39mm Exp, or Another ??

[jaykay69]

Hey guys, my first post on the forum! I am looking to buy my first ever Rolex. I was initially struck by the simplicity and elegance of the classic Air-King. However, on trying this model on, it appeared far too small for my wrist (not that I have particularly large wrists, they are probably below average, but more likely because I am 24 and have been indoctrinated by the constant barrage of media stating 'bigger is better' i.e. My friends wear Breitlings). So the Air-King is a non-starter for me and I am not a huge fan of the other Rolex models...until I met the Explorer! Wow - understated timeless beauty! I want my first watch to be something I can keep for life and hopefully pass on to a son one day...and the Explorer fits the bill!

I now need all of your help with the age-old question: which model? I randomly walked into a local AD the other month having never tried on a true luxury watch. I had a chat with the AD about my preferences and he narrowed it down to 2 options: Omega Speedmaster (because of it's timeless style and the fact I know Neil Armstrong - seriously) and the new Explorer (39mm because I mentioned the Air-King was too small), which he proceeded to retrieve from the stock room...the first one in London apparently! I was absolutely mesmerised! However, I resisted the temptation (for now) in order to research the model thoroughly...I then stumbled across this website/thread.

I would be very grateful if you could help with answering the following questions:

1) Thoughts on the Omega Speedmaster v Explorer?
2) Why is the Explorer 1016 known as the definitive model (in light of the critique applied to the 214270 in this thread, what does the 1016 have that makes it the best E ever?).
3) Will the Explorer 39mm hold it's value over the long-term (I have been very surprised to see how well older models have retained value)?
4) How often is a service required? What is the average cost?
5) Does the Explorer have optional bezels e.g. fluted, engine-turned, etc?
6) Silly question - does size matter? I appreciate the design flaws in the new E but will I ever grow accustomed to the 36mm dial on the older models?

Thanks for your assistance!

[Tools]

Pulled from the tail of an older post.......

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by jaykay69

Hey guys, my first post on the forum! I am looking to buy my first ever Rolex. I was initially struck by the simplicity and elegance of the classic Air-King. However, on trying this model on, it appeared far too small for my wrist (not that I have particularly large wrists, they are probably below average, but more likely because I am 24 and have been indoctrinated by the constant barrage of media stating 'bigger is better' i.e. My friends wear Breitlings). So the Air-King is a non-starter for me and I am not a huge fan of the other Rolex models...until I met the Explorer! Wow - understated timeless beauty! I want my first watch to be something I can keep for life and hopefully pass on to a son one day...and the Explorer fits the bill!

I now need all of your help with the age-old question: which model? I randomly walked into a local AD the other month having never tried on a true luxury watch. I had a chat with the AD about my preferences and he narrowed it down to 2 options: Omega Speedmaster (because of it's timeless style and the fact I know Neil Armstrong - seriously) and the new Explorer (39mm because I mentioned the Air-King was too small), which he proceeded to retrieve from the stock room...the first one in London apparently! I was absolutely mesmerised! However, I resisted the temptation (for now) in order to research the model thoroughly...I then stumbled across this website/thread.

I would be very grateful if you could help with answering the following questions:

1) Thoughts on the Omega Speedmaster v Explorer?
2) Why is the Explorer 1016 known as the definitive model (in light of the critique applied to the 214270 in this thread, what does the 1016 have that makes it the best E ever?).
3) Will the Explorer 39mm hold it's value over the long-term (I have been very surprised to see how well older models have retained value)?
4) How often is a service required? What is the average cost?
5) Does the Explorer have optional bezels e.g. fluted, engine-turned, etc?
6) Silly question - does size matter? I appreciate the design flaws in the new E but will I ever grow accustomed to the 36mm dial on the older models?

Thanks for your assistance!

Welcome to the forum, great first post

In answer to your questions:

1) Hard to compare really, apart from on the history side of things. Both were instrumental during two of the greatest moments of human endeavour, it's down to personal opinion as to what is more important. If you want direct lineage to the original models, the Speedmaster Pro is probably more true to the original. The Explorer retains the character of the original, but is very much a brand new watch, if you follow me.

2) The 1016 is known as the definitive model simply because that was the model worn up the expedition of Everest. If we're talking in terms of features, then the 214270 is better as it has had the benefit of 50 years of advance in terms of watchmaking, but the 1016 has it in terms of heritage and history.

3) It's impossible to say for sure, but I would believe so.

4) Rolex recommends every 5-7 years - current costs are just under the £300 mark in the UK, and that includes complete case and bracelet refurbishment, the complete dissassembly, cleaning, reassembly and adjustment of the movement: they really do come back looking as good as new.

5) No - what you see is what you get. The only non-date options with additional dials and bezels are the Air King and the marginally larger 36mm Oyster Perpetual.

6) You have to pick a size that looks and feels right on your wrist. For me, the Explorer feels so much nicer in the 39mm size, and it has a niche within the range again - the reason why they increased the size is that fact the 36mm Oyster Perpetual exist. Why pay more for an Explorer when you can get essentially the same watch with a slightly different dial, with a much improved bracelet, and a lower price? If you ask me, the 214270 is empirically a superior watch to the 114270

Hope this helps, and if you have any further questions, feel free to drop me a line

[oo7]

39mm Exp1 is not impressive in person. Poor pricing too ($6750 CDN! WTF!). Get a GREAT price adjustment on a #116000 (very underrated low-pro Rolex) or find a new #14060M if any are left.

[Badandy]

Originally Posted by oo7

39mm Exp1 is not impressive in person. Poor pricing too ($6750 CDN! WTF!). Get a GREAT price adjustment on a #116000 (very underrated low-pro Rolex) or find a new #14060M if any are left.

I find it very impressive in person. Loved it!

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by Badandy

I find it very impressive in person. Loved it!

Agreed, cracking watch - it has some real individuality again

[oo7]

Naaaah.... Cermaic faces and blue lume are nice but the Omega Railmaster is the watch to get if you want that classic understated casual look. All Rolex had to do was give the old one a proper 38mm case (+ crown) and it would have worked.... 20 years sooner too.

[Badandy]

I respectfully disagree, glad they went with the size they did. I tried it on last week at a local AD and loved it. They also had the 36mm and I much preferred the 39.

[adam78]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Welcome to the forum, great first post

2) The 1016 is known as the definitive model simply because that was the model worn up the expedition of Everest. If we're talking in terms of features, then the 214270 is better as it has had the benefit of 50 years of advance in terms of watchmaking, but the 1016 has it in terms of heritage and history.

Actually, if we're talking about the 1953 expedition, no Explorer, as such, was worn, but it certainly was inspired by the expedition, and the first Explorer (not counting the rare early '40s Oyster "boy's" sized watch) was issued later that year (the ref. 6350).

The 1016 was not introduced until around 1959, and was the first to contain the advanced 15XX caliber movement (1530, soonafter the 1560, and finally 1570).

The real reason that the 1016 is so iconic is that it lasted in the Rolex lineup for over 30 years and is so darned gorgeous. Much moreso IMHO than the models which followed.

Here is one of mine, a gilt dial version from 1966:

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by adam78

Actually, if we're talking about the 1953 expedition, no Explorer, as such, was worn, but it certainly was inspired by the expedition, and the first Explorer (not counting the rare early '40s Oyster "boy's" sized watch) was issued later that year (the ref. 6350).

The 1016 was not introduced until around 1959, and was the first to contain the advanced 15XX caliber movement (1530, soonafter the 1560, and finally 1570).

The real reason that the 1016 is so iconic is that it lasted in the Rolex lineup for over 30 years and is so darned gorgeous. Much moreso IMHO than the models which followed.

Here is one of mine, a gilt dial version from 1966:

Thankyou for the clarification