Why does the Explorer II not have a trip lock crown?

[slfkjasldfj]

It seems surprising to me that the Explorer II doesn’t have a trip lock crown given it’s rugged and likely wet mandate. This is especially so when you see that watches like the Daytona have a trip lock crown.

Is there an advantage to the twin lock? I realize it can be a little bit smaller but the Explorer II is one of the larger watches in Rolex’s range so that doesn’t seem to be the driver.

Would love to hear people’s thoughts on why Rolex may have chosen the twin lock crown for the Explorer II!

[Andad]

It’s not a diver?

[wb55]

Originally Posted by Andad

It’s not a diver?

Neither is the GMT...

[TswaneNguni]

Have the Spelunks 42s and would say a bigger crown would be more practical ,twin or trip lock not that important .

[rambo99]

its heritage!

[TheVTCGuy]

I have wondered this myself, while the GMT, designed to operate in the relatively clean environment of an aircraft cockpit has a trip lock, yet the watch designed to navigate cave exploration and mountain climbing only has the twin lock? You would think it should be the other way around.

[kieselguhr]

Technically, a twin lock is adequate for 99% of Rolex enthusiasts. Particularly in today’s age where the watch doesn’t even leave the plastic box it was shipped to the AD in...

For arguments sake, let’s time travel to the 50s and 60s where these watches were actual working tools. The environments the Explorer 2 was typically intended for included caves, mountain peaks, and the poles. Typically, you want to stay dry in any of these environments. Ever been spelunking in a limestone cave in Southeast Asia? During monsoon, a good portion of popular caves are typically submerged but even a Submariner with a triplock crown won’t save you down there in those conditions.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Technically, a twin lock is adequate for 99% of Rolex enthusiasts. Particularly in today’s age where the watch doesn’t even leave the plastic box it was shipped to the AD in...

Watch the pricing on Spelunker III when it hits the greys .....

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Watch the pricing on Spelunker III when it hits the greys .....

Hahaha I can’t wait to see the show. All these people complaining about how ridiculous it is to have a ceramic bezel (which isn’t even confirmed yet) will be the very same ones scrambling to get their hands on one...

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Hahaha I can’t wait to see the show. All these people complaining about how ridiculous it is to have a ceramic bezel (which isn’t even confirmed yet) will be the very same ones scrambling to get their hands on one...

White dial with black bezel will be "Paul Newmanish " ,daytonaish to the market ..it will be the premium one.

I will go for black .Over long term use I just prefer the black dials .
Black dial,black ceramic bezel should be cool.
Well,if it happens .

[padi56]

Originally Posted by slfkjasldfj

It seems surprising to me that the Explorer II doesn’t have a trip lock crown given it’s rugged and likely wet mandate. This is especially so when you see that watches like the Daytona have a trip lock crown.

Is there an advantage to the twin lock? I realize it can be a little bit smaller but the Explorer II is one of the larger watches in Rolex’s range so that doesn’t seem to be the driver.

Would love to hear people’s thoughts on why Rolex may have chosen the twin lock crown for the Explorer II!

Well the Daytona although it has a triplock crown its only rated to 100m which is exactly the same as the Explorer with a twinlock crown. Watches with triplock crowns most of there extra water rating comes from thicker case design and caseback. And as most Rolex today hardly see any water other that perhaps a dip in the pool or shower. And in general get a very very very pampered life makes no difference whether twin or triplock.

[77T]

I believe the triplock on the Daytona is overkill since the pushers have the equivalent of a twinlock. Thus the 3ATM restriction.

But in truth, I believe it has more to do with professional models vs the others. There is only one metal where a 7mm crown is built for twinlocks- Stainless Steel. There aren’t any 7mm twinlocks in precious metals. Those in PM are all 6mm or 5.3mm.

But there’s plenty of 7mm crowns for triplocks in every metal imaginable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Old Expat Beast]

Even the triplock crowns like the Daytona and GMT-Master are only rated to 100m, which can be said for my modern Grand Seiko dresswatch that doesn't even have a screwdown crown. It's just marketing talk nowadays. Vintage tech

[Goose 104]

The Yacht-Master also has triplock but only 100m

[SN13]

Originally Posted by Goose 104

The Yacht-Master also has triplock but only 100m

That's 100% because of the caseback thickness.

[Goose 104]

Originally Posted by SN13

That's 100% because of the caseback thickness.

Personally I would much rather have a slimmer watch rather than an extra 100m of water resistance I will never need/use.

[Devildog]

Traditionally only the submariners and sea dwelllers had a triplock

Nowadays I’d say that for the Daytonas and GMTs, it’s purely aesthetics with those chunky crown guards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocket_Man]

Simple, it is just seen as a little more of an entry level Rolex, so fewer bells and whistles. More money, more features and complications, less money fewer features and complications.

[Jackie Daytona]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Man

Simple, it is just seen as a little more of an entry level Rolex, so fewer bells and whistles. More money, more features and complications, less money fewer features and complications.

I don’t believe that’s the case at all.

Rolex really does not have that many complications and movement variations so complex as other luxury brands. A GMT feature and date function is about as much as the majority of Rolex watches complication wise. Additionally the MSRP is roughly the same as almost every other non PM sport model. They are all priced relatively along the same lines on the professional line, just different uses/concepts behind their use.

[Rocket_Man]

Originally Posted by Dontknow

I don’t believe that’s the case at all.

Rolex really does not have that many complications and movement variations so complex as other luxury brands. A GMT feature and date function is about as much as the majority of Rolex watches complication wise. Additionally the MSRP is roughly the same as almost every other non PM sport model. They are all priced relatively along the same lines on the professional line, just different uses/concepts behind their use.

Not quite, it is mostly marketing and feature set/complications

- Explorer II, MSRP US $8,350: Non-rotating 24 hr bezel, brushed Oyster bracelet, twin lock crown

- GMT Master II, MSRP US $9,700: Rotating and ceramic 24hr bezel, jubilee bracelet with polished center links, trip-lock crown,

People expect something for their additional money. If you compare the GMT to the Sub/Date at MSRP of 9,150 it slots between the Exp II and GMT, closer to the GMT but lacking the GMT complication and with the brushed oyster bracelet. But less money too. Maybe not a lot, but less.

Maybe when the redo the Explorer II they may move a new feature up to the watch like they did with the EZ link and the Explorer (I) a few years ago. But there is a hierarchy in their line up that tracks with MSRP. If they give the Exp II a ceramic bezel that may be its little upgrade for the new gen Exp II in addition to the new 32XX movement.

[Jackie Daytona]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Man

Not quite, it is mostly marketing and feature set/complications

- Explorer II, MSRP US $8,350: Non-rotating 24 hr bezel, brushed Oyster bracelet, twin lock crown

- GMT Master II, MSRP US $9,700: Rotating and ceramic 24hr bezel, jubilee bracelet with polished center links, trip-lock crown,

People expect something for their additional money. If you compare the GMT to the Sub/Date at MSRP of 9,150 it slots between the Exp II and GMT, closer to the GMT but lacking the GMT complication and with the brushed oyster bracelet. But less money too. Maybe not a lot, but less.

Maybe when the redo the Explorer II they may move a new feature up to the watch like they did with the EZ link and the Explorer (I) a few years ago. But there is a hierarchy in their line up that tracks with MSRP. If they give the Exp II a ceramic bezel that may be its little upgrade for the new gen Exp II in addition to the new 32XX movement.

When compared to the GMT master specifically I see your point as it is the most similar to it yet lacking, but looking at the professional series SS models as a whole I disagree with saying it’s a bit of an entry level watch. There is undoubtedly a bit of a hierarchy with their models like you mentioned, but I honestly believe an entry level professional series would go more to the Air King, Explorer I, Submariner (no date). All great watches, don’t get me wrong, not trying to detract anything from them. But I believe out of all sports models in their standard form it sits more in the middle of it. Not that it really matters one way or the other really, just clarifying what I meant when I said I disagree I guess.


Also on topic. I don’t believe it would serve any benefit to have a trip lock crown. It’s not a diving watch, and the case couldn't take it anyways without a whole redesign. I like the idea of a go anywhere do anything sort of model, but I think 330ft is probably more than enough for any standard explorations. More than that a true diver would probably be better served for the expedition if viewing it as a true tool watch.

[Gekota]

Probably an aesthetics issue.

[logo]

The original explorer was an oyster perpetual, which currently has a twin lock. Twin lock was filled as a patent April 18, 1953 - Edmund Hillary went to the top in May that same year wearing a “prototype” oyster perpetual. It was not one that could be bought from stores, but rather given by Rolex and the watch was sent back to Rolex for testing after the expedition. Thus, I think it’s probably fair to presume they were testing the twin lock crown around that time. So maybe the continuation of the twin lock on the explorer line is a heritage thing?

Personally I’d like to see a matte white ExpI release, to be in keeping with Sir Edmund Hillary’s OP that went to Everest. ExpII I prefer the 5 digit variety. In general I think the explorer line currently lacks history, kind of a Rolex manufactured history like the yachtmaster. Nothing wrong with that, as they are both very nice watches, but the OP is the real explorer in the story.

[Tools]

There is nothing magic about a Trip loc crown.

Being rugged has nothing to do with the crown design, and the Twin-loc crown is perfectly capable of any depth an Explorer II is likely to ever see. You will note that the Twin-loc on the Explorer II is physically larger than the typical crown.

The Trip loc recently put on the GMT and the Daytona is little more than marketing, not a necessary accessory.

The famous "Crushed Oyster" ad Rolex used to run that showed their case deformed after reaching 2,000 feet of pressure used a Twin loc crown; the crown never failed.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by logo

The original explorer was an oyster perpetual, which currently has a twin lock. Twin lock was filled as a patent April 18, 1953 - Edmund Hillary went to the top in May that same year wearing a “prototype” oyster perpetual. It was not one that could be bought from stores, but rather given by Rolex and the watch was sent back to Rolex for testing after the expedition. Thus, I think it’s probably fair to presume they were testing the twin lock crown around that time. So maybe the continuation of the twin lock on the explorer line is a heritage thing?

Personally I’d like to see a matte white ExpI release, to be in keeping with Sir Edmund Hillary’s OP that went to Everest. ExpII I prefer the 5 digit variety. In general I think the explorer line currently lacks history, kind of a Rolex manufactured history like the yachtmaster. Nothing wrong with that, as they are both very nice watches, but the OP is the real explorer in the story.

The full true story of the twinlock crowns in 1925 Hans Wilsdorf of the RWC heard that two watchmakers one was Paul Perregaux other George Perrolet they had taken out a Swiss patent for the first twin lock screwed stem system crown. Now Hans Wilsdorf of Rolex grasped that a hermetically sealed case, together with careful fitting of the crystal and a special stem mechanism, would produce a better water proof wristwatch.He quickly negotiated to have the Perregaux patent assigned to him, Wilsdorf then obtained a British patent on October 18 1926,and then soon after the Rolex Oyster was born and became a commercial success.

Paul Perregaux patent screwed stem system 1925,which Hans Wilsdorf of Rolex acquired,to make the first oyster cased Rolex.

[logo]

Originally Posted by padi56

The full true story of the twinlock crowns in 1925 Hans Wilsdorf of the RWC heard that two watchmakers one was Paul Perregaux other George Perrolet they had taken out a Swiss patent for the first twin lock screwed stem system crown. Now Hans Wilsdorf of Rolex grasped that a hermetically sealed case, together with careful fitting of the crystal and a special stem mechanism, would produce a better water proof wristwatch.He quickly negotiated to have the Perregaux patent assigned to him, Wilsdorf then obtained a British patent on October 18 1926,and then soon after the Rolex Oyster was born and became a commercial success.

Paul Perregaux patent screwed stem system 1925,which Hans Wilsdorf of Rolex acquired,to make the first oyster cased Rolex.

Thank you for adding this info! The history is an important part of Rolex (and watches in general) to me.

[Rashid.bk]

There is no clear answer in Rolex literature on why they chose a twin lock crown over a trip lock on the Exp 2. Non divers don’t have it for better water proofing, probably more for marketing and aesthetics, but the bigger trip lock is much easier to use.

In the past it’s been surmised that the only reason it has a twin lock is because it’s smaller, which for this watch, it’s on purpose. A smaller crown is better protected within the crown guards. Is it a lot, probably not, but a little more than a trip lock.

The Explorer 2 in particular is made to be in a dark, confined and rough surface environment where you may want it as protected as possible. The trip lock is easier to use but it isn’t like the twin lock is harder to use either. Personally, for me it’s an aesthetic detail, the smaller crown looks out of place on this watch, plus I prefer using a bigger crown any day for my sausage fingers.

[Etschell]

Snow isn't wet.

[brucethemanlee]

i swim with my rolexes. Most people don't even swim or get their watches wet. 100mm is plenty

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by brucethemanlee

i swim with my rolexes. Most people don't even swim or get their watches wet. 100mm is plenty

I don’t think people want more water resistance, because even if the crown was bigger, it doesn’t have the other tools like a thicker crystal and beefier case back.
Other references have a trip lock with a disregard for “more water proofing”. So the discussion is, why not the Exp 2 as well.

One could say heritage, but that’s not plausible considering the GMT Masters existed before the Exp 2 had twin locks for decades and they added a trip lock.
At this point it’s a mystery that only wis talk about.