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

[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.

[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.

[WatchThinker]

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!

Shouldn’t this apply to Exp I as well? I mean, if the Exp I is the understated tank of the line that works on Everest and in a tux, GADA, why not trip-lock crown and glide-lock bracelet? It’s always bothered me. Well .... let’s see what this week brings.

[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.

[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.