Explorer I or Air-King?

[Mephist]

So this is the Explorer I


Source: http://www.groupwatches.com/images/u...er-14243-1.jpg

and this is the Air-King


Source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Rwa8RoFO2b...2BAir-King.jpg

Other then the size are not these two more or less the same? In my opinion the Explorer looks more like an Air-King II then an Explorer II

Besides this you also got the Oyster Perpetual watch, that also more or less looks just the same as an Air-King other then the size.

So what is the difference of these watches other then the dial hands and size? Do they not all got the same functions? Could they not all just be Air-King with different dials and hands, like the datejust, and could not the watches with a larger size just be Air-King II, just like the Datejust II?

I miss more 36-40mm watches from Rolex that are just plain elegant watches with a beautiful dial that shows the time. No date function, day function, GMT functions, rotating bezels and so on. Just the time like those on the photos over does.

I do not know why but I just started wondering and thinking about this.

[gmtm2]

no doubt: explorer!!!!

[j.alex]

Explorer, for sure!

[Dr. Robert]

another vote for the explorer.....but the 36mm version.

[G Francis]

Explorer.

[77T]

Originally Posted by gmtm2

no doubt: explorer!!!!

Originally Posted by j.alex

Explorer, for sure!

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

another vote for the explorer.....but the 36mm version.

Originally Posted by G Francis

Explorer.

Me five!

[mikeinalexandria]

Explorer.

Air Kings are nice. My dad had one from the fifties with the folded link bracelet. I had a 1991 Slate dial that Rolex updated with a blue dial. It was not a COSC watch, but kept good time, a 14000 reference. The new Air Kngs are COSC, but I don't like the rounded bezel. It looks weird, not Air King like. I supposed that and the gorgeous matte black dial are what sold me on the new Explorer I. The new easy link clasp is great too. I just think the Explorer I looks more elegant and better made than new design Air Kngs. Sometimes, Imdo wish I had kept my old one... Traded for a lovely black bezel GMT II.

[Brushpup]

Explorer 36 MM all the way. Not knocking the AK, but the Explorer wins hands down.

[Ditch]

36mm Explorer
39mm Explorer

[McLovin]

36 mm OP or 39 mm Expl. 1

[tomchicago]

39mm explorer I is an awesome watch. Try it on a few times before you decide.

[Watchflair]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmtm2
no doubt: explorer!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by j.alex
Explorer, for sure!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Robert
another vote for the explorer.....but the 36mm version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G Francis
Explorer.

EXPLORER
No question about it. It's a classic and timeless Rolex. It's a staple piece.
Me five!
__________________

[Jake B]

The explorer, right now, can be had at very reasonable prices, 2nd hand, in 36mm classic version. GET IT. It's a classic, and that particular AK was made specifcally to look like the EXP in negative colours...There's a reason for that. The EXP is a true classic that continues to rise in values, monetary, intrinsic, and contracted...the AK will always be the entry level piece.

[zwatch]

If fund are tight, the air king is a great starter Rolex. If the oyster bracelet the 34mm vs 36mm is not that noticeable. See what is more comfortable on your wrist.

[Gerardus]

Explorer, no doubt

[77T]

At the 7th inning stretch...

Explorer 13
Air-King 1

[Time2time]

Explorer I 39mm for sure.

[acce1999]

I own/have owned both of the models in the pictures. Yes, they are basically "the same" watch, in medium size, and without a date... But having good experience from them both I can tell that the difference is there to be noticed, and eventhought differencies seems small ... they are not ...

* Legibility: The AK (as well as the OP or any Rolex with thin and small stick hands) are pretty much useless in low light conditions. The Explorer is dramatically easier to read. I even had the hands replaced on my 114200 with hands from the DJ to improve legibility...

* Size: The 114270 (as well as the 14270) is exactly 35 mm across the bezel, and the 114200 AK is exactly 34 mm. The dial is 30 mm vs 29 mm. This is noticable. But what is more noticable is the 3 mm difference in lug to lug lenght, as is the wider lugs. I sold my 114200 for this reason. This is where my personal line and feeling of size goes: Lug to lug length. (The bezel diameter on my DJ 16200 is 34,5 mm ... so the difference is really minute between the three ... but noticable.)

* Bracelet: 114200 has the new massive Oyster bracelet. Quite hefty compared to the 114270. A noticable difference in feeling.

* Look (and this is my personal opinion, obviously): Sporty Explorer vs elegant AK (with a sporty touch thanks to the 3-6-9 dial). If the 116000 OP was available with a white 3-6-9 dial and broader stick hands from the current DJ line, I would by one immediately, since it would be such a perfect dressy match to my Explorer. (And that was how I felt when I saw the 114200 with the white 3-6-9 dial... I got one as soon as the AD got it.)

Here they are (old pictures; sold the AK in 2009, I think) (There is a distance between them which increases the percieved difference in size in the photo):






With hands from a DJ for slightly improved legibility:



As it came (why those skinny and small hands???):



Gone, but not forgotten:



(The Explorer stays...)

Best,

A

[StuartM1970]

1.

[joe100]

Both are great. The AK and the Explorer are extremely similar except the size. For the guy who said it's entry level and nothing more, ignore that. A Rolex is still a Rolex

[Art 1]

X1.

[NYMike]

They are the same. Buy what you like. There is no difference except color in the 36mm sizes. If you like 39 go explorer if 36 and white face go AK. I don't see why our opinions matter - you have to wear it.

[Rocco22]

Both great watches both very similar,just depends on what you like and which dial color you want more.

[Rags]

ExplorerI wins in my book..

[impalass]

Originally Posted by rags

exploreri wins in my book..

x2

[jolimont]

Originally Posted by Mephist

So what is the difference of these watches other then the dial hands and size? Do they not all got the same functions? Could they not all just be Air-King with different dials and hands, like the datejust, and could not the watches with a larger size just be Air-King II, just like the Datejust II?

.

I've actually wondered the exact same thing, they both look strikingly similar

[BillyBlasphemy]

Vote: Explorer 1
I personally have the 39mm and love it.

Watches are about personal preference, choose what suits you!

I am a sucker for history and I love the Explorer's heritage and sleak clean lines.

[nauticajoe]

Exp for me.

[Mephist]

I am not thinking of buying any of these, at least not at the moment. I was more wondering why could they not all (The Explorer I, the Oyster perpetual and Air-King) just be Air-King (or Explorer I for that matter) with different dials and hands and straps/bracelet, like the datejust, and could not the watches with a larger size just be Air-King II, just like the Datejust II?

The Explorer I and the Explorer II got less in common then an Explorer I and Air-King in my opinion.

I also wish Rolex made more 36-40mm watches that are just plain elegant watches with a beautiful dial that shows the time. No date function, day function, GMT functions, rotating bezels and so on. Just the time like the Explorer I and Air-King does.

acce1999 thanks nice pictures and great info. It got some differences, but in my opinion still not so much that it could not just be an Air King I and Air King II. Or it could be Air-King I II and III. Where Air King I was 34mm Air King II was 36mm (Oyster Perpetual) and Air King III was 39mm (The Explorer I)

As I also said I do not know why but I just started wondering and thinking about this.

[Ditch]

At the risk of controversy: watches get bigger because people are, on average, getting fatter.