Why Explorer over GMT II?

[TheVTCGuy]

There are a lot of TRFers on here that (rightfully so) tout their Explorers, both 1 and 2. It is a great watch, and I don't mean to disrespect anyone from their own personal choice, but if you're looking for a Rolex that offers the second time zone hand (GMT), why not go with the GMT watch? It has the added benefit of an additional feature in the movable bezel, and with that, a third time zone. I do like the white face Explorer, and you can't get a white face in the GMT, so I can see the reasoning there, but other then that, why did you choose the Explorer over the GMT?

Just wondering.....

[Tools]

The advent of the 'jump' hand has made the revolving bezel redundant.. the "third time zone" is a gimmick and a worthless point to make in favor of the GMT.. With all the other shiny parts, and crockery insert, they've turned a once proud work tool into a sissy watch..

The EXP II is for real men, and it can travel with you through any timezone....

Here is where I spend my weekends. Climbing the rocks and hiking the trails... No sissy watch for me.

[Overkill]

Originally Posted by Tools

The advent of the 'jump' hand has made the revolving bezel redundant.. the "third time zone" is a gimmick and a worthless point to make in favor of the GMT.. With all the other shiny parts, and crockery insert, they've turned a once proud work tool into a sissy watch..

The EXP II is for real men, and it can travel with you through any timezone....

Here is where I spend my weekends. Climbing the rocks and hiking the trails... No sissy watch for me.

Wow man, a bit harsh towards GMT-II C owners? "Real men"? Come on... as opposed to what kind of men?

I agree that the Explorer II, at this point, is more of a tool watch than the GMT-Master II C is, but I wouldn't call it a sissy watch. If anything, the Explorer II is the one without a triplock crown! Now THAT makes the watch look more... 'sissy' by your book. Either way, I love both watches.

Regardless, if the GMT-IIc is truly targeted at pilots, then I don't see the extra flashiness and polished links as being a bad thing, since being a pilot is a bit of a prestigious thing. Pilots don't go around scraping their watches on rocks while climbing a mountain, or on coral and sand while diving. After all, today, Rolex is about luxury more than functionality, whether or not you're willing to accept that. But the good thing is that there is still a good balance of both in their watches.

The Explorer II on the other hand is aimed by Rolex at hikers, climbers, etc... Both are great and beautiful watches, I especially love the Explorer II with white dial. If the Explorer II were to get a triplock crown this year, it'd become my second most desirable Rolex after the GMT-IIc, provided that they don't add polished center links or dramatically change the watch.

I wouldn't say the jump hand in the new GMT-Master II makes the rotating bezel redundant either because rotating the bezel still beats having to unscrew the crown, period.

A watch for "real men" by your book would be a solar-powered atomic G-Shock then:
1. unbreakable
2. more accurate than a Rolex
3. will never run out of power
4. if it runs out it'll charge itself back up from the sun and automatically retrieve the time from an atomic clock by radio

But is that all we want? No, we want GMT-Master IIc's and other Rolexes, for other reasons.

[rolexgiants]

i bought the gmt pepsi just because i thought it looked better.... i dont even set the second time zone.....lol.... forget about the 3rd....

[DS/B MINI S]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I do like the white face Explorer, and you can't get a white face in the GMT, so I can see the reasoning there, but other then that, why did you choose the Explorer over the GMT?

Just wondering.....

That was enough reason for me

[Overkill]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I do like the white face Explorer, and you can't get a white face in the GMT, so I can see the reasoning there, but other then that, why did you choose the Explorer over the GMT?

Just wondering.....

Apart from the rotating bezel, that's the only reason really, the way it looks. The white dial and the bezel design are both really very... "Explorer" It's a matter of preference... or at least it was until the GMT-Master II got upgraded to the GMT-Master IIc, maybe now it's not just a matter of looks and rotating bezel.

I don't know the history of the prices, but maybe back when it was the Explorer II vs. the GMT-Master II, the Explorer II cost less? Maybe not.

[TheVTCGuy]

It did cost less, not a lot less, but a little, I guess because there was no movable bezel.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Overkill

Wow man, a bit harsh towards GMT-II C owners? "Real men"? Come on... as opposed to what kind of men?

....

Regardless, if the GMT-IIc is truly targeted at pilots, then I don't see the extra flashiness and polished links as being a bad thing, since being a pilot is a bit of a prestigious thing. Pilots don't go around scraping their watches on rocks while climbing a mountain, or on coral and sand while diving. After all, today, Rolex is about luxury more than functionality, whether or not you're willing to accept that. But the good thing is that there is still a good balance of both in their watches.

....
But is that all we want? No, we want GMT-Master IIc's and other Rolexes, for other reasons.

Ooops.......

I forgot to click on my smiley face.............

I've been a pilot for 38 years....... I have several GMT Masters and GMT II's; The GMT IIc is not targeted at pilots........those days are long gone... although as a pilot, you do recognise the legacy.

No, the new GMT IIc is targeted to be loud, noticeable, and fit in with the nightclub scene.. not for doing pre-flights and flight checks..

.........

[kokovovoru]

Originally Posted by Tools

Ooops.......

I forgot to click on my smiley face.............

I've been a pilot for 38 years....... I have several GMT Masters and GMT II's; The GMT IIc is not targeted at pilots........those days are long gone... although as a pilot, you do recognise the legacy.

No, the new GMT IIc is targeted to be loud, noticeable, and fit in with the nightclub scene.. not for doing pre-flights and flight checks..

.........

[alphamale2012]

Why indeed

[swish77]

Why does it need to be one or the other? Sure, the GMT II and Explorer II both offer the 24-hour/second time zone feature, but they're so different in other ways. A completely different look and feel. One's not better or worse. Just different. I own both and give them equal wrist time. I find the Explorer II (mine's with the black dial) is more modern-looking, kinda space-agey. And I love that brushed-steel bezel. The GMT II (mine's with the with Pepsi bezel) is a little chunkier in feel and reminds me more of a vintage Rolex, even though it's from '04. Both great timepieces, of course!

[Atlanta]

Although the rotating bezel may be for a 3rd TZ, I think most of us set our fourth hand to 24hr time and use the bezel to track the 2nd TZ - right or wrong - it is evolution. I have found the extra step of setting the fourth hand to be more trouble than it is worth, but I do tend to be lazy sometimes.

They are all great watches. I prefer the Explorer to the II.

[jeangtd]

bought the explorer because it's more comfortable, white face, also has the second time zone, and i can walk around with it and no robber would ever know it's a rolex, but i still get to wear one, and since i don't care for anyone to know I have a rolex the fact that it's such a stealth rolex appeals to me mostly on weekdays, and like Tools said, the ceramic gmt is aimed at the nightclub scene, and i should know, as I have one and guess when i wear it, mostly weekends and mostly at night, my sub get's the daytime wristtime on weekends, because weekends I dont have to worry about the second time zone, i do actually use the second time zone on weekdays because of work, i find it's easier than taking my cell phone out of the pocket, or doing the math quickly in my head while i am worrying about something more important, so a quick glance and i already know what time it is in spain.

[yannis]

I wouldn't personally choose the Explorer over the GMT-IIc. Main reason aesthetics (the Explorer is a beauty don't get me wrong). Also the GMT-IIc definitely isn't a sissy watch!

[JJ Irani]

Well, if you're not a bezel fiddler and prefer a nice, elegant, sloping fixed bezel, you can't beat the clean looks of the white dial Exp-II!!

[Perdu]

Sand and dust can get under the GMT bezel, so if you are in arid hostile environments I can see the Explorer being the choice. One less thing to go wrong.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Perdu

Sand and dust can get under the GMT bezel, so if you are in arid hostile environments I can see the Explorer being the choice. One less thing to go wrong.

Whew... I think that it can get pretty arid and hostile around here sometimes....

[Brunotheboxer]

As far as GMT 2 vs. GMT 2C, I much prefer the regular GMT to the ceramic one. I do really like the explorer but not enough to buy one.

[mopsey]

Quite simple really. I got the Exp II because i think it looks better.

[Dan Pierce]

Larry,
I was looking for your smiley face too, you GMT wearin' fool. As a self confessed bezel fiddler I need a rotating bezel. Having said that, the EXP I & II are beautiful watches.
dP

[karmatp]

Originally Posted by Tools

Ooops.......

The new GMT IIc is targeted to be loud, noticeable, and fit in with the nightclub scene.. not for doing pre-flights and flight checks..

.........

I love it Larry and completely agree, quote of the day.



Between the classic GMT II and the Explorer II and the new bling GMT II, I would take the classic GMT over them all with the Explorer II 2nd. The new GMT IIC should not even be considered a tool watch anymore. It is more of a "look what I'm wearing, yes it's a Rolex" watch.

[jeangtd]

Originally Posted by karmatp

The new GMT IIC should not even be considered a tool watch anymore. It is more of a "look what I'm wearing, yes it's a Rolex" watch.

But i still loveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee my cermaic GMT

[karmatp]

Originally Posted by jeangtd

But i still loveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee my cermaic GMT

They are pretty, I'll give them that, just not my style.

[jeangtd]

Id still have a pepsi GMT just because I love the bezel color combination

[Rebel]

Having owned both, I would address the question not from a cosmetic or comfort perspective; but, a tool perspective.

I owned a GMT Master for most of my Army and Army Reserve career. Found the 2nd time zone function to be quite useful. Later, I traded up with AD for an Expy II (Polar).

My functional reason for trading was that the rotating bezel on my GMT would spin too freely. I would set the second time zone and after a brief amount of time under the cuff of my shirt it would rotate off the set time. Nothing a good $500 service wouldn't fix (ha ha).

For me now in retirement from Army/Army Reserve days, I love the fourth hand from habit........I like the fact that a few years down the road I will not have to worry about the bezel on my Expy rotating too freely.

I would close by adding that I do not use my Expy for second time zone travel or any military time tracking, etc. If I did, I might have opted to send it to the spa or jump on a new GMT.

Anyway, great question....hope my answer is useful. I love the good conversation on TRF.

[Woody]

I have both and love them in different ways - GMTII-C is my executive travel watch with that little bit of bling for the Business Lounge . The Explorer II is my tool watch and ideal for wearing when on the ground in the less desirable parts of the world or when swimming, at the gym etc - both are great watches although I think the Explorer II is an endangered species as Rolex starts to ditch the tool watch concept.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

There are a lot of TRFers on here that (rightfully so) tout their Explorers, both 1 and 2. It is a great watch, and I don't mean to disrespect anyone from their own personal choice, but if you're looking for a Rolex that offers the second time zone hand (GMT), why not go with the GMT watch? It has the added benefit of an additional feature in the movable bezel, and with that, a third time zone. I do like the white face Explorer, and you can't get a white face in the GMT, so I can see the reasoning there, but other then that, why did you choose the Explorer over the GMT?

Just wondering.....

The Explorer II is great!

It goes with a suit (or at least a shirt):



It goes where it belongs:



It goes with a Volvo:



It goes with a Tudor:



It goes with a Nikon:



You get it... it goes with pretty much everything... but...

...

... sometimes it do not go that well with its smaller sibling. Look what happened when I left them by themselves:





Best,

A

[xjeeunitx]

I'm in the military and currently own the Explorer II. I guess I chose it for it's ruggedness. I think it's great that it doesn't have a bezel because it is one more thing that I would have to check up on. I would be playing with it so many times throughout the day that it would become an annoyance. Explorer II looks very classy while having the robust look of a Rolex sport model.

[TheVTCGuy]

Between the classic GMT II and the Explorer II and the new bling GMT II, I would take the classic GMT over them all with the Explorer II 2nd. The new GMT IIC should not even be considered a tool watch anymore. It is more of a "look what I'm wearing, yes it's a Rolex" watch.

Excellent Point Trevor, and I pretty much agree. So here's another question:

If they came out with a C in Coke version and no PCL, would that change your opinion?

[Ken Cox]

When I got my GMT Master II in 1986 I didn't know an Explorer II existed.

I thought, as a pilot, I would make use of the GMT and rotating bezel functions, but I haven't.

The jump hour hand represents the most desirable and useful feature of either watch.

If I had it to do over, I might go with the Explorer because it goes better under shirt cuffs, and because the GMT has become so popular that it almost embarrasses me.