Is rolex explorer 39 really understated?

[rockysw]

Does any one has experience with rolex explorer 39 (214270) being understated (i.e. doesnt attract attention)?

I want an everyday watch that is simple and understated. Another option I am considering is IWC mark series (16, 18 or 20) in black dial (just to give a referene about kind of understatement I am looking for.

But explorer 39 also seems to fit the bill gievn its matte dial (vs glossy on the new 40mm). 36mm explorer are not an option for me as I like slightly bigger watches.

I also appriciate that this is very subjective. For example, I have heard some people say that sub is understated which I dont agree with (I find it quite flashy given its glossy dial, striking looks and ligth reflection from bezel teeths etc). But any views would be appriciated.

[Dauntless]

I previously had a 39 mm Explorer. I now have a submariner 126610LN. I have had many more people notice my Explorer. I wore it, thinking I would be inconspicuous, and for some reason several people who are not even watch people zeroed right in on the Explorer. Hey is that a Rolex?

[beachboy17]

I actually own one ...the discontinued mark I dial..what appealed to me is that it doesn't scream Rolex. Its subtle and can be worn for dress and play. And the 39mm is the perfect case size for me.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[Miker86]

A 214270 is less conspicuous than your average Rolex imo, no shiny ceramic bezel etc.

Also for me the best iteration of the Explorer, the positioning of the dial text and matte dial are superb.

[nyc2la]

Originally Posted by Miker86

A 214270 is less conspicuous than your average Rolex imo, no shiny ceramic bezel etc.

Also for me the best iteration of the Explorer, the positioning of the dial text and matte dial are superb.

Agreed all around.

[TunaTuna]

Originally Posted by rockysw

Does any one has experience with rolex explorer 39 (214270) being understated (i.e. doesnt attract attention)?

I want an everyday watch that is simple and understated. Another option I am considering is IWC mark series (16, 18 or 20) in black dial (just to give a referene about kind of understatement I am looking for.

But explorer 39 also seems to fit the bill gievn its matte dial (vs glossy on the new 40mm). 36mm explorer are not an option for me as I like slightly bigger watches.

I also appriciate that this is very subjective. For example, I have heard some people say that sub is understated which I dont agree with (I find it quite flashy given its glossy dial, striking looks and ligth reflection from bezel teeths etc). But any views would be appriciated.

The explorer 39 is very understated, will attract zero attention. Zero. Buy and enjoy

[kkqd1337]

If discretion is top of your priority list, any Rolex should be at the bottom.

I would suspect your average Joe wouldn't have even heard of IWC.

However - if you want a Rolex - the Explorer is a fantastic, as discrete as it gets, choice.

[brandrea]

I think it’s about as low key as you can get in the Rolex professional line.

[Wario406]

I love mine for many of the reasons you stated. I’ve yet to have someone walk up and say “nice Rolex”, but I regularly get “nice sub” comments when I wear my 124060.

[East of Eden]

I think a Tudor Ranger would be much more understated than the Exp with its shiny bezel, not really a tool watch. The Ranger also has AR coating on the crystal which makes it less blingy

[TimeAZ]

Absolutely the perfect watch. Flawless execution in terms of case, dimensions, movement, dial design/dial elements, bracelet, and on the wrist wearing experience. Also, very under-the-radar, but still somehow conveys high quality even from a distance.

[GrailTime]

Very low key.

Even London watch thieves may not notice one.

[173rdabn]

I had a 39 for several years. Stealthy, never asked about it and great legibility.

[BroncoOne]

No nice watch is really understated except in comparison to other nice watches.

Explorer definitely is no bling and a more simple face that is easy to read. Great watch and I think that it will give you what you are looking for as not being a “statement” watch.

[JimSnyder]

If I was a one watch guy..... it would be the Explorer, 36mm The 39mm is also a great choice.

[davek35]

I always thought the 39mm Explorer had rather large 'Rolex' text on the dial, so I passed on them. Same with the 40mm.

I do have a 124270

[Mystro]

Look off brand. Anything with a ”ROLEX” on it the average person knows what it is. There is no getting around this. Rolex spent way too much to not have unmatched name recognition.
A IWC is unknown.

[Davidt]

Absolutely understated. I’ve never noticed anyone looking at my Explorer 214270 but frequently notice people ogling my Sub.

[Javierruis]

The 39mm Mark 2 is my favorite of all explorers. Super understated, classy, rugged and beautiful! You really can wear this watch anywhere as it's perfect for all occasions.

[Jerrocop]

Owner here as well. Not only is it stealthy, I think it fits well and has a timeless design that’s tough to get tired of. IWC Mark __ are great watches too but in my opinion if your comparing the two and end up going with the IWC I think there’s a high percentage that you’ll come back and get the Explorer later down the line. It’s such a great watch that it’s tough to forget about it. If you go with the Explorer first IMO you’ll forget about the IWC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matthew P]

Even more stealthy of the bracelet




..Explorer & Spring Diver - I’m just here for the photos..

[rockysw]

thank you all for the very helpful comments. :)

[Dr. Robert]

I have two explorers, a 114270 & a 214270
Definitely the quiet Rolex models.
No one notices


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wario406]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

I think a Tudor Ranger would be much more understated than the Exp with its shiny bezel, not really a tool watch. The Ranger also has AR coating on the crystal which makes it less blingy

The Ranger is awesome, but it’s NOT an Explorer. I owned a Ranger prior to the Mk2, and there’s no comparison in my mind as a “keeper”. :-)

MK2 is my EDC. Truly love it.

[pa1113]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I think it’s about as low key as you can get in the Rolex professional line.

I have the 39, love it, and 100% agree with this. Someone would have to WANT to know (and care) what watch you are wearing and if that is the case they'll know the IWC too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DOUBLE 0 SE7EN]

I was tired of the eyes on my hulk and pam233.. now with explorer 40 I feel free of those jealous eyes ..

[Ninja Master]

I don't think it's an understated watch. The Rolex writing and logo are prominent.

When I think understated, I think Grand Seiko. Almost everyone will think you're wearing a cheap watch.

[PenDelicate]

The word, "Rolex," is probably written bigger on that dial than any other Rolex watch.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by East of Eden

I think a Tudor Ranger would be much more understated than the Exp with its shiny bezel, not really a tool watch. The Ranger also has AR coating on the crystal which makes it less blingy

The Tudor Heritage Ranger, which was discontinued a few years ago, is also a good underrated option. DLC black rehaut, 50m deeper depth rating than the Explorer, 99% brushed steel, and looks more similar to the original Explorers with its straight endlinks. Got mine in 2014 and its still running like new. (Sold my Explorer).

[996marty]

A Rolex is a Rolex no matter the reference and yes some standout more than others. If it’s the Explorer you crave then go for it,for me they are great looking watches