ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Verdi · 9 February 2016, 01:40 AM

They are both great. It depends on your lifestyle imo.
Can't go wrong with either of them.

G-Web · 9 February 2016, 01:42 AM

Can't go wrong with either.
Personally I find the 36mm Explorer unbeatable in terms of comfort.
And versatility for that matter.

All the best,
-GW

chloebear · 9 February 2016, 01:45 AM

When I flipped my white Milgauss I was down to the Explorer (39 mil) and the Submariner. Very tough decision. As others have said there is no wrong answer. I went Explorer because of my age. If I was 32 I probably would have went Submariner, but at 42 I felt the Explorer would age better with me. Although I'd still like to add either a Submariner or a 40 mil Explorer 2 at some point.

myc ritz · 9 February 2016, 01:51 AM

This is an interesting comparison. Both are simple tool watch perfection. I would say the sub as the technical aspects (bezel, clasp, lume) are all superior.

CRM114 · 9 February 2016, 02:55 AM

Explorer. Bulletproof, and far more versatile in the classic looks department (dress up or down).

GGGMT · 9 February 2016, 03:32 AM

Easy. Explorer 1. But having had both 36 and 39, I'd do 39mm. You're looking at a sub, which is larger than 36, so it seems you would be able to accommodate 39 mm explore one

eonflux · 9 February 2016, 03:38 AM

Sub
More functionality with the bezel
More adjustability with Glidelock

Anthon · 9 February 2016, 04:01 AM

Although I slightly prefer the 36 mm explorer, I would also recommend the newer and slightly larger 39 mm. The 39 mm clasp allows for all the adjustment you'll ever need (unless you wear a wetsuit every day!).

The explorer's understated beauty will grow on you day by day.

Golfster · 9 February 2016, 04:04 AM

Both nice watches but my preference for dive watches would lead me to the Sub.

Sublovin · 9 February 2016, 05:10 AM

Not sure how to compare these two. Completely different type of watch and size is very different. What will you normally wear the watch for? How big is your wrist? Do you have a size preference?

mps354 · 9 February 2016, 05:29 AM

Both are classics, but I give a slight edge to the exp 1

txstats · 9 February 2016, 05:44 AM

I'm always biased towards the explorer 😅 It's just such a classic watch!

Abdullasaif · 9 February 2016, 06:09 AM

Sub C no date

gtnator · 9 February 2016, 06:15 AM

hi Paltak, what strap are you wearing in that photo? It looks amazing!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cht · 9 February 2016, 09:09 AM

if that's the explorer in question, get the sub.

Look at the wonky end link fitment....makes me cringe!

doc.kool · 9 February 2016, 09:11 AM

very tough call. i give a slight edge to the Sub

WJGESQ · 9 February 2016, 09:12 AM

Sub all the way.

douglasf13 · 9 February 2016, 10:41 AM

I'd pick the 36mm Exp over the Sub-c, but I'd probably pick a Sub pre-ceramic over the Explorer.

sea-dweller · 9 February 2016, 10:51 AM

I have an Explorer 1 and a 14060. But are awesome and a hard decision to choose between the two.

HobokenRolex · 9 February 2016, 12:45 PM

I have both. You can't go wrong with either of them. If just one - like most things, it depends. Do you want something that's bigger and more substantial-feeling (Sub), or slimmer and under the radar (Explorer)? I have to say, the Glidelock is pretty amazing. Have fun on the search!

Ruud Van Driver · 9 February 2016, 12:55 PM

No wrong answer here but for me it would have to be the Sub

jfmiii · 9 February 2016, 12:56 PM

not a fan of the 39mm Exp. Even a 36mm Exp is kind of meh. Id go SubC.

now, if you are considering a 1016, id have a totally different answer...

chillwill120 · 9 February 2016, 02:26 PM

Explorer 1 is a great watch but depending on your wrist size and overall size, you might find it too small for casual wear.

9 February 2016, 01:40 AM	#31
Verdi "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2015 Real Name: Mitch Location: UAE Watch: Big Ben Posts: 2,451	They are both great. It depends on your lifestyle imo. Can't go wrong with either of them. __________________ IG: @watch_idiot_savant

9 February 2016, 10:51 AM	#49
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	I have an Explorer 1 and a 14060. But are awesome and a hard decision to choose between the two. __________________ TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)

9 February 2016, 12:55 PM	#51
Ruud Van Driver "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Real Name: Chopped Liver Location: S. Wales Valleys Watch: Mickey Mouse Posts: 9,926	No wrong answer here but for me it would have to be the Sub __________________ 116520 Black, 116610 LVc, 116660 D-Blue, 116610 LNc, 116622 Blue, PAM359, PAM689, PAM737 *"Why should you allow an AD to shake you down, just so you can buy a watch" - Grady Philpott* Card carrying member of TRF's Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

9 February 2016, 01:42 AM	#32
G-Web 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2012 Real Name: Grant Location: NZ Watch: Moon Posts: 1,719	Can't go wrong with either. Personally I find the 36mm Explorer unbeatable in terms of comfort. And versatility for that matter. All the best, -GW

9 February 2016, 01:45 AM	#33
chloebear Banned Join Date: Mar 2014 Real Name: Mike Location: USA Watch: Explorer Posts: 2,902	When I flipped my white Milgauss I was down to the Explorer (39 mil) and the Submariner. Very tough decision. As others have said there is no wrong answer. I went Explorer because of my age. If I was 32 I probably would have went Submariner, but at 42 I felt the Explorer would age better with me. Although I'd still like to add either a Submariner or a 40 mil Explorer 2 at some point.

9 February 2016, 01:51 AM	#34
myc ritz 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Watch: AP, Speedy, Rolex Posts: 976	This is an interesting comparison. Both are simple tool watch perfection. I would say the sub as the technical aspects (bezel, clasp, lume) are all superior.

9 February 2016, 02:55 AM	#35
CRM114 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: HK & USA Watch: GMTs,1803, 16610LV Posts: 2,001	Explorer. Bulletproof, and far more versatile in the classic looks department (dress up or down).

9 February 2016, 03:32 AM	#36
GGGMT 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Itinerant Watch: 79010sg Posts: 8,346	Easy. Explorer 1. But having had both 36 and 39, I'd do 39mm. You're looking at a sub, which is larger than 36, so it seems you would be able to accommodate 39 mm explore one

9 February 2016, 03:38 AM	#37
eonflux "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: SNA Posts: 3,637	Sub More functionality with the bezel More adjustability with Glidelock

9 February 2016, 04:01 AM	#38
Anthon "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: The Netherlands Watch: Explorer Posts: 545	Although I slightly prefer the 36 mm explorer, I would also recommend the newer and slightly larger 39 mm. The 39 mm clasp allows for all the adjustment you'll ever need (unless you wear a wetsuit every day!). The explorer's understated beauty will grow on you day by day.

9 February 2016, 04:04 AM	#39
Golfster "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NorCal Posts: 722	Both nice watches but my preference for dive watches would lead me to the Sub.

9 February 2016, 05:10 AM	#40
Sublovin 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: USA Watch: Lots Posts: 4,595	Not sure how to compare these two. Completely different type of watch and size is very different. What will you normally wear the watch for? How big is your wrist? Do you have a size preference?

9 February 2016, 05:29 AM	#41
mps354 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: Mike Location: CT Posts: 9,099	Both are classics, but I give a slight edge to the exp 1

9 February 2016, 05:44 AM	#42
txstats "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: CA Posts: 64	I'm always biased towards the explorer 😅 It's just such a classic watch!

9 February 2016, 06:09 AM	#43
Abdullasaif "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Dubai Watch: bipolar Posts: 2,854	Sub C no date

9 February 2016, 06:15 AM	#44
gtnator 2024 ROLEX SUBMARINER 41 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: USA Watch: DSSD, SD43, Pepsi, Posts: 2,084	hi Paltak, what strap are you wearing in that photo? It looks amazing! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9 February 2016, 09:09 AM	#45
cht 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Chris Location: San antonio, TX Watch: 116610LV Posts: 2,143	if that's the explorer in question, get the sub. Look at the wonky end link fitment....makes me cringe!

9 February 2016, 09:11 AM	#46
doc.kool "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Canada Posts: 610	very tough call. i give a slight edge to the Sub

9 February 2016, 09:12 AM	#47
WJGESQ Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 3,753	Sub all the way.

9 February 2016, 10:41 AM	#48
douglasf13 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: USA Posts: 5,622	I'd pick the 36mm Exp over the Sub-c, but I'd probably pick a Sub pre-ceramic over the Explorer.

9 February 2016, 12:45 PM	#50
HobokenRolex 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,066	I have both. You can't go wrong with either of them. If just one - like most things, it depends. Do you want something that's bigger and more substantial-feeling (Sub), or slimmer and under the radar (Explorer)? I have to say, the Glidelock is pretty amazing. Have fun on the search!

9 February 2016, 12:56 PM	#52
jfmiii "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Chicago Watch: 16750/16800/126710 Posts: 1,426	not a fan of the 39mm Exp. Even a 36mm Exp is kind of meh. Id go SubC. now, if you are considering a 1016, id have a totally different answer...

9 February 2016, 02:26 PM	#53
chillwill120 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Jersey City Posts: 108	Explorer 1 is a great watch but depending on your wrist size and overall size, you might find it too small for casual wear.

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