ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Andy4Fingers · 13 February 2016, 10:24 PM

Hi all. It's my first post here and I'd be grateful for a little help deciding between the Explorer and a Datejust II configured the same as the Explorer (ie. oyster, steel, smooth bezel, black dial). I'm quite a noob in this area and it'll be my first Rolex, in fact my first decent watch.
I realise there's a minor size difference between the two and I understand they have different movements (3132 compared to 3136) though I don't know what the difference in movements actually means in terms of everyday use.
I was initially set on the Explorer because of its more understated look but the pedant in me thinks the small hands may become irksome over time. I'd probably already have opted for the DJII but I find the cyclops aesthetically unpleasing.
Any advice would be most welcome, so thanks in advance.

Jack T · 14 February 2016, 12:01 AM

I wouldn't call the differences minor - the DJII has a date; polished center links, a choice of bezels and numerous dial options. The Explorer is more understated and only comes as is. I have one and I find the issue of the shorter hour hand way overdone. And mine keeps excellent time.

If you're put off by the cyclops take a look at the 39mm Oyster Perpetual. It has a couple of dials to choose from and can be as versatile and discreet as you please.

maxbaris · 14 February 2016, 12:04 AM

The so called short hands never bother me. The Explorer is a fantastic watch and I highly recommend it.

AK1984 · 14 February 2016, 12:05 AM

Hi
Cant go wrong with either.
Personally, I prefer Explorer

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DJExplorer · 14 February 2016, 12:06 AM

DJII. But with a touch of white gold fluted bezel.

japenney · 14 February 2016, 12:08 AM

The "short hands" are a non-issue on the wrist. it is way overblown. If you don't like the explorer's hands and don't want a cyclops I would go for the Oyster perpetual 39mm.

travisb · 14 February 2016, 12:08 AM

Explorer. More understated, rugged good looks, no cyclops (if you're not a fan), sportier look and feel. The OP39s are another good option as mentioned above.
The difference in movements is basically date vs no date.

Dubarzy · 14 February 2016, 12:17 AM

As noted, the "short" hands are not an issue in my opinion. If you had been wearing a 36mm explorer for years and then were to switching to the 39mm, then I could see how the slightly different proportions could bother you. But if it's your first Rolex, the only time you'll think about the "short" hands is when someone mentions it on TRF.

SemperFi · 14 February 2016, 12:18 AM

I had the exact same dilemma which I agonized over for most of a year. I eventually went with the Explorer. The so called "short hands" issue is not an issue. I just couldn't get past the disproportionate size of the bezel on the DJII.
Try them both on if you haven't done so already and then try them on again and again. The right one will make itself known to you.
By the way, I've had my Explorer for two months now and it is consistently running at +1 second per day.
Enjoy the hunt and let us know what you decide.

Danny83 · 14 February 2016, 12:21 AM

Dj2

jbenjamin1 · 14 February 2016, 12:26 AM

Agreed . Short hands is a non issue and had been blown up in discussions. I have the datejust II as well stick dial and from a readability standpoint both the explorer I 39mm and datejust II are excellent.

For your first watch go for the Datejust. It's nice to have a date function and IMO that cyclops is a signature Rolex feature.

The movements are both solid and both offer the shock absorbers. My DJII and EXI actually run better than my ceramic subs with 3135 but there is no rhyme or reason behind that other than opinion.

Andy4Fingers · 14 February 2016, 12:28 AM

Thanks very much for all your replies, you've given me more to mull over. I've not tried them on yet so I guess my next step is heading to the AD.

SemperFi · 14 February 2016, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy4Fingers

Thanks very much for all your replies, you've given me more to mull over. I've not tried them on yet so I guess my next step is heading to the AD.

Don't be surprised if another model pops out at you. Each watch has a completely different look on your wrist than it does on your computer screen.
Take your time and don't rush the process. But most of all, have fun.

fskywalker · 14 February 2016, 12:50 AM

Explorer 1 gets another vote!

LVSubmariner · 14 February 2016, 12:51 AM

Explorer

Boothroyd · 14 February 2016, 02:18 AM

I will offer a comment as I have both watches. If I were going to have one, it would be the Explorer. The short hands "issue" does not come into play in real life, just on watch forums, IMHO. Explorer is the more versatile watch.

I would not get rid of either one. And I do like the Explorer more than a 39mm OP; it has to do with lumed hour markers, the 3-6-9, the hands, the Oysterlock vs. the Oysterclasp, and the Easylink extension. I believe the Explorer is the best all-arounder.

You can't really go wrong with an Explorer or a DJII. Good luck with your decision!

Boaters · 14 February 2016, 02:20 AM

Explorer for me for sure

pinkelle21 · 14 February 2016, 02:25 AM

Either is a great watch, good luck😎

Sent using Pied piper compression app

mrchrisx69 · 14 February 2016, 02:30 AM

Datejust 2 with fluted bezel!

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

mrchrisx69 · 14 February 2016, 02:31 AM

Name: uploadfromtaptalk1455381038122.jpg
Views: 355
Size: 66.0 KB

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Boothroyd · 14 February 2016, 06:26 AM

I should have added, make sure you try them both on at an AD. Don't try to decide without having them on your wrist, especially if this is your first experience with Rolex. You owe it to yourself to comparison shop models.

You may also find there is another Rolex model you like better once you see them in person. Good luck!

zion_rasta · 14 February 2016, 07:20 AM

If Rolex made a 42mm Explorer with a date I would buy it tomorrow instead of an IWC Mark XVIII...

Porter · 14 February 2016, 07:42 AM

Explorer for sure!!! 3 6 9 forever! I love mine but in 36mm

PatrickJ · 29 July 2016, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFi

I had the exact same dilemma which I agonized over for most of a year. I eventually went with the Explorer. The so called "short hands" issue is not an issue. I just couldn't get past the disproportionate size of the bezel on the DJII.
Try them both on if you haven't done so already and then try them on again and again. The right one will make itself known to you.
By the way, I've had my Explorer for two months now and it is consistently running at +1 second per day.
Enjoy the hunt and let us know what you decide.

The DJ2 is way off being a dress watch. The Explorer 1 or DJ41 are a lot better.

PatrickJ · 29 July 2016, 09:12 PM

Explorer 1

brandrea · 29 July 2016, 09:14 PM

It really comes down to whether you need or want the date function or not.

samson66 · 29 July 2016, 09:17 PM

Datejust II
The cyclops is signature Rolex, and the magnification really helps. You'll miss having the date if you get a watch that doesn't have one IMO

Daytona88 · 29 July 2016, 09:18 PM

Very different watches. I strongly prefer the Explorer

Coffes4closers · 29 July 2016, 09:56 PM

I never thought I needed or wanted a date function on a watch, until I had one without it and realized how often I actually used it. Now it's a required pre-requisite. I'm partial to the DJII, as the explorer just never sang to me and didn't have as high-end a feel to it as a DJ/DSSD/SUB.

13 February 2016, 10:24 PM	#1
Andy4Fingers "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Real Name: Andy Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 4	Explorer or DJII Hi all. It's my first post here and I'd be grateful for a little help deciding between the Explorer and a Datejust II configured the same as the Explorer (ie. oyster, steel, smooth bezel, black dial). I'm quite a noob in this area and it'll be my first Rolex, in fact my first decent watch. I realise there's a minor size difference between the two and I understand they have different movements (3132 compared to 3136) though I don't know what the difference in movements actually means in terms of everyday use. I was initially set on the Explorer because of its more understated look but the pedant in me thinks the small hands may become irksome over time. I'd probably already have opted for the DJII but I find the cyclops aesthetically unpleasing. Any advice would be most welcome, so thanks in advance.

14 February 2016, 12:01 AM	#2
Jack T "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: Jack Location: The Triangle Watch: Several Posts: 6,719	I wouldn't call the differences minor - the DJII has a date; polished center links, a choice of bezels and numerous dial options. The Explorer is more understated and only comes as is. I have one and I find the issue of the shorter hour hand way overdone. And mine keeps excellent time. If you're put off by the cyclops take a look at the 39mm Oyster Perpetual. It has a couple of dials to choose from and can be as versatile and discreet as you please. __________________ Sub 116613 LN; GMT 116710 LN; Sinn 104R; Exp 214270; GS SBGM221; Omega AT

14 February 2016, 12:08 AM	#6
japenney "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Real Name: Josh Location: Canada Watch: undecided Posts: 4,777	The "short hands" are a non-issue on the wrist. it is way overblown. If you don't like the explorer's hands and don't want a cyclops I would go for the Oyster perpetual 39mm. Attached Images

14 February 2016, 12:17 AM	#8
Dubarzy "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Real Name: Wesley Location: Austin Watch: 214270 Posts: 630	As noted, the "short" hands are not an issue in my opinion. If you had been wearing a 36mm explorer for years and then were to switching to the 39mm, then I could see how the slightly different proportions could bother you. But if it's your first Rolex, the only time you'll think about the "short" hands is when someone mentions it on TRF. Attached Images

14 February 2016, 12:50 AM	#14
fskywalker 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Real Name: Francisco Location: San Juan, PR Watch: Is Ticking ! Posts: 25,180	Explorer 1 gets another vote! __________________ Francisco ♛ 16610 / 116264 Ω 168.022 / 2535.80.00 / 310.30.42.50.01.002 / 210.90.42.20.01.001 Zenith 02.480.405 2FA security enabled

14 February 2016, 12:04 AM	#3
maxbaris "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Real Name: Baris Location: Toronto Watch: Rolex Explorer I Posts: 477	The so called short hands never bother me. The Explorer is a fantastic watch and I highly recommend it.

14 February 2016, 12:05 AM	#4
AK1984 Banned Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Hickory Posts: 243	Hi Cant go wrong with either. Personally, I prefer Explorer Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

14 February 2016, 12:06 AM	#5
DJExplorer "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: GA Posts: 403	DJII. But with a touch of white gold fluted bezel.

14 February 2016, 12:08 AM	#7
travisb 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Travis Location: FL / NYC Watch: Yes.. Posts: 33,489	Explorer. More understated, rugged good looks, no cyclops (if you're not a fan), sportier look and feel. The OP39s are another good option as mentioned above. The difference in movements is basically date vs no date.

14 February 2016, 12:18 AM	#9
SemperFi "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Real Name: Angelo Location: Brooklyn, NY Watch: Rolex Submariner Posts: 42,164	I had the exact same dilemma which I agonized over for most of a year. I eventually went with the Explorer. The so called "short hands" issue is not an issue. I just couldn't get past the disproportionate size of the bezel on the DJII. Try them both on if you haven't done so already and then try them on again and again. The right one will make itself known to you. By the way, I've had my Explorer for two months now and it is consistently running at +1 second per day. Enjoy the hunt and let us know what you decide.

14 February 2016, 12:21 AM	#10
Danny83 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Real Name: Danny Location: Bay Area CA Watch: Yellow Gold Posts: 20,312	Dj2

14 February 2016, 12:26 AM	#11
jbenjamin1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Real Name: Jay Location: NY Metropolitan Watch: Many Posts: 741	Agreed . Short hands is a non issue and had been blown up in discussions. I have the datejust II as well stick dial and from a readability standpoint both the explorer I 39mm and datejust II are excellent. For your first watch go for the Datejust. It's nice to have a date function and IMO that cyclops is a signature Rolex feature. The movements are both solid and both offer the shock absorbers. My DJII and EXI actually run better than my ceramic subs with 3135 but there is no rhyme or reason behind that other than opinion.

14 February 2016, 12:28 AM	#12
Andy4Fingers "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Real Name: Andy Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 4	Thanks very much for all your replies, you've given me more to mull over. I've not tried them on yet so I guess my next step is heading to the AD.

14 February 2016, 12:51 AM	#15
LVSubmariner Banned Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Los Angeles Watch: Submariner 114060 Posts: 411	Explorer

14 February 2016, 02:18 AM	#16
Boothroyd 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Daniel Location: Minneapolis, MN Watch: Wilsdorf(s) Posts: 10,258	I will offer a comment as I have both watches. If I were going to have one, it would be the Explorer. The short hands "issue" does not come into play in real life, just on watch forums, IMHO. Explorer is the more versatile watch. I would not get rid of either one. And I do like the Explorer more than a 39mm OP; it has to do with lumed hour markers, the 3-6-9, the hands, the Oysterlock vs. the Oysterclasp, and the Easylink extension. I believe the Explorer is the best all-arounder. You can't really go wrong with an Explorer or a DJII. Good luck with your decision! __________________ Explorer 214270 MK I/Datejust II Black 116300/Tudor Heritage Black Bay Black 79220N

14 February 2016, 02:20 AM	#17
Boaters 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2015 Real Name: Mike Location: Pacific Northwest Watch: 116610LV 16710 SD Posts: 10,653	Explorer for me for sure

14 February 2016, 02:25 AM	#18
pinkelle21 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: california coast Watch: rolex 116300 Posts: 741	Either is a great watch, good luck😎 Sent using Pied piper compression app

14 February 2016, 02:30 AM	#19
mrchrisx69 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: San Diego Posts: 189	Datejust 2 with fluted bezel! Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

14 February 2016, 02:31 AM	#20
mrchrisx69 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: San Diego Posts: 189	Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

14 February 2016, 06:26 AM	#21
Boothroyd 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Daniel Location: Minneapolis, MN Watch: Wilsdorf(s) Posts: 10,258	I should have added, make sure you try them both on at an AD. Don't try to decide without having them on your wrist, especially if this is your first experience with Rolex. You owe it to yourself to comparison shop models. You may also find there is another Rolex model you like better once you see them in person. Good luck! __________________ Explorer 214270 MK I/Datejust II Black 116300/Tudor Heritage Black Bay Black 79220N

14 February 2016, 07:20 AM	#22
zion_rasta "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Planet Earth Watch: GMT II ceramic Posts: 1,590	If Rolex made a 42mm Explorer with a date I would buy it tomorrow instead of an IWC Mark XVIII... __________________ Sky Dweller WG 326139 GMT II 116710LN Submariner 1680 Sold - Daytona 116523; YM 116622; Datejust 16233

14 February 2016, 07:42 AM	#23
Porter "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Real Name: Carlos Location: Eivissa Watch: Rolex, Tudor.... Posts: 1,635	Explorer for sure!!! 3 6 9 forever! I love mine but in 36mm

29 July 2016, 09:12 PM	#25
PatrickJ Banned Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: England Posts: 456	Explorer 1

29 July 2016, 09:14 PM	#26
brandrea 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Brian (TBone) Location: canada Watch: es make me smile Posts: 78,089	It really comes down to whether you need or want the date function or not.

29 July 2016, 09:17 PM	#27
samson66 2024 ROLEX SUBMARINER 41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Mike Location: Downy Ocean Hon Watch: my money leaving! Posts: 13,792	Datejust II The cyclops is signature Rolex, and the magnification really helps. You'll miss having the date if you get a watch that doesn't have one IMO

29 July 2016, 09:18 PM	#28
Daytona88 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: USA Watch: 5712 Posts: 2,621	Very different watches. I strongly prefer the Explorer

29 July 2016, 09:56 PM	#29
Coffes4closers "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: NYC Posts: 326	I never thought I needed or wanted a date function on a watch, until I had one without it and realized how often I actually used it. Now it's a required pre-requisite. I'm partial to the DJII, as the explorer just never sang to me and didn't have as high-end a feel to it as a DJ/DSSD/SUB.

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