ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

AstroBoy · 4 March 2009, 05:37 AM

I just stumbled upon this article. It seems like this article suggested so!
http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...horologium0036

Omega_Precision · 4 March 2009, 05:40 AM

Ahhhh!

The controversial Walt Odets' article. It's not a poor man's Rolex considering the price of that watch. It is still an expensive watch!

yannis · 4 March 2009, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega_Precision

Ahhhh!

The controversial Walt Odets' article. It's not a poor man's Rolex considering the price of that watch. It is still an expensive watch!

I agree!

ocwatching · 4 March 2009, 05:42 AM

careful about posting this article...will start a big fire here with the explorer owners...

AstroBoy · 4 March 2009, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocwatchnewbie

careful about posting this article...will start a big fire here with the explorer owners...

I have to ask since I am obsessed with the Explorer-II and can wait until I can get one.

kyle L · 4 March 2009, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocwatchnewbie

careful about posting this article...will start a big fire here with the explorer owners...

You Bet!

rkb · 4 March 2009, 06:01 AM

Poor man's Rolex, I don't think so. I would guess that I am fairly representative of Exp1 owners- we are people who are after a smaller, simpler and cleaner looking watch than some of the others in the R. line. And when I paid for my new Explorer yesterday I can vouch that it was anything but cheap.

Brunotheboxer · 4 March 2009, 06:04 AM

Who cares what anyone says....If you like a certain watch wear it with pride and screw everyone else who doesn't share your taste..I like the Exp I alot. Would I buy it? No. Its too small for my wrist and has no date.

2th Dr · 5 March 2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brunotheboxer

Who cares what anyone says....If you like a certain watch wear it with pride and screw everyone else who doesn't share your taste...

X2!

kyle L · 4 March 2009, 06:05 AM

Psh. Apparently he doesn't know the true beauty of this watch.

arkwhaler · 4 March 2009, 06:11 AM

the article also refers to the previous movt. whether the cal 3130 movt is superior, i can't say. but i like it.

Cato · 4 March 2009, 06:21 AM

The Explorer I does have some "fit and finish" issues, especially considering the price. HOWEVER, the Explorer I is a legendary watch from a legendary maker. As had been discussed ad nosemum, the Explorer I and Rolex are more than just watches: they have an intangeble spirit that makes them special.

Jocke · 4 March 2009, 06:31 AM

I just love my one.

Jocke

Dan Pierce · 4 March 2009, 06:34 AM

No such thing as a poor man's Rolex.

dP

cody p · 4 March 2009, 06:14 AM

the explorer is a rolex period! Walt Odets is a clinical psychologist, not a watchmaker. so take his article 'cum grano salis'.

in my mind, a 'poor man's rolex' is a watch made by another company that looks similar to a rolex but costs much less. no actual rolex is a 'poor man's rolex'.

Subexplorer · 4 March 2009, 06:27 AM

Please see what Time Zone itself says in this link, about Mr Odet´s review:

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...oto=2277&rid=5

quote:
Are Rolex movements bad like Walt Odets says?
Walt Odets did a review of the Explorer in the TimeZone's Horologium. It was not flattering. In a nutshell, Mr. Odets review says the Rolex Explorer is a solid watch that turns in surprisingly good performance considering the poor quality and finishing of the movement. There has been much debate on TimeZone over this article. Many of the flaws he points out in his review do not appear in other Rolex movements and, as the article itself says, the movement he tested kept time exceptionally well. This FAQ recommends that if you read the article also look at Jocke's amazing photos of his movements (and others) and try to find the same flaws. Also, feel free to read the many responses in TZ's archives. Posting this FAQ to either the Rolex or Public forums usually does not yield helpful responses. In short, don't let it get your blood pressure up.
end of quote.

As an owner of an Explorer, I keep feeling this is a first class Rolex type. A classic!!
Great watch and super accurate one. Low profile, elegant.
I love it!!
Kind regards, Abel

buz-lh · 4 March 2009, 06:34 AM

Walt Odet made a fool of himself with this review. He acted as if he were reviewing a $20,000.00 watch instead of a $2500.00 at the time. Not up to Jocke's standards but I love mine too.

charliec · 4 March 2009, 06:39 AM

I think it's safer if I pass on this one !!

pz93c · 4 March 2009, 06:40 AM

Nah.

It's one of the Granddaddies of sports watches.

ayeya · 4 March 2009, 06:39 AM

walt fails to realize that simplicity is the beauty of explore I. simple and precise

acce1999 · 4 March 2009, 06:53 AM

It's OK. I have days when I consider myself being poor. I use my Explorer those days ;-)

- or my poor mans Daytona (Tudor chrono).

Best,

A

P.S. If you are really poor you should not buy neither a Rolex nor a Tudor...

sunburst · 5 March 2009, 02:02 AM

ROLEX is ROLEX.
I would love to add Explorer to my humble collection.

Rolex Lover · 4 March 2009, 06:57 AM

No Rolex is for poor people. Every single Rolex is a piece of art itself, regardless the variation of models and colors. Some poor people save a penny over a penny in order to own a Rolex before their life ends!!!!

AstroBoy · 4 March 2009, 07:05 AM

Jocke and Buz - Thanks for the pixs. they are truely beautiful. I like it too very much for its simplicity and elegance at the same time! and it's 36mm too! perfect for my small wrist! It will be in my collection in the very near future (after I get my Explorer-II). Thanks guys for background information.

sea-dweller · 4 March 2009, 03:24 PM

The Explorer 1 is quite expensive at full retail. It's not a poor man's Rolex by any means.

eyen · 4 March 2009, 03:52 PM

The poor man rolex is that 369 Exp I look-alike Sandoz. It sure looks good for 200 USD. There is no such Rolex as poor man Rolex for me.

JJ Irani · 4 March 2009, 04:06 PM

There's no such thing as a poor man's Rolex!!

A Rolex is a Rolex is a Rolex - end of story......and you'd have to haul your ass to the bank to purchase one!!

RollieKid · 4 March 2009, 10:14 PM

Totally agree...I don't know about you but forking out a couple of grand for the Exp I is not cheap.

The Explorer I is definitely on my wishlist

If you don't like it..just throw it my way

anipit · 4 March 2009, 10:20 PM

I don't think so, but of course Explorer II, is more interesting for me.
They are completely different.

hwilsdorf · 5 March 2009, 12:19 AM

Doesn't matter to me if its a poor man's Rolex or the poorest man in the world standard wear.

My Explorer1 is a daily wearer. A great tool watch for telling time nothing more nothing less!

I love mine as much as my other Rolexes!

4 March 2009, 05:37 AM	#1
AstroBoy "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Lucky Location: Ohio USA Watch: TT-Tona/EXII/Tudor Posts: 696	EXPLORER-I A Poor Man Rolex? I just stumbled upon this article. It seems like this article suggested so! http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...horologium0036 __________________ Astroboy "Life Is Not A Problem To Be Solved But A Reality To Be Experienced" "JJ - Your smile takes all my troubles away!"

4 March 2009, 05:42 AM	#4
ocwatching "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Phil Location: CA Posts: 5,374	careful about posting this article...will start a big fire here with the explorer owners... __________________ too much into watches...

4 March 2009, 06:31 AM	#13
Jocke 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Jocke Location: Sweden Watch: A dozen of Rolex's Posts: 22,541	I just love my one. Jocke __________________ This message is written in perfect swenglish. What is best a custom Rolex or a Rolex that is stuck in custom? Buy a professional camera and you´re a professional photographer, buy a flute and you own a flute.

4 March 2009, 06:34 AM	#14
Dan Pierce 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: D'OH! Location: Kentucky Watch: Rolex-1 Tudor-3 Posts: 36,217	No such thing as a poor man's Rolex. dP __________________ TRF Member# 1668 Bass Player in TRF "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Band Commander-in-Chief of The Nylon Nation The Crown & Shield Club Honorary Member of P-Club

4 March 2009, 06:27 AM	#16
Subexplorer 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Abel Location: Down South Watch: Rolex Submariner Posts: 2,234	Please see what Time Zone itself says in this link, about Mr Odet´s review: http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...oto=2277&rid=5 quote: Are Rolex movements bad like Walt Odets says? Walt Odets did a review of the Explorer in the TimeZone's Horologium. It was not flattering. In a nutshell, Mr. Odets review says the Rolex Explorer is a solid watch that turns in surprisingly good performance considering the poor quality and finishing of the movement. There has been much debate on TimeZone over this article. Many of the flaws he points out in his review do not appear in other Rolex movements and, as the article itself says, the movement he tested kept time exceptionally well. This FAQ recommends that if you read the article also look at Jocke's amazing photos of his movements (and others) and try to find the same flaws. Also, feel free to read the many responses in TZ's archives. Posting this FAQ to either the Rolex or Public forums usually does not yield helpful responses. In short, don't let it get your blood pressure up. end of quote. As an owner of an Explorer, I keep feeling this is a first class Rolex type. A classic!! Great watch and super accurate one. Low profile, elegant. I love it!! Kind regards, Abel __________________ 50 Years of ROLEX Passion! Grail Rolex: 5508 c. 1959 "Bond" Sub.

4 March 2009, 05:40 AM	#2
Omega_Precision Banned Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Henry Location: CA, US Watch: ing basketball Posts: 2,977	Ahhhh! The controversial Walt Odets' article. It's not a poor man's Rolex considering the price of that watch. It is still an expensive watch!

4 March 2009, 06:01 AM	#7
rkb "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Russell Location: Seattle Metro Watch: EXPORER II Posts: 605	Poor man's Rolex, I don't think so. I would guess that I am fairly representative of Exp1 owners- we are people who are after a smaller, simpler and cleaner looking watch than some of the others in the R. line. And when I paid for my new Explorer yesterday I can vouch that it was anything but cheap.

4 March 2009, 06:04 AM	#8
Brunotheboxer Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Bruno Location: Boston/Cape Cod Watch: 16610,PAM. 111, G Posts: 7,608	Who cares what anyone says....If you like a certain watch wear it with pride and screw everyone else who doesn't share your taste..I like the Exp I alot. Would I buy it? No. Its too small for my wrist and has no date.

4 March 2009, 06:05 AM	#10
kyle L "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: USA Watch: Rolex Explorer I Posts: 10,278	Psh. Apparently he doesn't know the true beauty of this watch.

4 March 2009, 06:11 AM	#11
arkwhaler Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: flyover america Watch: 114270 Posts: 236	the article also refers to the previous movt. whether the cal 3130 movt is superior, i can't say. but i like it.

4 March 2009, 06:21 AM	#12
Cato Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Land of the Lost Watch: 116610LN Posts: 2,201	The Explorer I does have some "fit and finish" issues, especially considering the price. HOWEVER, the Explorer I is a legendary watch from a legendary maker. As had been discussed ad nosemum, the Explorer I and Rolex are more than just watches: they have an intangeble spirit that makes them special.

4 March 2009, 06:14 AM	#15
cody p "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Canada Watch: Air-King 114200 Posts: 2,878	the explorer is a rolex period! Walt Odets is a clinical psychologist, not a watchmaker. so take his article 'cum grano salis'. in my mind, a 'poor man's rolex' is a watch made by another company that looks similar to a rolex but costs much less. no actual rolex is a 'poor man's rolex'.

4 March 2009, 06:34 AM	#17
buz-lh "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Buz Location: Atlanta Watch: Rolex Tudor Pam Posts: 5,108	Walt Odet made a fool of himself with this review. He acted as if he were reviewing a $20,000.00 watch instead of a $2500.00 at the time. Not up to Jocke's standards but I love mine too. Attached Images __________________ Buz The faster you move, the slower time passes, the longer you live. Peter Diamandis

4 March 2009, 06:39 AM	#18
charliec "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: UK Posts: 969	I think it's safer if I pass on this one !! __________________ Milgauss GV DSSD SS Daytona White Mid-size DJ Tudor 18ct Prince

4 March 2009, 06:40 AM	#19
pz93c "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: Brian Location: Republic of Texas Posts: 2,776	Nah. It's one of the Granddaddies of sports watches.

4 March 2009, 06:39 AM	#20
ayeya Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: NYC Watch: Daytona "M" series Posts: 133	walt fails to realize that simplicity is the beauty of explore I. simple and precise

4 March 2009, 06:53 AM	#21
acce1999 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: GMT+1 Posts: 2,711	It's OK. I have days when I consider myself being poor. I use my Explorer those days ;-) - or my poor mans Daytona (Tudor chrono). Best, A P.S. If you are really poor you should not buy neither a Rolex nor a Tudor...

5 March 2009, 02:02 AM	#22
sunburst "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Joji Location: KY, So. Cal., NJ Watch: 16800 Posts: 979	ROLEX is ROLEX. I would love to add Explorer to my humble collection. __________________ Rolex Sub 16800 Rolex No Date Sub 114060 Omega Speedmaster Professional Sinn 356 Flieger II, Sinn 556, Sinn ST-140 Marathon SAR, Marathon GSAR

4 March 2009, 06:57 AM	#23
Rolex Lover Member Join Date: May 2008 Real Name: Ahmed Keraidy Location: Cairo,Egypt Watch: Submariner 16610 M Posts: 816	No Rolex is for poor people. Every single Rolex is a piece of art itself, regardless the variation of models and colors. Some poor people save a penny over a penny in order to own a Rolex before their life ends!!!!

4 March 2009, 07:05 AM	#24
AstroBoy "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Lucky Location: Ohio USA Watch: TT-Tona/EXII/Tudor Posts: 696	Jocke and Buz - Thanks for the pixs. they are truely beautiful. I like it too very much for its simplicity and elegance at the same time! and it's 36mm too! perfect for my small wrist! It will be in my collection in the very near future (after I get my Explorer-II). Thanks guys for background information. __________________ Astroboy "Life Is Not A Problem To Be Solved But A Reality To Be Experienced" "JJ - Your smile takes all my troubles away!"

4 March 2009, 03:24 PM	#25
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	The Explorer 1 is quite expensive at full retail. It's not a poor man's Rolex by any means. __________________ TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)

4 March 2009, 03:52 PM	#26
eyen Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Matt Location: Hong Kong Watch: Submariner Posts: 168	The poor man rolex is that 369 Exp I look-alike Sandoz. It sure looks good for 200 USD. There is no such Rolex as poor man Rolex for me.

4 March 2009, 04:06 PM	#27
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,319	There's no such thing as a poor man's Rolex!! A Rolex is a Rolex is a Rolex - end of story......and you'd have to haul your ass to the bank to purchase one!! __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

4 March 2009, 10:14 PM	#28
RollieKid "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Down under Watch: my wrist candy Posts: 567	Totally agree...I don't know about you but forking out a couple of grand for the Exp I is not cheap. The Explorer I is definitely on my wishlist If you don't like it..just throw it my way

4 March 2009, 10:20 PM	#29
anipit "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Laura Location: Italy Watch: 16610 + 16220 Posts: 385	I don't think so, but of course Explorer II, is more interesting for me. They are completely different. __________________ Laura from Italy. 16610 + 16220.

5 March 2009, 12:19 AM	#30
hwilsdorf Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 106	Doesn't matter to me if its a poor man's Rolex or the poorest man in the world standard wear. My Explorer1 is a daily wearer. A great tool watch for telling time nothing more nothing less! I love mine as much as my other Rolexes!

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