Why does the Explorer II not have a trip lock crown?

[brucethemanlee]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

I don’t think people want more water resistance, because even if the crown was bigger, it doesn’t have the other tools like a thicker crystal and beefier case back.
Other references have a trip lock with a disregard for “more water proofing”. So the discussion is, why not the Exp 2 as well.

One could say heritage, but that’s not plausible considering the GMT Masters existed before the Exp 2 had twin locks for decades and they added a trip lock.
At this point it’s a mystery that only wis talk about.

i get it. Interesting question to raise as to why on this watch and not on that watch.

My point is, I think a lot of people throw around 100m as not being enough or needing 300m water resistance. 100mm (or 300mm) is REALLY deep. For perspective, most pools with "deep" ends are like around 2.75m (9ft). How many people go to the deep end and hang out 9ft underwater? I doubt 99% do that regularly and probably even less so for those with a Rolex strapped to their wrist.

(yes i know its not just about depth but pressure of 100mm, etc.... but on a relative basis that is deep no matter how you look at it)

Unless you are truly using a Sub or SD as a diving tool but most use dive computer these days anyways.

[SS Oyster]

The only reason I can see is to protect tha crown more from scrapes if used for the originally intended “cave diving” purpose.

I would rather see it with a trip-lock crown myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RTG]

Aesthetics. Twin lock is perfect on the EXPII. Clunkier tri lock won’t look better and what benefit would it provide? Won’t increase water rating. I do think the tri’s look better with the turny bezels, evens out the look.

[JR16]

It really doesn’t matter ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[WatchThinker]

Originally Posted by slfkjasldfj

It seems surprising to me that the Explorer II doesn’t have a trip lock crown given it’s rugged and likely wet mandate. This is especially so when you see that watches like the Daytona have a trip lock crown.

Is there an advantage to the twin lock? I realize it can be a little bit smaller but the Explorer II is one of the larger watches in Rolex’s range so that doesn’t seem to be the driver.

Would love to hear people’s thoughts on why Rolex may have chosen the twin lock crown for the Explorer II!

Shouldn’t this apply to Exp I as well? I mean, if the Exp I is the understated tank of the line that works on Everest and in a tux, GADA, why not trip-lock crown and glide-lock bracelet? It’s always bothered me. Well .... let’s see what this week brings.