ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

ahoffman · 11 March 2014, 05:55 AM

Hello All,

First post here. Narrowed it down to these two for my first Rolex. New versions of both models are too big for my wrist. I am thinking Explorer as they are somewhat off the grid compared to subs. Thoughts?

SohAIS · 11 March 2014, 06:08 AM

If this is going to be your only Rolex i would get the Sub first. Classic and can never go wrong with the Sub.

eeh100773 · 11 March 2014, 06:21 AM

Sub.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cc1966 · 11 March 2014, 06:22 AM

Sub first...rest of collection later.

tkerrmd · 11 March 2014, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sohail

If this is going to be your only Rolex i would get the Sub first. Classic and can never go wrong with the Sub.

this

Armyguy03 · 11 March 2014, 06:27 AM

Well, I can't believe I'm saying this. However, being that I just got my EXPII, and own a Sub (16610)...I say get a POLAR EXPII AND DON'T LOOK BACK!!!!!

ahoffman · 11 March 2014, 06:48 AM

Seems like everyone has a sub. Why is that? Is it "better" or just "classic" ?

Cc1966 · 11 March 2014, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahoffman

Seems like everyone has a sub. Why is that? Is it "better" or just "classic" ?

In a way "Yes" to both. "Better" is very subjective, but it is a classic in most eyes. Best bet is to try some Rolexes on and see which one "sings" to you mate. I sure don't want to bias you if you really don't want the Sub...

Chris B · 11 March 2014, 06:56 AM

Obviously personal choice but the 16570 is an excellent watch &
pre-owned represents great value at the moment

I really miss mine

cop414 · 11 March 2014, 07:24 AM

I'd go with the classic Sub for your first.

Welcome to TRF, great bunch here!

subtona · 11 March 2014, 07:39 AM

They are my two favorite choices & complement each other exceptionally well...cant go wrong with either.

Which complication do you think you would find more useful?

ahoffman · 11 March 2014, 10:21 AM

Actually am now considering GMT-II as well. (16710). Of these 3 5-digit watches, which one has the lower profile- all 40mm, but do any of them wear smaller due to case thickness, etc?

Also, is there a tutorial on serial numbers (F vs. U etc)?

Thanks. Tremendously helpful forum !

14060m · 11 March 2014, 10:33 AM

Go subc all the way to start

Roller07 · 11 March 2014, 12:07 PM

Welcome. I say go for the 16610.

Armyguy03 · 11 March 2014, 12:23 PM

Regarding Profile,

To me, they all wear the same in terms of profile. If you want a stealthier Rolex, go Polar. The GMT is a great choice if you want the option to switch bezel inserts (Pepsi, Coke, Noir). You can't go wrong with a Sub either. Aim for securing one with lug holes so you can swap bracelets for NATOs for a fresh look.

Presa canary · 11 March 2014, 12:45 PM

16570

RiskPro · 11 March 2014, 12:53 PM

Sub...I do want an explorer though.

Explorador · 11 March 2014, 05:18 PM

The exII is the most undercover of all 3, due to the missing shiny dents of the bezel. All 3 are excellent timepieces anyway. Milestones, I would say. To me, the gmt master II 16710 has something of both: the side optic and the shiny, rotating dented bezel of the sub, and the additional 24hr red hand of the exII, plus the more elegant twin lock crown.

Der Meister · 11 March 2014, 06:54 PM

Sub,

hknslmz · 11 March 2014, 07:31 PM

You know what,
I had 16610 and 14060M. I liked them both so much..But as you already know there are so many around. Then I sold both, and now I have 16570 black. I am happier with my exp ii..

Racerdj · 11 March 2014, 08:31 PM

Sub first then the Explorer and others next.

Rolexfan_18 · 11 March 2014, 08:32 PM

I own a GMTIIc (first one) and Expy II polar (16570) but I love wearing the Expy II everyday fits snug on my small wrist.

capote · 11 March 2014, 08:35 PM

The Submariner is iconic, but you see it everwhere, the Exp2 flies under the radar and have a more useful complication for me.

Bangel · 11 March 2014, 10:21 PM

No wrong choice.

If relative "rarity" is important to you, then I think the Explorer II edges out in front.

This is kind of backed up by the number of responses advocating the sub - which would be my personal choice too!

seand04 · 12 March 2014, 12:44 AM

I was deciding between the 16710 GMT or the older Polar 16570, and went with the Polar for a lot of reasons. It looks great, it still has the two time zones, the white face makes it a bit dressier w a suit if you do not have a dress watch, and it is a bit more discreet, as it doesn't scream Rolex at everyone if you are traveling or doing something and do not want to be splashy. I will also add that my next Rolex will be the 16710 but I am happy I went with Polar for now.

polarinda · 12 March 2014, 02:00 AM

Sooner or later you will own a sub a gmt and a exp ii. So why fight it. :)

eeh100773 · 12 March 2014, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polarinda

Sooner or later you will own a sub a gmt and a exp ii. So why fight it. :)

Best post I've read in a long time...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

stockae92 · 12 March 2014, 06:27 AM

Out of the 3, I found polar Exp II to be a very good value, if you can live without the timing bezel and 3rd timezone, which most of us don't.

The Exp II is low profile, very comfortable, it fly under the radar pretty well, not a lot of Rolex(es) has white dial

Ichaice · 12 March 2014, 06:49 AM

I've had the Sub date previously and now have the Explorer II with a black dial. I like the Explorer a lot more than I ever liked the Sub. I'm not a big fan of the Cyclops but it feels right on the Explorer. I find it very comfortable as well and the red hand against the black dial is rather lovely to look at.

mjclark32 · 12 March 2014, 08:21 AM

Sub for me

11 March 2014, 05:55 AM	#1
ahoffman Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Boston Posts: 26	Sub (16610) vs. Explorer II (16570) Hello All, First post here. Narrowed it down to these two for my first Rolex. New versions of both models are too big for my wrist. I am thinking Explorer as they are somewhat off the grid compared to subs. Thoughts?

11 March 2014, 06:21 AM	#3
eeh100773 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Real Name: "Fast" Eddie Location: Asbury Park NJ Watch: 14060 T Series '96 Posts: 1,482	Sub. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk __________________ Instagram: @clocksontherocks

11 March 2014, 06:22 AM	#4
Cc1966 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Real Name: Christopher Location: Georgia, USA Watch: ing the Sea... Posts: 6,713	Sub first...rest of collection later. __________________ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way." Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 "*Curmudgeons* " Favorites: 1665 SD, Sub Date, DSSD, Exp II, Sub LV, GMTIIc

11 March 2014, 06:27 AM	#6
Armyguy03 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: DM[V] Watch: 16710 \| 16600 Posts: 3,546	Well, I can't believe I'm saying this. However, being that I just got my EXPII, and own a Sub (16610)...I say get a POLAR EXPII AND DON'T LOOK BACK!!!!! __________________ Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

11 March 2014, 07:24 AM	#10
cop414 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Apr 2012 Real Name: Tim Location: Pennsylvania Watch: 14060M Posts: 72,244	I'd go with the classic Sub for your first. Welcome to TRF, great bunch here! __________________ Rolex Submariner 14060M Omega Seamaster 2254.50 DOXA Professional 1200T Card carrying member of TRF's Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons TRF's "After Dark" Bar & NightClub Patron P Club Member #17 2 FA ENABLED

11 March 2014, 06:08 AM	#2
SohAIS ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 2024 SubLV41 Sponsor & Boutique Seller Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Aamir Location: Atlanta, Georgia Watch: Patek, Rolex Posts: 34,546	If this is going to be your only Rolex i would get the Sub first. Classic and can never go wrong with the Sub.

11 March 2014, 06:48 AM	#7
ahoffman Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Boston Posts: 26	Seems like everyone has a sub. Why is that? Is it "better" or just "classic" ?

11 March 2014, 06:56 AM	#9
Chris B "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Peterborough Posts: 9,631	Obviously personal choice but the 16570 is an excellent watch & pre-owned represents great value at the moment I really miss mine

11 March 2014, 07:39 AM	#11
subtona "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: gus Location: East Coast Watch: APK & sometimes Y Posts: 26,599	They are my two favorite choices & complement each other exceptionally well...cant go wrong with either. Which complication do you think you would find more useful? __________________

11 March 2014, 10:21 AM	#12
ahoffman Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Boston Posts: 26	Actually am now considering GMT-II as well. (16710). Of these 3 5-digit watches, which one has the lower profile- all 40mm, but do any of them wear smaller due to case thickness, etc? Also, is there a tutorial on serial numbers (F vs. U etc)? Thanks. Tremendously helpful forum !

11 March 2014, 10:33 AM	#13
14060m "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: USA Watch: 116610 , 16233 Posts: 1,802	Go subc all the way to start __________________

11 March 2014, 12:07 PM	#14
Roller07 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: GMT -5 Watch: HulkPepsiCoke Posts: 2,364	Welcome. I say go for the 16610.

11 March 2014, 12:23 PM	#15
Armyguy03 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: DM[V] Watch: 16710 \| 16600 Posts: 3,546	Regarding Profile, To me, they all wear the same in terms of profile. If you want a stealthier Rolex, go Polar. The GMT is a great choice if you want the option to switch bezel inserts (Pepsi, Coke, Noir). You can't go wrong with a Sub either. Aim for securing one with lug holes so you can swap bracelets for NATOs for a fresh look. __________________ Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

11 March 2014, 12:45 PM	#16
Presa canary "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Real Name: Justin Location: Pa Watch: Explorer ii Posts: 3,155	16570

11 March 2014, 12:53 PM	#17
RiskPro "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Atlanta, GA...USA Posts: 33	Sub...I do want an explorer though.

11 March 2014, 05:18 PM	#18
Explorador "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Switzerland Watch: 16710LN,PO 8900 Posts: 227	The exII is the most undercover of all 3, due to the missing shiny dents of the bezel. All 3 are excellent timepieces anyway. Milestones, I would say. To me, the gmt master II 16710 has something of both: the side optic and the shiny, rotating dented bezel of the sub, and the additional 24hr red hand of the exII, plus the more elegant twin lock crown. Attached Images

11 March 2014, 06:54 PM	#19
Der Meister Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Somewhere Posts: 244	Sub,

11 March 2014, 07:31 PM	#20
hknslmz "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Turkey Watch: Explorer II 16570 Posts: 209	You know what, I had 16610 and 14060M. I liked them both so much..But as you already know there are so many around. Then I sold both, and now I have 16570 black. I am happier with my exp ii.. Attached Images

11 March 2014, 08:31 PM	#21
Racerdj 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Indianapolis Watch: Patek-Philippe Posts: 16,832	Sub first then the Explorer and others next. __________________ Rolex and Patek Philippe

11 March 2014, 08:32 PM	#22
Rolexfan_18 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Real Name: Tony Location: Bay Area, Ca Posts: 26	I own a GMTIIc (first one) and Expy II polar (16570) but I love wearing the Expy II everyday fits snug on my small wrist.

11 March 2014, 08:35 PM	#23
capote "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: Sweden Watch: 16570 Posts: 7,315	The Submariner is iconic, but you see it everwhere, the Exp2 flies under the radar and have a more useful complication for me.

11 March 2014, 10:21 PM	#24
Bangel "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Australia Watch: 116610LN Posts: 15,802	No wrong choice. If relative "rarity" is important to you, then I think the Explorer II edges out in front. This is kind of backed up by the number of responses advocating the sub - which would be my personal choice too!

12 March 2014, 12:44 AM	#25
seand04 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: NYC Posts: 9	I was deciding between the 16710 GMT or the older Polar 16570, and went with the Polar for a lot of reasons. It looks great, it still has the two time zones, the white face makes it a bit dressier w a suit if you do not have a dress watch, and it is a bit more discreet, as it doesn't scream Rolex at everyone if you are traveling or doing something and do not want to be splashy. I will also add that my next Rolex will be the 16710 but I am happy I went with Polar for now.

12 March 2014, 02:00 AM	#26
polarinda "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: Trav Location: singapore Watch: it Posts: 2,316	Sooner or later you will own a sub a gmt and a exp ii. So why fight it. :)

12 March 2014, 06:27 AM	#28
stockae92 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Socal Posts: 4,964	Out of the 3, I found polar Exp II to be a very good value, if you can live without the timing bezel and 3rd timezone, which most of us don't. The Exp II is low profile, very comfortable, it fly under the radar pretty well, not a lot of Rolex(es) has white dial __________________ 135 ├┼┼╕ 246 R

12 March 2014, 06:49 AM	#29
Ichaice "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Earth Posts: 133	I've had the Sub date previously and now have the Explorer II with a black dial. I like the Explorer a lot more than I ever liked the Sub. I'm not a big fan of the Cyclops but it feels right on the Explorer. I find it very comfortable as well and the red hand against the black dial is rather lovely to look at.

12 March 2014, 08:21 AM	#30
mjclark32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: MJC Location: PHL USA Watch: IWC, Rolex, AP Posts: 29,232	Sub for me __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)