Torn- Sub ND vs. Explorer I (39mm)

[Phill (UK)]

Explorer 39mm, just because...

[lpastor]

another vote for the sub nd

[Aspirin]

Btw SubND and Expl 39mm, it's a hard decision. well... I think I vote for Sub ND.

[geepee]

Same dilemma.

Trying to cover all bases, I purchased a new NON-COSC Submariner from an AD last April with the intent of keeping it in the box awaiting the release of the Explorer 39mm, looking at it in person and then deciding which to ultimately own. I too thought that the new Explorer I would answer all of my watch desires.

When I located one at Tourneau in NYC, I ran down there with my Sub in its green box and compared them side-by-side. The clerk also took out a 36mm Explorer for reference.

To my dismay, I was sadly dissapointed, and for one reason only. The face of the Sub is black. The face of the 36mm Explorer is black. The face of the 39mm is NOT. It is a matte finished charcoal. Why Rolex made this choice, I haven't a clue but it detracts from the timeless look and statement that I feel made the Explorer I a classic, all purpose watch. Stealth is ok, but the 39mm just looked boring to me. So, whereas the 39mm has the better spring, better bracelet and clean simple no-bubble appearance, it just left me feeling flat and not worthy of my $5,000 plus. The Sub had more elegance.

Anyway, that observation persuaded me to keep the Sub.

Hope this helps.

[synth19]

Thanks all for the comments and opinions. One thing I appreciate about this forum is the variety of opinions and perspectives. I'm hoping to finally get to an AD either today or tomorrow to see these watches in person. One crazy idea came to mind, purchase the explorer which is arguably a more versatile watch (dress and sport) and then get a secondary used watch mostly for "sport," such as an Omega Planet Ocean. Wish I could own two Rolex's, but that's not going to happen. Although most of you guys and even Rolex feel a sub can be worn with ANYTHING, I personally feel that the Explorer is suited more for multiple purposes....

[acce1999]

When I was in your situation I picked the Explorer, but at that time there was a bigger difference in size; 36 vs 40 mm.

Most likely I would pick the Explorer once again. It is my all time favourite.

Best,

A

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by synth19

I personally feel that the Explorer is suited more for multiple purposes....

This is how I felt, and still do.







The 214270 is bolder than my 14270, of course.

Best,

A

[mjrennie]

Sub ND. No contest.

[jedinite]

Sub!!

[hh605]

sub nd all the way!

[synth19]

Update: I ended up going to an AD last week. Hoped a deal could be worked out, but they were not willing to do anything less then retail + tax. I saw the 36mm explorer in person, 39mm, and also a sub (with date). I LOVED the 39mm the best and really liked how it felt on my wrist. The 36mm seemed a bit too small for me. With the updates on the new Explorer, I was concerned about he hour hand being "too short," the matte black being "not dark enough" etc. But I honestly didn't feel these were disadvantages to the watch when I saw it in person. Anyways, found a local selling a this watch about a month old. Picking up later today... :) Thanks all again for your feedback. You can read as many reviews as possible, but it really comes down to the experience in person (IMHO).

[theibis]

I think the sub can be worn with a suit without a problem.

[aleiberman]

Wow...this is not going to help you with your decision at all. It's amazing how split everyone's opinions are here. Most of the time it seems heavily favored.

I'm in favor of the Sub ND without the COSC.

[GradyPhilpott]

Here's my take on the 214270, which I saw and handled for the first time today.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showpost....16&postcount=5

Either watch would be a great choice and I think that because you are new to Rolex you won't be encumbered with many of the prejudices that we owners of the 114270 and others feel toward the new edition.

You can't go wrong with either choice, but I feel that unless you need the depth rating and the elapsed-time bezel, the 214270 would be a more flexible watch for different settings than the 14060M would be.

Of course, there a gillion others who feel differently and the choice is entirely yours.

If the horology gods continue to smile on me, I intend to add a 14060M to my collection of two someday in the not too distant future.

Happy hunting.

[GradyPhilpott]

I see now that I was too late posting, but I think you made an excellent choice that you will not regret.

Congratulations!

[BB83]

Sub ND

Oops I'm too late too

Enjoy your new watch!

[DT14]

congrats! and way to make up your own mind and go with what is right for you!

[hennabav]

Gotta go with the ND Sub!!! You get heritage and style with that one!!

[wokafu]

Vote for SUB ND

[synth19]

Posted this in the gallery section, but here is a quick shot I took of my new explorer I picked up earlier today. Thanks again all for the help and comments.


Explorer 39mm (214270) by synth19, on Flickr

[Riseman Weather]

Originally Posted by synth19

Hello, new to the site and looking at my first Rolex. It's really come down to two watches. I'm looking at late model pre-owned:

1. Submariner ND (for some reason, the ND looks cleaner to me).
2. Explorer 214270 (39mm version)

Although I've read tons of threads that Rolex's will go with anything, the sub still seems a bit sporty with the rotating bezel. I need something versatile- watch I can wear with a suit, sweater, or jeans.

I've also seen various threads comparing both, but seems as if the overwhelming favorite is the sub. Anyone else in the same predicament, and if you chose the exploer over the sub- why?

Looking forward to your thoughts. Cheers,

You pretty much described why the Rolex Explorer is the better watch for you.

Some people forget that the Rolex Explorer pre-dates the Rolex Submariner, and it was also one of the first watches that one of the first people who climbed Mount Everest wore.

So, the Rolex Explorer can handle you using it for work, play, and casual use too.

[synth19]

^ agreed! It's been a month or so since I purchased the explorer. LOVE it. It's unbelievably comfortable, unassuming, simple...yet elegant. Easy link I figured out only a few weeks ago, what a great idea! :D

[Minutehand]

I would choose Sub ND all the way!
But you have to choose what you like - suggest you put both on your wrist for a couple of minutes and see which one shouts loudest.

Good thing is, whichever you choose, you will have a great watch!

[landroverking]

Sub !!!!!!

[MikeJaye]

I think you def made the right choice picking the Explorer I.

Not sure why anyone would choose the sub over the explorer. It's iconic but it gets nowhere near the Exp I in terms of quality. The sub bracelet is so rattly which the non solid end links do it no favours, also the clasp is a proven quantity but it just feels (and looks) so cheap.

If you stuck the Exp I strap and clasp on the sub ND then yes, but in it's current package the Exp I is leaps and bounds better.

[cafejenna]

I would vote for Explorer I 39 MM

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Well, the bracelet featured on the Sub ND is hideously outdated - yes, it might be functional, but it feels like it's been taken off a £100 throwaway. The bracelet on my Seiko Monster feels nicer on the wrist than the Sub ND's one. You could live with it on a throwaway, but for a £3500 watch, you expect something that feels good as well as performs well. The bracelet on the Explorer is essentially identical to the GMT IIc's band and clasp, bar the fact it's fully brushed - perfectly weighted, practical and beautifully engineered. As you're essentially paying the same money for both the Sub and the Explorer, I'd take the Explorer - it's the logical choice.

While I agree with all you say, I still would have the Sub ND over the Explorer. Far more masculine and fitting the way I live, dress and feel. The sub just does it for me, whereas the Explorer does not.

[volkersports]

I bought my Sub ND in 2007 and wear it for every occasion except for suit and tie. Then I don a 1988 Datejust 16013. It certainly looks dressy, however, these days wearing gold (even though there isn't that much in a TT Datejust) seems a bit over the top. So, I bought the new Explorer for more dressy wear. Even though it is only 1mm smaller than the sub, the smooth bezel makes it appear even smaller and more right for dress up. I'll have the sub forever, but it's nice to be fortunate enough to change up once in a while. I bought my first Rolex in 1968 (an Oysterdate) and I probably haven't bought my last one.

[hatidua]

I think you made the right decision. I own both, and find the Sub to be so ubiquitous as to be mundane: every frat boy at every university has one...and they draw undo attention. I lusted after a Sub and it was my first Rolex, then I bought a Sea-Dweller. Then, more than 30 years after my first Rolex, I finally bought an Explorer.

Then again, you may eventually own them both....

[nowzen]

I saw a beautiful Ex 1 in the shop last week, Y series - would that be 38mm?