ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
28 April 2012, 11:54 PM | #31 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Steve
Location: Burbank, CA
Watch: 214270 Mark II
Posts: 4,121
|
Even Brad Pitt is a fan of the Explorer I...
|
29 April 2012, 01:09 AM | #32 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: Max
Location: Toronto
Watch: Exp 1, DJ Tuxedo
Posts: 2,472
|
I have the 36mm and I think it is a classic. Wears with suits and with jeans and looks great both ways. I tried on the 39mm and it didn't look right to me on my wrist (even though all my other watches are 39mm or bigger). Try it on and see if it is right for you.
|
29 April 2012, 01:33 AM | #33 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London
Posts: 1,152
|
I agree it's underrated, and would also be the one I'd prefer out of Exp 1 and Exp 2.
|
29 April 2012, 06:29 AM | #34 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: northern CA USA
Watch: 114270 Explorer
Posts: 479
|
Maxtor, what size wrists do you have?
chris333, is that the 39mm Explorer I in your picture? Thanks, John |
29 April 2012, 06:39 AM | #35 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N/A
Posts: 167
|
|
29 April 2012, 06:47 AM | #36 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Real Name: Richard Kloc
Location: New York
Watch: Deepsea D-Blue
Posts: 250
|
In general models without a date aren't as sought after, I myself wouldn't buy a watch without a date for practical reasons, I check the date on my watch quite frequently. I also think the cyclops is a Rolex icon. Just be aware the ExpI won't hold it's value as well as other Rolex models given it's lack of interest. I think Rolex did help the model by upping the size but I suspect it will still be a slow seller, especially compared to the improvements made to the new Explorer II.
|
29 April 2012, 07:44 AM | #37 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: northern CA USA
Watch: 114270 Explorer
Posts: 479
|
Thanks chris333 -- I should have known from the white numerals!
w4rmk -- you're probably right. I guess I was thinking that because the 36mm Explorer I can be had for a pretty reasonable price today that it may be a 'good value'. Where I agree though is that it was replaced by a watch that is almost the same but a little bigger (39mm). This is unlike other very desirable Rolexes, such as the 16600 Sea Dweller, the 14060M no-date, and 16610LV in that each of these watches was replaced by a watch that is VERY different -- and each of them are also around 39-40mm, which works for most people today. John |
29 April 2012, 07:47 AM | #38 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Real Name: Dennis
Location: L.I./N.Y.
Watch: SUBMARINER 14060M
Posts: 2,769
|
I prefer the Explorer I to the II.
_______________________ XLVI Super Bowl Champs NY Giants |
29 April 2012, 09:01 AM | #39 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Real Name: Richard Kloc
Location: New York
Watch: Deepsea D-Blue
Posts: 250
|
Both the original Explorer I and II are probably the best value in a used sport Rolex right now because of the excitement around the updated versions. I took advantage of the drop in prices to pick up my used ExpII last month.
Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.