Explorer I short minute hand (214270) will ever get resale value increase?

[AF_Rob]

Originally Posted by PatrickJ

You have confirmed what I slowly started to realise. I purchased the watch because I like it. The Explorer 1 in what ever shape or form is an acquired taste and has never been as popular as a Submariner or Daytona. Your right, I need to tune out the noise. A bit like an Icom ham radio uses IF stage Digital Signal Processing to tune out the noise from neighboring stronger radio stations. But seriously thank you for your post. I do like this Explorer 1, I would not of purchased it otherwise.

I'm glad you like the watch. I can see how opinions here and the wealth of information can overload the brain, and how such information can highlight "issues" such as the hands or "bloated" case. They aren't issues, simply differences in the models.

The evolution of this model seems to have done a circle over the past 20 years, but at the same time keeping to modern proportions. I personally think Rolex has gotten right finally. However, being a smaller guy, I own the 36mm model (1989). There is an elegance to your piece with the white gold numbers and deep black of the gloss dial. At the same time, still keeping the sports DNA of the past. I would be proud to rock it.

I'm curious if your Explorer would take a set of pre-ceramic Submariner hands... That might be an idea. Have a good watchmaker take care of it, and it's a lot cheaper than the alternative.

[tomchicago]

Yes

[jbenjamin1]

When I did own my 214270 (which is a reference I would like to re-acquire), I never noticed the hands "issue" until I went on this forum. Really never bothered me...

Both 21420's are a beaut but the lume in the 3,6,9 is very nice so I would take that over the older reference if push came to shove. Either one is a fantastic watch to own an enjoy.

[nobbylon]

Not wishing to offend anyone with later Explorer I's but Rolex lost me on them the minute they put shiny 3, 6 and 9 on a gloss dial. I never even noticed the short hands, it was always the glitz that put me off. The new one with full lume and a satin/matt dial has finally nailed it and for me it is the watch it should always have been.
As I've said before, it's a personal thing and some like the dressier look of the shiny 3,6,9 variant than the old more basic look. When supply gets better I will buy the new one for times when I want to wear smaller than my DeepSea.

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by AF_Rob

I'm glad you like the watch. I can see how opinions here and the wealth of information can overload the brain, and how such information can highlight "issues" such as the hands or "bloated" case. They aren't issues, simply differences in the models.

The evolution of this model seems to have done a circle over the past 20 years, but at the same time keeping to modern proportions. I personally think Rolex has gotten right finally. However, being a smaller guy, I own the 36mm model (1989). There is an elegance to your piece with the white gold numbers and deep black of the gloss dial. At the same time, still keeping the sports DNA of the past. I would be proud to rock it.

I'm curious if your Explorer would take a set of pre-ceramic Submariner hands... That might be an idea. Have a good watchmaker take care of it, and it's a lot cheaper than the alternative.

Good point.

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by jbenjamin1

When I did own my 214270 (which is a reference I would like to re-acquire), I never noticed the hands "issue" until I went on this forum. Really never bothered me...

Both 21420's are a beaut but the lume in the 3,6,9 is very nice so I would take that over the older reference if push came to shove. Either one is a fantastic watch to own an enjoy.

Agreed the lume is nice so are the gold markers. The hands are a bit short but nothing to be concerned about from my personal view. I never noticed the short hands till it was highlighted. If I ever decided to sell this one for a different model I would make a slight loss. Nothing to drastic as I got £500 off retail from buying from a good pre owned dealer box and papers. Thank god I didn't buy new from an AD then I would of taken a big hit. I think a Submariner or a Daytona are very safe buys new from AD at full list.

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by nobbylon

Not wishing to offend anyone with later Explorer I's but Rolex lost me on them the minute they put shiny 3, 6 and 9 on a gloss dial. I never even noticed the short hands, it was always the glitz that put me off. The new one with full lume and a satin/matt dial has finally nailed it and for me it is the watch it should always have been.
As I've said before, it's a personal thing and some like the dressier look of the shiny 3,6,9 variant than the old more basic look. When supply gets better I will buy the new one for times when I want to wear smaller than my DeepSea.

I didn't realise the new Explorer 1, 39mm, MK 2 has a matt dial? So it has reverted from a dress/sport watch to a smaller elegant case sports watch.

If I had the money I would have a Explorer 1, 1016. An Explorer 1, 39mm mk1 & 2, Day Date 40 and a Submariner. But I do not have that money LOL

[PaulChronometer]

Originally Posted by PatrickJ

I didn't realise the new Explorer 1, 39mm, MK 2 has a matt dial? So it has reverted from a dress/sport watch to a smaller elegant case sports watch.

If I had the money I would have a Explorer 1, 1016. An Explorer 1, 39mm mk1 & 2, Day Date 40 and a Submariner. But I do not have that money LOL

I don't think they changed the dial from gloss to matte, never read about it anywhere. To me the dial is just black, no idea if it is gloss or not..

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by PaulChronometer

I don't think they changed the dial from gloss to matte, never read about it anywhere. To me the dial is just black, no idea if it is gloss or not..

I read someplace the dial on the Mk2 is matt and duller. I am probably wrong. On the Mk1 the dial is glossy and shiny. Does anyone here know?

[F1polesitter]

Pretty sure it's the same dial. The effect of it being matt and duller may be just the effect of the lumed numerals.

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by padi56

Very very very doubtful only Explorer to be a bit collectible is the 1016 vintage ones.

Greetings from 2E0PPJ, just seen your call sign. Your a British HAM like me.

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by fisherman79

What's the use of having a watch with imperfections which has a very very small chance of being collectible within some decades when you can buy a perfect 2016 model?

The 2016 is not perfect. The hands are improved and better. The 2010 hands are not correct but still work, they are slightly short. Incorrect nevertheless.

The lume 3,6,9 is ok. However it makes the dial dull. The white gold 3,6,9 gives life and sparkle to the dial, it makes it pop. If you want a perfect explorer perhaps the 2023 Explorer will have similar fonts to the original, the word Explorer will be put back in the correct place and the white gold edging markers will be removed. Then it will be true to the original.

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

If sellers think they can make up some new "special" craze - like stick 2 service dials - then it will increase until everyone catches on. I expect prices will normalize from the current low low low price right now.

Another collect able exp 1 had strange numerals - the blackout model from the 1990s. Shorter production run though.

Agreed. If people want to stick with the MK1 now they have it, it should be kept original.

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by Jake B

Bloated? Really? I'm fairly confident that most would say "proportionally correct".

Listen, it's always seemed quite obvious that they increased the dial size substantially for the 39mm update and kept using the same hands that they already had in stock from the 36mm. Now, they've updated the hands by increasing their size to match the larger dial of the 39mm model.

Would you agree then that it's fair to say that by your logic, the 36mm had "bloated" hands for all those years, and should have also had much shorter hands?

To be fair the hands are much better on the 2016 model. The short hands are a quirk of the 2010 model.

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by the_natural

This is my favorite post on the topic by far. Thanks for an articulate and intelligent summation on this semi-nonsensical matter, F1polesitter.

I too have seen mk1 and 2 side by side. For me the white gold 3,6,9 made the dial shine and pop. The 2016 is a nice watch but for me the lume 3,6,9 made the dial very dull.

A submariner no date is a better sports option. If you are looking for a very low key "CLASSIC SPORTS" the 2016 is perfect.

They are some great pre owned mk1 deals on our forum and Chrono 24. Recent clean examples of the mk1 have sold between £3,300 - £3,500.

I purchased my mk1 in June for £3,800 from an Established uk dealer. 2014 model. Buy one after June 2013 so you get the free RSC additional warranty for one extra year. Thank good I did not pay full retail.

For me I expect to loose some value 10 to 15%. I have no desire to sell or make money on my watch. However, no one wants to loose silly money.

The three MK1s I had seen sold between the £3,300 - £3,500 range had done so within a month of being up for sale. Mind you watch sales can be strange other Explorers take longer to sell. Then some submariners sell fast and some good ones through bad luck on our forum take longer.

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by Jack T

No one's Rolex will appreciate in resale value until Rolex starts increasing the retail prices of new watches.

Thankfully a price increase is due in the UK anytime soon.

[Boothroyd]

Originally Posted by F1polesitter

Pretty sure it's the same dial. The effect of it being matt and duller may be just the effect of the lumed numerals.

I spent time with the new 214270 today and closely compared to my 2010 model. The dial color (matte black) is precisely the same on both models.