ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Black Bay Dan · 27 July 2016, 06:35 AM

Explorer II is a much better looking watch and has a case that actually matches the bracelet! Good luck.

Dan

mschafer · 27 July 2016, 06:41 AM

I'm not getting into color choices, but argue for usability. The GMT is better for quick setting of different time zones and a bit more elegant due to the PCL and general appearance (and similarity to the SUB). Whereas the Exp II is def. the more sporty model. And due to the fixed bezel you can't quickly set a time zone or use it as a timer. My personal choice: a classic GMTc LN!

watchwatcher · 27 July 2016, 06:55 AM

Had both...you really can't go wrong with either. If you want a little more "tool-ish" look, go EXP2. A little "dressier" (with the ceramic and PCL's), go BLNR.

Both fantastic choices.

A.I. · 27 July 2016, 06:56 AM

I had the Exp II - flipped it - and missed it - till my BLNR came along!

hallidc · 27 July 2016, 06:58 AM

Personally I'd go with the LN, the BLNR doesn't look as good as the LN in my personal opinion.

I've had the explorer 2 as well, fantastic watch - however the turn off for me was the good chance of scratching the bezel.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hbk25 · 27 July 2016, 07:01 AM

Exp ii guy here. Pains me to admit it, but I would go for the blnr. I actually called my AD to see if they had one today (no luck). Then almost texted a watch guy to see if he could get one. Had to take a breath to compose myself.

Maybe it's a matter of the grass being greener or spending far too much time on this forum, but yeah I definitely have a case of the 'what ifs.'

Lightforce1911 · 27 July 2016, 07:06 AM

blnr

Perpetual888 · 27 July 2016, 07:35 AM

I love my Explorer II Polar.

It's my 5th Rolex. The first two were pre-owned DateJusts on jubilee bracelets, followed by two versions of the Submariner. I considered the BLNR for my new purchase... but in the end I decided I wanted something a little different and less common - with a brighter look on my wrist. The size of the Explorer II 42mm is perfect for my 7 inch wrist and I like the lower profile.

Angrypuppy · 27 July 2016, 08:12 AM

BLNR

From a GMT fan.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mdgrwl · 27 July 2016, 08:20 AM

Two very different vibe watches.

BLNR - more bling and shine due to the PCL & Ceramic Bezel
ExpII - more casual due to the brushed finish and toned down looks

What do you like better? Simple as that...

Berserker74 · 27 July 2016, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdgrwl

Two very different vibe watches.

BLNR - more bling and shine due to the PCL & Ceramic Bezel

ExpII - more casual due to the brushed finish and toned down looks

What do you like better? Simple as that...

71 posts suggest it isn't as simple as that hahaha...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BaEdwte · 27 July 2016, 02:28 PM

I'll keep it short also... I have both and the GMT has more utility when traveling with the rotating bezel to change zones quickly. It also is more versatile in different occasions. Definitely blnr if you had to pick one imo.

hymanjt · 27 July 2016, 02:52 PM

I currently own the blnr, ss daytona non c, and the 50th anniversary sub...always wanted a trio and the exp 2 was one of my choices in that trio, I am 5 foot 10 165 lbs and the 42 mm was just too big for my wrist. Love all my watches but here is the kicker...the blnr gets 95% of wrist time and not bc its my newest, my daytona actually is. I even got a black bezel insert to replace the green on the sub for more versatility and to have a "plain" rolex just in case i didnt want color or the pcl's that are on both the daytona and gmt but none of that worked. kept going back to the blnr. . When the sun hits that black and blue bezel its breathtaking...all that being said my answer is obvious.
BUT, as I have learned on this forum you have to try them on

TripLockG · 27 July 2016, 07:35 PM

Your choice is a difficult one, not helped by the fact that they are very different looking and functioning watches.

In general I would go for a GMT over an EXP for most situations but the BLNR looks too 'toy like' for me, its something about the combination of black blue bezel vs black dial matched with PCL.

So i guess that would leave me with the Exp, but .........

have you considered SUB C 114060 ND - clean, classic , no cyclops, no pcl, cermic bezel, glide-lock clasp, at home dressed up or dressed down - if i was left with only one Rolex to daily wear this would be it.

Ultimately watches are very personal to our tastes, thankfully, otherwise we'd all be after the same ones !

Good luck , the first Rolex is special.

mdgrwl · 27 July 2016, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berserker74

71 posts suggest it isn't as simple as that hahaha...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we tend to over complicate things. When I'm down to two watches that are neck and neck - looks and aesthetics always wins the day for me.

RRGHOST1 · 27 July 2016, 11:22 PM

Prefer the Explorer II over the GMT as I think its a nicer looking watch. I would prefer the polar white dial out of choice but to be honest they are both nice.

amh · 28 July 2016, 12:07 AM

Here is an in depth review of GMT vs Exp II, speaks mainly about the LN but also features the BLNR.

https://www.minus4plus6.com/216570.php

Explorer II is looking very interesting!

AlphaOmega4 · 29 July 2016, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amh

Here is an in depth review of GMT vs Exp II, speaks mainly about the LN but also features the BLNR.

https://www.minus4plus6.com/216570.php

Explorer II is looking very interesting!

Great..

Thanks for the review.

I enjoyed the read

emersm · 31 July 2016, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castor

Never thought that... ever.

X2^ Just bought a Polar 216570.

jbsmith · 31 July 2016, 12:54 PM

I picked 42mmExpii polar over blnr, due to larger case, brushed bracelet, legibility, and aesthetics.

Uroboros · 12 August 2016, 02:37 PM

Please allow me to purge these thoughts from my head so I can stop obsessing about these watches. TLDR: Explorer II 42mm in Black for me, but I have a flat 7 inch wrist so it's not too big for me.

These were my two front runners for the last few months. I finally made up my mind today after trying both on multiple times at different ADs. The BLNR is beautiful, especially close up. I imagine I'd really enjoy staring at it all day long. I may own one in the future, but here is why I decided against it for now:

1) The glossy dial, platinum numbers on the bezel and PCLs of the BLNR are designed to show off - which is fine sometimes, but there are a lot of situations where I wouldn't want even this moderate level of bling.

2) The Explorer II with it's matte dial flies a little more under the radar - A lot of the wrist presence comes from the more modern shape and design of the watch as opposed to it being shiny. I also like the more tapered lugs as opposed to the squarish ones on the maxi case.

3) Take 5 steps back from a mirror and the BLNR looks like the regular all black GMTc, to most people it will look like a SubC or really almost any much more common Sub Date. I like, but don't love, the Sub so that's my bias.

4) The Sub and GMT by their design and size are timeless classics which makes them the more mature choice. I live in a beach town, like the OP, and I dress more casual even at work - I would tend to wear the more fun and youthful Explorer II. Granted the BLNR looks awesome paired with a blue dress shirt.

5) Strap options - I find that the Explorer II looks great on a variety of straps. The BLNR seems more limited to me.

6) While I believe the BLNR will hold it's value more, if you buy used the Exp II should retain it's value very nicely. Used the BLNR is about $2000 more so, bang for buck, the Exp II wins here.

Other thoughts that were not significant factors for me:

The BLNR obviously photographs very well. The Exp II looks odd and bubble shaped in a lot of pictures, which may lead some to think it's less balanced than it is in person.

While I'm sure the BLNR will hold up just fine, the Exp II supposedly has better shock protection and it's a slightly upgraded movement.

Lastly, the bezel can be replaced just like the BLNR if you are worried about scratches and what the watch will look like in the future.

mdgrwl · 12 August 2016, 10:11 PM

^ well thought out.

I too am on the fence about the bling of the BLNR... some love the bling, some don't. No right or wrong here.

caprebels · 13 August 2016, 12:46 AM

BLNR all the way! You won't regret it. I looked at both and considered it. Side by side with the Explorer II (Polar), the BLNR in my opinion just stands out and the blue is so unique and pops. Only had mine for about week and it draws a lot of attention when people see the black/blue bezel. Love the watch and no regrets....

Maybe this picture will convince you. But if I had the budget for one more Rolex, it would be the Explorer II. Either way you win.

HankL818 · 13 August 2016, 01:03 AM

BLNR first and polar Exp2 next... If you don't mind two gmt watches.

AK797 · 13 August 2016, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdgrwl

^ well thought out.

I too am on the fence about the bling of the BLNR... some love the bling, some don't. No right or wrong here.

I don't think we can really call it bling, it's just some colour and pcls, it's mild bling, ming really.

moonwolf · 13 August 2016, 02:36 AM

I love BLNR.

Timesurfer · 13 August 2016, 10:29 AM

BLNR every single time!

Ru4scuba · 14 August 2016, 03:13 AM

Dark side...

pearson1995 · 14 August 2016, 03:14 AM

My first was the BLNR... no regrets

chaerezrd · 14 August 2016, 03:15 AM

I'll keep it short also... I have both and the GMT has more utility when traveling with the rotating bezel to change zones quickly. It also is more versatile in different occasions. Definitely blnr if you had to pick one imo.

27 July 2016, 06:35 AM	#61
Black Bay Dan 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Real Name: Dan Location: Chichester Watch: Tudor Black Bay Posts: 1,600	Explorer II is a much better looking watch and has a case that actually matches the bracelet! Good luck. Dan __________________ Tudor Heritage Black Bay 79220R (2015) Tudor Black Bay GMT 79830RB (2022) Tudor Black Bay Fifty-Eight 79030B (2023)

27 July 2016, 08:12 AM	#69
Angrypuppy "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Real Name: Jason Location: FL390 Posts: 2,376	BLNR From a GMT fan. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ It's not about the watch a man wears, it's about what a man does while he's wearing the watch....Toomuchtalk

27 July 2016, 11:22 PM	#76
RRGHOST1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: luke standing Location: england Watch: Rolex TT SubC Blue Posts: 3,997	Prefer the Explorer II over the GMT as I think its a nicer looking watch. I would prefer the polar white dial out of choice but to be honest they are both nice. __________________ RRGHOST1

13 August 2016, 12:46 AM	#83
caprebels "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: USA Watch: 116710 BLNR Posts: 131	BLNR all the way! You won't regret it. I looked at both and considered it. Side by side with the Explorer II (Polar), the BLNR in my opinion just stands out and the blue is so unique and pops. Only had mine for about week and it draws a lot of attention when people see the black/blue bezel. Love the watch and no regrets.... Maybe this picture will convince you. But if I had the budget for one more Rolex, it would be the Explorer II. Either way you win. Attached Images __________________ * Rolex GMT 116710BLNR (2016)

14 August 2016, 03:14 AM	#89
pearson1995 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: England Posts: 939	My first was the BLNR... no regrets __________________ The collection is never complete

27 July 2016, 06:41 AM	#62
mschafer "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: New York Posts: 976	I'm not getting into color choices, but argue for usability. The GMT is better for quick setting of different time zones and a bit more elegant due to the PCL and general appearance (and similarity to the SUB). Whereas the Exp II is def. the more sporty model. And due to the fixed bezel you can't quickly set a time zone or use it as a timer. My personal choice: a classic GMTc LN!

27 July 2016, 06:55 AM	#63
watchwatcher "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Larry Location: Kentucky Watch: Yes Posts: 35,047	Had both...you really can't go wrong with either. If you want a little more "tool-ish" look, go EXP2. A little "dressier" (with the ceramic and PCL's), go BLNR. Both fantastic choices.

27 July 2016, 06:56 AM	#64
A.I. "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Glasgow UK Watch: 126610LV Posts: 759	I had the Exp II - flipped it - and missed it - till my BLNR came along!

27 July 2016, 06:58 AM	#65
hallidc "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Canada Watch: GMTII / DaytonaC Posts: 252	Personally I'd go with the LN, the BLNR doesn't look as good as the LN in my personal opinion. I've had the explorer 2 as well, fantastic watch - however the turn off for me was the good chance of scratching the bezel. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

27 July 2016, 07:01 AM	#66
hbk25 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2016 Real Name: Eric Location: US Watch: Z Blue Posts: 178	Exp ii guy here. Pains me to admit it, but I would go for the blnr. I actually called my AD to see if they had one today (no luck). Then almost texted a watch guy to see if he could get one. Had to take a breath to compose myself. Maybe it's a matter of the grass being greener or spending far too much time on this forum, but yeah I definitely have a case of the 'what ifs.'

27 July 2016, 07:06 AM	#67
Lightforce1911 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: evanston Posts: 260	blnr

27 July 2016, 07:35 AM	#68
Perpetual888 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Real Name: Stephen Location: Pacific NW GMT-7 Watch: Explorer II Polar Posts: 76	I love my Explorer II Polar. It's my 5th Rolex. The first two were pre-owned DateJusts on jubilee bracelets, followed by two versions of the Submariner. I considered the BLNR for my new purchase... but in the end I decided I wanted something a little different and less common - with a brighter look on my wrist. The size of the Explorer II 42mm is perfect for my 7 inch wrist and I like the lower profile.

27 July 2016, 08:20 AM	#70
mdgrwl 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: US East Coast Watch: Dealer Posts: 15,689	Two very different vibe watches. BLNR - more bling and shine due to the PCL & Ceramic Bezel ExpII - more casual due to the brushed finish and toned down looks What do you like better? Simple as that...

27 July 2016, 02:28 PM	#72
BaEdwte "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: uk Posts: 4	I'll keep it short also... I have both and the GMT has more utility when traveling with the rotating bezel to change zones quickly. It also is more versatile in different occasions. Definitely blnr if you had to pick one imo.

27 July 2016, 02:52 PM	#73
hymanjt "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Richmond, Va Posts: 138	I currently own the blnr, ss daytona non c, and the 50th anniversary sub...always wanted a trio and the exp 2 was one of my choices in that trio, I am 5 foot 10 165 lbs and the 42 mm was just too big for my wrist. Love all my watches but here is the kicker...the blnr gets 95% of wrist time and not bc its my newest, my daytona actually is. I even got a black bezel insert to replace the green on the sub for more versatility and to have a "plain" rolex just in case i didnt want color or the pcl's that are on both the daytona and gmt but none of that worked. kept going back to the blnr. . When the sun hits that black and blue bezel its breathtaking...all that being said my answer is obvious. BUT, as I have learned on this forum you have to try them on

27 July 2016, 07:35 PM	#74
TripLockG "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: UK Watch: Out Posts: 23	Your choice is a difficult one, not helped by the fact that they are very different looking and functioning watches. In general I would go for a GMT over an EXP for most situations but the BLNR looks too 'toy like' for me, its something about the combination of black blue bezel vs black dial matched with PCL. So i guess that would leave me with the Exp, but ......... have you considered SUB C 114060 ND - clean, classic , no cyclops, no pcl, cermic bezel, glide-lock clasp, at home dressed up or dressed down - if i was left with only one Rolex to daily wear this would be it. Ultimately watches are very personal to our tastes, thankfully, otherwise we'd all be after the same ones ! Good luck , the first Rolex is special.

28 July 2016, 12:07 AM	#77
amh "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Tejas Watch: Various Posts: 5,082	Here is an in depth review of GMT vs Exp II, speaks mainly about the LN but also features the BLNR. https://www.minus4plus6.com/216570.php Explorer II is looking very interesting!

31 July 2016, 12:54 PM	#80
jbsmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Blake Location: US Watch: Daytonas Posts: 1,869	I picked 42mmExpii polar over blnr, due to larger case, brushed bracelet, legibility, and aesthetics.

12 August 2016, 02:37 PM	#81
Uroboros "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: California Posts: 8	Please allow me to purge these thoughts from my head so I can stop obsessing about these watches. TLDR: Explorer II 42mm in Black for me, but I have a flat 7 inch wrist so it's not too big for me. These were my two front runners for the last few months. I finally made up my mind today after trying both on multiple times at different ADs. The BLNR is beautiful, especially close up. I imagine I'd really enjoy staring at it all day long. I may own one in the future, but here is why I decided against it for now: 1) The glossy dial, platinum numbers on the bezel and PCLs of the BLNR are designed to show off - which is fine sometimes, but there are a lot of situations where I wouldn't want even this moderate level of bling. 2) The Explorer II with it's matte dial flies a little more under the radar - A lot of the wrist presence comes from the more modern shape and design of the watch as opposed to it being shiny. I also like the more tapered lugs as opposed to the squarish ones on the maxi case. 3) Take 5 steps back from a mirror and the BLNR looks like the regular all black GMTc, to most people it will look like a SubC or really almost any much more common Sub Date. I like, but don't love, the Sub so that's my bias. 4) The Sub and GMT by their design and size are timeless classics which makes them the more mature choice. I live in a beach town, like the OP, and I dress more casual even at work - I would tend to wear the more fun and youthful Explorer II. Granted the BLNR looks awesome paired with a blue dress shirt. 5) Strap options - I find that the Explorer II looks great on a variety of straps. The BLNR seems more limited to me. 6) While I believe the BLNR will hold it's value more, if you buy used the Exp II should retain it's value very nicely. Used the BLNR is about $2000 more so, bang for buck, the Exp II wins here. Other thoughts that were not significant factors for me: The BLNR obviously photographs very well. The Exp II looks odd and bubble shaped in a lot of pictures, which may lead some to think it's less balanced than it is in person. While I'm sure the BLNR will hold up just fine, the Exp II supposedly has better shock protection and it's a slightly upgraded movement. Lastly, the bezel can be replaced just like the BLNR if you are worried about scratches and what the watch will look like in the future.

12 August 2016, 10:11 PM	#82
mdgrwl 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: US East Coast Watch: Dealer Posts: 15,689	^ well thought out. I too am on the fence about the bling of the BLNR... some love the bling, some don't. No right or wrong here.

13 August 2016, 01:03 AM	#84
HankL818 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: NY Watch: SubC / ExpII polar Posts: 121	BLNR first and polar Exp2 next... If you don't mind two gmt watches.

13 August 2016, 02:36 AM	#86
moonwolf "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2015 Location: NJ Posts: 25	I love BLNR.

13 August 2016, 10:29 AM	#87
Timesurfer "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: 12,000+ Lakes! Watch: 16710 Daytona BLNR Posts: 840	BLNR every single time!

14 August 2016, 03:13 AM	#88
Ru4scuba "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Real Name: Chris Location: NCR Watch: Today's watch Posts: 736	Dark side...

14 August 2016, 03:15 AM	#90
chaerezrd "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: uk Posts: 3	I'll keep it short also... I have both and the GMT has more utility when traveling with the rotating bezel to change zones quickly. It also is more versatile in different occasions. Definitely blnr if you had to pick one imo.

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