Why not a PM Explorer?

[MVT]

Originally Posted by Anthon

When did the first gold Sub appear?
And that for a watch that some people already steer away from because the minute hand doesn't reach the second marks.

I have seen several people mention this about the newer Explorer 1. I am just curious as to why the same disdain is not shown for some of the newer Subs where the minute hand does not reach the seconds markers. I am not trying to start an argument since I own the Explorer 1 and never gave the hands a second thought.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Although not completely out of the question I guess, it is more to the abuse of the metals. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but Gold is a softer metal then stainless steel and scratches easier, so for a "working" watch that would be subjected to all kinds of harsh environment and treatment, a SS watch makes more sense.

Technically correct. SS obviously has a higher MOH rating than 18k gold or Pt. However its "softness" is overblown. I've worn many of my PM sport watches during activities that would make many cringe (rafting, mountain biking, diving, small construction projects, etc). I think most would agree that mine have come out looking pretty decent. When I compare the wear on my PM vs SS, they look about the same.

PS: I'd be in queue to buy a PM Explorer

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Although not completely out of the question I guess, it is more to the abuse of the metals. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but Gold is a softer metal then stainless steel and scratches easier, so for a "working" watch that would be subjected to all kinds of harsh environment and treatment, a SS watch makes more sense.

Not to me.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

First-Thanks to the other thread with the concept-photoshop models, I really like some of those ideas! One that caught my eye was the TT Explorer, I thought it really looked good.

My mind wandered to the idea of a TT or AG Explorer, and immediately discounted it. The EX (and II) is a "working" watch, to be worn while climbing mountains or exploring caves; you can't have Gold in a watch like that. But then, I thought of the sub. That is a "working" watch, to be worn while diving. It comes in not only TT but AG and looks very very good. So, why not a PM Explorer?

Man, I hope not. That makes about as much sense to me as a Leica made out of gold, and, yeah, I feel the same way about the other PM tool watches.

[DaveDhc]

Originally Posted by MVT

I have seen several people mention this about the newer Explorer 1. I am just curious as to why the same disdain is not shown for some of the newer Subs where the minute hand does not reach the seconds markers. I am not trying to start an argument since I own the Explorer 1 and never gave the hands a second thought.

It's not just the Subs, take a look at the Oyster Perpetual line. They seem to use one length hand for the 34, 36, and 39mm cases. So with the 34 mm the hand is way too long, the 36 mm it is OK, and the 39 mm is a bit short.

It just seems to be laziness on Rolex's part to reuse hands instead of making them for specific watches. The new Air King and Explorer are perfect. My SD 4000 is a bit short. Being short surprisingly doesn't bother me at all.