Interesting chat with fellow WIS. Is EX II the most "under the radar" Rolex?

[hoppes-no9]

Gotta agree with those that have suggested the Milgauss.

[dadonn2]

Assuming Cellini doesn't count, you'd have to go no cyclops, smooth bezel. Maybe the Leopard Daytona. :)

[Duke84]

I rotated a Speedmaster and an Explorer II (polar) for the first two years after a business partner an I started up. My business partner is observant and follows fashion, but not horology. It took him about 18 months of working together to realize that I wore a Rolex a few times a week.

That said, to those in the know, an oyster bracelet and the cyclops is a giveaway for a Rolex. You can easily spot them from a distance.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Duke84

I rotated a Speedmaster and an Explorer II (polar) for the first two years after a business partner an I started up. My business partner is observant and follows fashion, but not horology. It took him about 18 months of working together to realize that I wore a Rolex a few times a week.

That said, to those in the know, an oyster bracelet and the cyclops is a giveaway for a Rolex. You can easily spot them from a distance.

Yeah, we tend to project what we think is important on to others, but most don't notice the details of a little 40mm piece of metal on the wrist.

Last fall, a close friend was staying with our family for several days, and she mentioned her new boyfriend was getting into watches, so she was going to buy him one for Christmas. I told her I could help and asked how much she wanted to spend, and she said "Well, I'm not buying him a Rolex or anything." FWIW, I don't think she had even an idea as to how much a Rolex really costs.

After discussing some Seikos that I thought would fit her budget, I reluctantly handed her the watch off my wrist to show her my watch, and she said "No way. You wear a Rolex?" I mean, I've been wearing Rolex watches around her for years, and she's literally sitting at a table in front of me asking about watches, and she STILL didn't realize my Exp II was a Rolex until I showed her.

Wearing a Rolex doesn't make one as important as many around here think it does.

[Feh]

An Invicta looks exactly like a Submariner from 10ft away for the regular non-horology people. Up close and personal, different story.

[teo]

Milgauss non gv version is the most under radar watch. Common people on street does not know Rolex got thunderbolt hand.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Returned home last night from a business trip and while waiting for my flight noticed a gentleman in the executive lounge wearing a polar 16570. I struck up a casual conversation and he was very friendly and a little bit of a WIS. I showed him my EX II and comented he had "good taste in watches." He laughed and said some interesting things. He told me he picked the EX II because it quote: "looked nothing like a Rolex." He said, that anyone, even a non-Rolex enthusiast or owner could tell a DJ or a Submariner was a Rolex, but the EX II was indistinguishable. It was obviously important to him that the fact he was wearing a Rolex not be obvious, but for what reason, security, vainness, whatever, we did not get in to and I did not ask. It was a pleasant conversation and we went on our way.

It made me wonder a couple things, first, do you think the EX II IS the most... non-identifiyable Rolex model? And second, have you ever decided on a particular model because you felt it did NOT look like a Rolex? Just interesting things to think about on my five-hour cross country flight.

Anything with a date bubble = Rolex until proved otherwise. So, no the Exp 2 is not under the radar.

I think the OP 39 is way further under the radar: no date, therefore no bubble, no fluted bezel, no PCLs, and no bling of any kind. Even the "ROLEX" on the dial is in a relatively small font, and you have to be quite close to read it.

[fishingbear]

I agree with the OP. It is one of the many reasons the 16570 is one of my favorite references.

[breitlings]

I have to say the leopard daytona is the most under the radar rolex.

[GolfPunk]

39mm oyster perpetual I would say, then a 39mm explorer

[Verdi]

Despite having a cyclop, the Explorer 2 is not recognized as a Rolex, imo. Nobody noticed my watch as being a Rolex and I wore my Explorer 50% of the time for the last 2 years.
However, it is fair to say that maybe the Explorer 2 is not being recognized as a Rolex but it is a watch that stands out and gets noticed because of its size, especially 216570.

Somehow, an OP is screaming more Rolex to me because of the combination between size and bracelet.....close to DJ look.

I would vote for Explorer 1 as being the Rolex that attracts the least attention.
At the other extreme, a 2 tone DJ is the watch that screams Rolex the most.

[crowncollection]

Op imho


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mementomori1983]

To me the most visible telltale sign of a Rolex is the bracelet. Oyster and jubilee bracelets are giveaways. Next thing I look at is the clasp. That said, the most difficult models for me to identify would be leather strap models. The Cellini comes to mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VinnieVegas]

This is said now and then but I don't think it is. The cyclops is a dead giveaway.

Probably the most under the radar Rolex watches are the Explorer or the Oyster Perpetual.

[Han1]

Hmm i never knew the cyclops was a dead giveaway...i swear i saw some Citizen watches with a cyclops when i was a kid !

[Snake Plissken]

I'm not sure any 42mm watch should qualify as "under the radar", especially compared to some of the more traditional models.

[GMT Aviator]

I think the cyclops eye and a fluted bezel are probably the most identifiable giveaways that you're wearing a Rolex to the casual non WIS, but would agree that the Cellini line fly under the radar the most despite being Rolex watches.

[Rol604]

It's definitely got the classic tool watch look. Especially the 5 digit EXP2.

[tomchicago]

Originally Posted by Gerardus

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk