The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 27 November 2014, 05:42 AM   #91
toomuchtalk
"TRF" Member
 
toomuchtalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,253
Interesting.
I have the old red hand explorers-
And the new versions.
I think they are totally different watches.
The red hand polar version is the definitive explorer 2- not counting the original orange hand- that's the benchmark.
The better watch for expeditions is the new orange hand white dial. And that's the point: for expeditions. The dial is amazing for viewing in low light- better movement- better clasp.
The black dial is better for all round daily use- it's a dressier watch.
The red hand versions are gorgeous and will do the job they are designed for. But you can't read the time at 4am in the morning inside a tent. You can with the new version.

So, if you want the best watch for use on an expedition- and that's what the explorer is meant to do!
Get the new explorer 2. White .

If you don't do expeditions- but love a GMT function and a robust watch get the black.

If you love the vintage feel keep the one you have: because it is better proportioned and looks better on the wrist.
Just my take on it.
toomuchtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2014, 06:11 AM   #92
MrSimba
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: uk
Watch: DSSD & ExpII
Posts: 259
I'd trade a 40mm for the 42mm in either Black or White dial in an instant.

The size, awesome legibility of the polars dial or the 'floating' hands of the black dial, & the orange hand... simply stunning!

It's just my favourite Rolex & I intend to buy the black dial to complement my polar in 2015 & at some point a vintage Steve McQueen is my grail :)
MrSimba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2014, 07:20 AM   #93
ZeKe
"TRF" Member
 
ZeKe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Texas
Watch: Grandpa's Tissot
Posts: 733
Go for it!
ZeKe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2014, 07:20 AM   #94
Limey-
"TRF" Member
 
Limey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Nick
Location: WA
Watch: Your Six
Posts: 477
Nope...
Limey- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2014, 07:26 AM   #95
Im Lauf der Zeit
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,000
$3K is a lot to add to swap your Explorer 2 for the newer, over-sized one. Besides if you don't like your current Ex2 chances are you you won't like the bigger one either--this design may just not be for you, why pay three grand to confirm what you already intuitively know...
Im Lauf der Zeit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2014, 04:16 PM   #96
Al1969
2024 Pledge Member
 
Al1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6,640
I did it. I say got for it. I felt the 40mm wore 'small'.
Attached Images
 
__________________
WG SUB-116719
GMT MASTER II 126719
Al1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2014, 04:18 PM   #97
sea-dweller
"TRF" Member
 
sea-dweller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
I would not, for that amount of cash.
sea-dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2014, 08:56 PM   #98
Daytonaman799
2024 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: NYC/South Fl
Watch: Rolex, Patek
Posts: 3,693
yes. i think one of the best in the modern line up. that along with the new sd and pepsi are the three best new rolexes in the last few years. worth the trade in my opinion.
Daytonaman799 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2014, 09:26 PM   #99
Baco Noir
"TRF" Member
 
Baco Noir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Roger
Location: Colorado
Watch: this ya'll
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbsmith View Post
42mm polar is my favorite exp 2. One of my favorite watches period.

Nice revival of a 5 month old thread! I wonder if the OP ever made a decision?


Sent from my iPad Air 2 using Tapatalk (so I blame autocorrect for the spellin' errs)
__________________
Current Collection: Rolex 126619LB, 116710BLNR, and 216570 polar Explorer II; Omega Apollo 8 Speedmaster and Planet Ocean 42; Tudor BB Bronze Bucherer Blue Edition; Nomos Neomatik 42; Breitling Aerospace, Avenger Blackbird, & SuperOcean 44; Doxa 300 Pro Carbon; Stowa Limette; Laco Napa Flieger; Mickey Mouse Timex Electric; and dare I say it...an Apple Watch too
Baco Noir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27 November 2014, 09:34 PM   #100
esdeezy
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Im Lauf der Zeit View Post
$3K is a lot to add to swap your Explorer 2 for the newer, over-sized one. Besides if you don't like your current Ex2 chances are you you won't like the bigger one either--this design may just not be for you, why pay three grand to confirm what you already intuitively know...
Exactly what I was gonna say. Especially he has other 40mm size he wears, so size is not the problem.
esdeezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 01:05 AM   #101
jbsmith
"TRF" Member
 
jbsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Blake
Location: US
Watch: Daytonas
Posts: 1,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baco Noir View Post
Nice revival of a 5 month old thread! I wonder if the OP ever made a decision?


Sent from my iPad Air 2 using Tapatalk (so I blame autocorrect for the spellin' errs)
Sorry about that. Tapatalk indicated new thread and I trusted it was without looking at last post date. Maybe the op will chime in on his decision. :)
jbsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 02:18 AM   #102
Explorador
"TRF" Member
 
Explorador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Switzerland
Watch: 16710LN,PO 8900
Posts: 227
Since we are still at it, I find the 5 digit EXII way more elegant.
Attached Images
 
Explorador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 02:23 AM   #103
Majin Buu
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Real Name: Joe
Location: Planet Earth
Watch: Datejust now
Posts: 928
Hi!
Yes I would!
The E2 has basically the latest from rolex in terms of movement...
Plus 42mm is the top end of how large would I go...

Cheers

MB
Majin Buu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 02:28 AM   #104
josephvman
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Houston, TX USA
Posts: 808
I had the 40mm polar, now have the 42mm polar. I'm a big fan of the original orange hand Explorer II, so the new 42mm polar really pushes my buttons. The large dial makes it look much bigger than it wears, but it wears small and feels little different on the wrist than a SubC or GMT IIc. My girlfriend, who has had my 5513 Sub on her wrist for most of the last year, tells me she loves the 42mm polar on my wrist, and the only comments she makes about my watches is that they all look the same to her.

The improvements are numerous; better shock protection, lume, and especially the bracelet.

If you really love your 40mm however, you might want to expand your collection with something else for $3k. If you don't have a chrono, a Tudor Heritage isn't much more than $3k and it's probably my favorite recent addition.

josephvman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 03:19 AM   #105
FiftyTwoEighty
2024 Pledge Member
 
FiftyTwoEighty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: Woody
Location: Surf City USA
Watch: me live @the Beach
Posts: 1,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomuchtalk View Post
Interesting.
The better watch for expeditions is the new orange hand white dial. And that's the point: for expeditions. The dial is amazing for viewing in low light- better movement- better clasp.

So, if you want the best watch for use on an expedition- and that's what the explorer is meant to do!
Get the new explorer 2. White .

Just my take on it.
^The Gospel from our resident Explorer...

I picked up my 216570 for your exact reasons. Much easier to read in low light in the tent and much easier to read in very bright light on snow.

I also wish they gave us a glidelock bracelet...so you can wear it over a thumb gusseted base layer. Bare skin + wind chill + altitude = no fun.
Attached Images
 
__________________

Some 4 digits, 5 digits, and 6 digits

2FA
FiftyTwoEighty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 03:30 AM   #106
ferrissteve11
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,116
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I always felt the hands on the 216570 were a tad on the larger size. I had it for about 6 weeks and traded it off. That said I think its a great watch on its own merit and would say the upgrade from the earlier model is worth it. It just wasn't the watch that 'sang' for me. YMMV
ferrissteve11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 04:04 AM   #107
GTC
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Real Name: Douglas
Location: HSV / ANC
Watch: 126660
Posts: 626
When I first responded to this thread in June, my Exp II 42mm not too old bought new from an AD. I looked at the previous iteration at Swiss Watch Expo in Atlanta back then without knowing all the history, and for someone looking for an all around tool, I felt I had struck gold. Well, really nice stainless steel anyway.

Now, six months later it was still a great decision. Whether speaking in a dark suit with cuff links as I recently did in West Africa, competing in USPSA, or my part time gig in law-enforcement, the watch has been perfect, loses less than a second a day, and virtually never comes off. Mine is a black dial, recently bought my son a barely used white dial 42mm Exp II (his preference). I am particularly impressed by the watches ability to shrug off shock as it has been on the receiving end of thousands of incidents of recoil in training and competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toomuchtalk View Post
The red hand polar version is the definitive explorer 2- not counting the original orange hand- that's the benchmark.
If you love the vintage feel keep the one you have: because it is better proportioned and looks better on the wrist.
Just my take on it.
I'm going to respectfully disagree. The original is the definitive Explorer 2 not the subsequent interpretation(s). And the new 42mm easily harkens back more strongly to the original look and ethos while simultaneously landing in the 21st Century. Better proportioned to the wrist? Don't know, partially depending on the wearer's size and one's perception of appropriate watch size these days.

Picture Legend: 2 LE tools, using the time zone function in West Africa, the joys of getting tased in training - and the longest 5 seconds of one's life (me in white pants), and the near original standard.
Attached Images
       
GTC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 04:06 AM   #108
subtona
"TRF" Member
 
subtona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: gus
Location: East Coast
Watch: APK & sometimes Y
Posts: 26,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomuchtalk View Post
Interesting.
I have the old red hand explorers-
And the new versions.
I think they are totally different watches.
The red hand polar version is the definitive explorer 2- not counting the original orange hand- that's the benchmark.
The better watch for expeditions is the new orange hand white dial. And that's the point: for expeditions. The dial is amazing for viewing in low light- better movement- better clasp.
The black dial is better for all round daily use- it's a dressier watch.
The red hand versions are gorgeous and will do the job they are designed for. But you can't read the time at 4am in the morning inside a tent. You can with the new version.

So, if you want the best watch for use on an expedition- and that's what the explorer is meant to do!
Get the new explorer 2. White .

If you don't do expeditions- but love a GMT function and a robust watch get the black.

If you love the vintage feel keep the one you have: because it is better proportioned and looks better on the wrist.
Just my take on it.
There you have it

For me I actually went from the 42mm polar to the 40mm polar.
As above it helps if you apply your expected use to the decision. My intent was to travel with it and I know I would find myself in areas where the watch may be a target for some, so I went for the older cheaper model.


Ps. I know someone is thinking it, so I'll answer here : G shock is not an option for me.

Pps.
FYI the polar 40mm hands are slightly wider and more legible in the dark than the black dial version.
subtona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 05:31 AM   #109
JayAK
"TRF" Member
 
JayAK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Watch: 116618LN
Posts: 609
Yes!
Attached Images
 
JayAK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 05:38 AM   #110
sickened1
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
sickened1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Real Name: Ed
Location: SoCal
Watch: ugiveiswatchuget
Posts: 9,054
Whichever floats your boat.. they're both great watches. I prefer the 40mm myself.

sickened1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 06:57 AM   #111
toomuchtalk
"TRF" Member
 
toomuchtalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiftyTwoEighty View Post
^The Gospel from our resident Explorer...

I picked up my 216570 for your exact reasons. Much easier to read in low light in the tent and much easier to read in very bright light on snow.

I also wish they gave us a glidelock bracelet...so you can wear it over a thumb gusseted base layer. Bare skin + wind chill + altitude = no fun.

I agree with your clasp point.
I have actually enquired at the AD to see if I can get this done..no joy.
toomuchtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 06:59 AM   #112
toomuchtalk
"TRF" Member
 
toomuchtalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by subtona View Post
There you have it

For me I actually went from the 42mm polar to the 40mm polar.
As above it helps if you apply your expected use to the decision. My intent was to travel with it and I know I would find myself in areas where the watch may be a target for some, so I went for the older cheaper model.


Ps. I know someone is thinking it, so I'll answer here : G shock is not an option for me.

Pps.
FYI the polar 40mm hands are slightly wider and more legible in the dark than the black dial version.

Agree with you on the G shock. As at the end of the day, you have to travel in style!
toomuchtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 07:01 AM   #113
toomuchtalk
"TRF" Member
 
toomuchtalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,253
Agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTC View Post
When I first responded to this thread in June, my Exp II 42mm not too old bought new from an AD. I looked at the previous iteration at Swiss Watch Expo in Atlanta back then without knowing all the history, and for someone looking for an all around tool, I felt I had struck gold. Well, really nice stainless steel anyway.

Now, six months later it was still a great decision. Whether speaking in a dark suit with cuff links as I recently did in West Africa, competing in USPSA, or my part time gig in law-enforcement, the watch has been perfect, loses less than a second a day, and virtually never comes off. Mine is a black dial, recently bought my son a barely used white dial 42mm Exp II (his preference). I am particularly impressed by the watches ability to shrug off shock as it has been on the receiving end of thousands of incidents of recoil in training and competition.


Did say the original was the benchmark!

I'm going to respectfully disagree. The original is the definitive Explorer 2 not the subsequent interpretation(s). And the new 42mm easily harkens back more strongly to the original look and ethos while simultaneously landing in the 21st Century. Better proportioned to the wrist? Don't know, partially depending on the wearer's size and one's perception of appropriate watch size these days.

Picture Legend: 2 LE tools, using the time zone function in West Africa, the joys of getting tased in training - and the longest 5 seconds of one's life (me in white pants), and the near original standard.
Did say the original is the benchmark..
toomuchtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 07:07 AM   #114
Silvio Mosiello
"TRF" Member
 
Silvio Mosiello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Matthew
Location: Miami/NY
Watch: the shoes.
Posts: 3,482
I prefer the size of the original and the legibility of the 42mm.
Both are winners


Sent from my Motorola Razor
Silvio Mosiello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 07:11 AM   #115
jelizalde
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 304
I Have the 40mm... I prefer the more subtle classic look. It can go anywhere and not draw too much attention. It can be casual or dress it up a bit. The 42mm iis super sporty and if that's what ur looking for, go for it. Agree 3k is a bit much. 2500 max... Js. Good luck. Enjoy!
jelizalde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 07:23 AM   #116
BMess
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NYC Metro
Posts: 674
You should definitely trade for the 42mm!
BMess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 07:56 AM   #117
BoyhoodDreamDaytona
"TRF" Member
 
BoyhoodDreamDaytona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Real Name: Laurence
Location: Leeds, UK
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 126
Great post/question.

I love both styles but have VERY slim risks so deeply regret not buying a Polar 10yrs ago.

I still want one and will continue to look out for a black faced one (just purely because I have a white faced watch).

Just one question - but I think I know the answer....... can you get an older, 40mm Polar 2 with the new styled clasp?

I'm guessing not but for me the new styled clasp would be a good excuse to upgrade.
BoyhoodDreamDaytona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 08:29 AM   #118
porschedude
"TRF" Member
 
porschedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Watch: 116610LV
Posts: 1,207
If your not enjoying the one you have now then go for it!
porschedude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 09:31 AM   #119
sheldonsmith
2024 Pledge Member
 
sheldonsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Member 202♛
Posts: 1,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomuchtalk View Post

I agree with your clasp point.
I have actually enquired at the AD to see if I can get this done..no joy.
Occasionally there are Glidelocks in the sales forum. I purchased two there with no regrets. I have one clasp in my Explorer II 216570 as yes, the Glidelock should have been included on the Explorer II.

(Fwiw, I have more at http://www.minus4plus6.com/glidelock.htm )
Attached Images
 
__________________
sheldonsmith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28 November 2014, 10:10 AM   #120
toneafficianado
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
toneafficianado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Real Name: Alan
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,204
42!!
I have one. Perfect size and very comfortable to wear. They sell for about $2k or so more than the 40 mm but there is more demand so you will need to go closer to $3k if you want it. I recommend it highly!
toneafficianado is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

OCWatches

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.