14060M, 39mm Explorer 1 (214270) or Omega Speedmaster?

[JohnFM]

Hi,

I'm considering three watches and would appreciate your input regarding pros, cons, and your favorite/preferences:

Rolex Explorer 1 214270 (new)
Rolex 14060M (mint pre-owned)
Omega Speedmaster 3570.50 (new)

Thanks.
John

Rolex Explorer 1



Rolex 14060M



Omega Speedmaster 3570.50

[Ravager135]

Explorer. Has a little bit of everything. If you only own one watch, this might be the one. The Sub is very close, slightly more sporty. If you want something a little different get the Explorer.

[swish77]

The Sub or the Speedy Pro. Both iconic, classic, all-time greats. It just depends on your needs and personal preference. Try both on and see. (I'd skip the 39mm Explorer. The 36mm might be in the conversation, but not the newer version. Still, all a matter of personal preference.)

[mrhy]

Speedmaster

[drjfc62]

Of those three, I like the history behind the Speedy the most, but you couldn't go wrong with either of the others. Good luck in your decision, and let us know which way you go.

[agsstructures]

Speedmaster

[kbutler1]

Explorer, although the Sub and the Omega are great watches too. I like the Explorer for its overall "clean" look.

[gregvisser]

For just 1 watch I'd probably vote Speedy. If you need something tougher 14060 for sure.

Greg

[crowncollection]

all great watches, but you are on a rolex forum, so i say go the explorer

[And]

As you have a Sea Dweller I'd go speedy.

[luv2fly]

Originally Posted by And

As you have a Sea Dweller I'd go speedy.

x 2

[cgjane]

Originally Posted by luv2fly

x 2

this.

I have had the SD, 14060 and Speedy. Guess which one I have left...

[soho]

If you have the Sea Dweller referenced in your profile, then definitely the Expy I.

[427shark]

If you currently have a sd is go speedy. If this is going to be your only watch I'd definitely go sub. . Really tough call all great watches, comes down to preference

[MaxCargo]

As you have a SD, maybe The explorer? Love The satin black dial. just wanna strap it on and smoke a cigar . It's so classy.
Like The Speedmaster also, but manual wind is , The Speedmaster has only 30m water resistant

[impalass]

With the Sea-Dweller the Speedmaster Pro would make the perfect pair imho.

[beshannon]

I would say all three as they are watches icons.

Since you have the Sea Dweller, I would say your choice should be between the Explorer and the Speedmaster.

I may one day get the Explorer to add to my collection as I already have the other two.

[RickardBlom]

As a former speedmaster owner, I have to say it's a beautyful watch with great history, but the manual winding and poor wr make me say Explorer. For pure aestethics I say speedmaster though... Not sub cause of your SD.

[Jannal]

Explorer I, hour / min hands are too short. Hence I never bought one.
Sub, durable / classic. I got one.
Speedmaster, very nice. I used to have one but not anymore.

[FLHP]

If you haven't done so, check out the Explorer in person. I have a couple of Omegas but am not a Speedmaster fan.

[Widows Son]

They're three very different watches. The Subs a diver, the Explorer is a sport/casual watch, and the Speedy is a chrono. For an every day watch I'd get the Rolex which will cover just about any use except for the very dressy.

[Cabaiguan]

God, I love the Speedy so....

[Chainring]

Wow. Really tough choice. Like others have said, you already have the Sea Dweller so I'd go with the Speedy. But some days I know I'd feel like the clean classic lines of the Explorer. And I'd go 39mm, also. You're comparing apples, oranges and bananas. What fruit do you feel like eating today?

[mjclark32]

Sub!

[GradyPhilpott]

Either you want a chronograph or you don't.

I always have to shake my head when someone asks which watch to buy when they differ so radically in function.

[JohnFM]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Either you want a chronograph or you don't.

I always have to shake my head when someone asks which watch to buy when they differ so radically in function.

You're right Grady -- I shake my head at myself for considering these pretty different watches! Of course, what I really want is a Patek 5296R-010. But that's another story:

http://www.patek.com/contents/default/en/5296R_010.html

To give you all a bit more information about my decision:

I already own a 16600 Sub and 16610 Dweller ... so the 14060M is utterly superfluous. I just like its clean dial and lighter weight. I respect the Sea Dweller but find it a little chunky for everyday wear. The 16610 without cyclops (had a Daytona bezel installed) is pretty much the perfect watch. But the no-date is marginally smaller and that much simpler. Doesn't make much sense to add another Sub, I know, but this is the Rolex forum so I'm not alone with this obsession, right?

The 39mm Explorer probably looks the best on me -- perfect size. I tried it on along with a 114060 and everyone in the store said, "The new Sub is great but get the Explorer -- it looks better on your wrist".

The Speedmaster is appealing (to me) because of the domed Hesalite (acrylic) crystal, symmetrical dial, hand winding, and iconic Moon status. I could care less about the chrono function, to be honest, but the watch is so different from what I own and retro that I find it appealing.

Leaning toward the Speedmaster at the moment. Would pick the Sub if I didn't own two ;-) Would pick the Explorer 1 if the minute hand were a little longer and the 3, 6, and 9 had Superluminova like on the 36mm version.

Maybe I know the answer to my own question. It's just fun to consider options. If anyone wants to trade straight up for the Patek that would be great too ;-)

John

[Mike_Templar]

Originally Posted by JohnFM

You're right Grady -- I shake my head at myself for considering these pretty different watches! Of course, what I really want is a Patek 5296R-010. But that's another story:

http://www.patek.com/contents/default/en/5296R_010.html

To give you all a bit more information about my decision:

I already own a 16600 Sub and 16610 Dweller ... so the 14060M is utterly superfluous. I just like its clean dial and lighter weight. I respect the Sea Dweller but find it a little chunky for everyday wear. The 16610 without cyclops (had a Daytona bezel installed) is pretty much the perfect watch. But the no-date is marginally smaller and that much simpler. Doesn't make much sense to add another Sub, I know, but this is the Rolex forum so I'm not alone with this obsession, right?

The 39mm Explorer probably looks the best on me -- perfect size. I tried it on along with a 114060 and everyone in the store said, "The new Sub is great but get the Explorer -- it looks better on your wrist".

The Speedmaster is appealing (to me) because of the domed Hesalite (acrylic) crystal, symmetrical dial, hand winding, and iconic Moon status. I could care less about the chrono function, to be honest, but the watch is so different from what I own and retro that I find it appealing.

Leaning toward the Speedmaster at the moment. Would pick the Sub if I didn't own two ;-) Would pick the Explorer 1 if the minute hand were a little longer and the 3, 6, and 9 had Superluminova like on the 36mm version.

Maybe I know the answer to my own question. It's just fun to consider options. If anyone wants to trade straight up for the Patek that would be great too ;-)

John

The "short hand" on the 39mm 214270 is not an issue, only in pictures.
I wear it every day and have never once thought anything of it.
In fact, were it not all over this forum, I would have never even thought
about it. It's a very strange thing, kind of like a person who looks bad
in pictures. I love the watch, and I also love the 3570.50.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Mike_Templar

The "short hand" on the 39mm 214270 is not an issue, only in pictures.

I agree. In some ways macro-photography has not been kind to the watch industry.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by JohnFM

You're right Grady -- I shake my head at myself for considering these pretty different watches! Of course, what I really want is a Patek 5296R-010. But that's another story:

http://www.patek.com/contents/default/en/5296R_010.html

I lust after that watch, too, but in WG.

If that's the look you're going for, then I think that the 114270 is a good choice, because it looks as dressy as a DJ, but without the cyclops, and the hands and dial give it a sporty look, too.

If you aren't interested in chronograph functions, then I'd put the Speedy on the back burner.

[busytimmy]

I kind of get where the OP is coming from. And I'll say this, you have good taste, sir. 'Good' predominantly because I would agree with it :D

I think - and you may remember and cherish these words later on in life - that you will end up owning all three of these beautiful watches. So the question is not, which one should I get; rather, which one should I get first(?)

FWIW, I think these is no 'wrong' answer here.