.

Thanks.
John

About 7.6"

36mm is an excellent size for me. I can see it and it's comfortable.

I really enjoy wearing the 36mm watches after wearing the Sub for awhile.

[Adam K.]

Explorers are FANTASTIC--perhaps the quintessential (and most purely designed) Rolex sports model, from the first iteration up to current; indeed, the aesthetic foundation for the Submariner which came shortly after. The Explorer was/is tough enough to bust through brush and accompany you up the frozen mountain, then accompany you to a fancy formal dinner later on and truly look right doing all these things. Wear it on Oyster, wear it on Jubilee, doesn't matter---looks equally great on a fine crocodile or shell cordovan strap, too.


And while I may be biased, Explorers don't come any nicer than the Ref 1016. Simple and foolproof time-only piece with heritage going back more than 4 decades, and sporting one of the finest and most durable classic automatic movements ever engineered (1570). I happened to inherit mine from my late granddad and it has particularly special meaning for that reason, but I love the reference for what it is as a classic 50s/60s era object in itself--a watch designed during a time when the great brands still participated in chronometer competitions, and quartz technology had yet to displace the mechanical movement as a practical timekeeper.


Some love? Oh, you can definitely say that!

[jbillo26]

I was torn between the explorer 1 and the milgauss gv. I went w/ the milgauss but had the later not of been an option I'd of gone with the explorer. I love the simple elegance of it.

[HongNinja]

I love the Exp I. Wouldn't mind owning one at all!

[nowzen]

I think the Explorer I is the cleanest design, most easily-read, no-nonsense, and understated watches around.

A real classic. And certainly on my radar.
I tried on a pre-owned last week for the first time and it felt like a dream.
I am actually thinking of selling my 14060M and getting a 39mm Ex1!

As one with a slightly smaller wrist, I hope to god they don't upsize this (again).

[wokafu]

looking for one...maybe when my funds here i'll get 1 straight from davidsw...

[tomchicago]

If the 36mm worked on my wrist I would probably own two of them!

[Route 66]

Even Brad Pitt is a fan of the Explorer I...