1st Watch : Exp 1 vs Exp 2 vs Omega

[snaggs]

Hi,

My wife is going to buy me a watch for our 10th anniversary. I like classic watches, without extra dials and certainly not the cyclops.

The black faced Explorer without the dive bezel looks great to me. I have a few questions;

1. I read a review on the net (TimeZone) that the Explorer I was not that well finished. Has the Explorer II improved?

2. Are the bezels removable on the watches?

Is the Explorer II as good as a Omega Seamaster? Am I just paying more $$ for marketing with a Rolex?

Daniel.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Welcome to TRF!

First, I believe you might refer to this several year old review:

Click here to read it.

The Explorer II is a totally different watch (has a date and GMT function and is a 40 mm watch) and not a successor as such of the watch reviewed in the article.

The Explorer (36 mm, btw.) did get a successcor, though: The Explorer model 114270 with an upgrade of the movement.

Whether the bezels are "removable"?? ...Well, a watch maker can remove them, but otherwise, both the bezel of the Explorer and Explorer II are fixed, i.e. not TURNable.

Omega make excellent watches, too. Many of them keep as good time as Rolex watches do, but in terms of resale value, Rolex is better than Omega.

Omega has much better lume than Rolex watches, though.

To learn more about Omega movts., read this thread (SLRdude's / Chip's post.

I would probably go for the Explorer II since this offers you a date (and GMT) feature.

But try them all on, including the Omega, and go for the watch that appeals the most to you.

Best of luck!

[BiG JeEzY]

Since you said you liked classic watches but without the cyclops, I say you look at a No Date Submariner (model #14060M) and a Sea Dweller (model #16600). Both Rolexes that I think have what you like in a timepiece.

Out of the choices you said, I'd go with the Explorer II. In the long run, I think its a much better option.

Welcome to the forums!!

[frostie]

Welcome to TRF enjoy your stay here

[C.J.]

I can't improve on what Bo offered. But, I will ad this, the Rolex Explorer 1 is a classic watch and it's finish, style, movement etc. are top notch. The lack of a date feature on it is the only reason I don't still own one, everything else about that watch is just gorgeous, in my opinion

[snaggs]

Originally Posted by BiG JeEzY

Since you said you liked classic watches but without the cyclops, I say you look at a No Date Submariner (model #14060M) and a Sea Dweller (model #16600). Both Rolexes that I think have what you like in a timepiece.

Out of the choices you said, I'd go with the Explorer II. In the long run, I think its a much better option.

Welcome to the forums!!

Hi BiG Jeez, I might have my terminology wrong, what is the name of the red and blue ring with numbers on which is on the watch in your avatar?

I like the black faced explorer that doesn't have one shown on Rolex's website. There website is all flash, so I've attached a jpeg screenshot. Is it still a Explorer II? Am I getting confused in thinking that Explorer II was a successor for the Explorer I?


Daniel.

[snaggs]

This one is also gorgeous, the Milgauss. Any idea on the movement? My friends comments were;

"Rolex movements are very robust, but they are not finished very well.
They are not like the rest of the Swiss manufacturers - they do what
needs to be done (the movements are accurate and reliable) but they do
not care about elegance and finish. They are also one of very few to
manufacture their own movements in-house"

*snip*

"Watches are all about movements, and the best movements that you can buy at a reasonable price comes from IWC and JLC. There are a few others as well, like Zenith, Minerva, and Ullyse Nardin ... but these are not commonly available in Australia. "

Daniel.

[buz-lh]

The watch pictured is an Explorer I. An absolutely timeless classic with a great heritage. The review you refer to has come to be recognized as somewhat of a joke as the previous owner of TimeZone who commissioned the review admits he did it as a lark.

[mickeydainish]

Hiya and welcome, Daniel. Wow that Milgauss is something else hey!?!?! You have def come to the right forum for advice and guidance...

Sounds like the Submariner and Sea Dweller (dive/sport watches) are not your bag... Have you looked at the Datejust range??

:-)

[buz-lh]

Read this:http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...31#msg_1350160

[watchlady]

How about a Sub ND 14060M?

[BiG JeEzY]

Originally Posted by snaggs

Hi BiG Jeez, I might have my terminology wrong, what is the name of the red and blue ring with numbers on which is on the watch in your avatar?

I like the black faced explorer that doesn't have one shown on Rolex's website. There website is all flash, so I've attached a jpeg screenshot. Is it still a Explorer II? Am I getting confused in thinking that Explorer II was a successor for the Explorer I?


Daniel.

Well, the red and blue bezel is the similar to the bezel seen on the Explorer II. The only difference is the color scheme and the fact that you can rotate it. In the Explorer II, the bezel is fixed. The watch on my avatar is a much older GMT Master 1.

The shot that you attached is a picture of the Explorer 1. Its a watch that has no date, only comes in back dial, no bezel with writing on it, and is it has a smaller case diameter of 34 mm.

The Explorer II black dial is the watch pictured below. It has a date, numbers around the bezel for a second timezone, and a larger case size at 40 mm. I wouldn't really consider the watch a successor to the Explorer 1 since they are still both being produced simultaneously to this day. Its more like another watch in the Explorer collection.

[sherwin]

welcome Snaggs.... Another perth kid off the block and into watches. not many people i know in perth are into that kind of stuff.

I see it this way, a rolex is never going to lose as much (resale value wise) as an omega, and i also see that sometimes when you are travelling and somehow are outta cash, the brand rolex is enough to pawn it off anywhere in the world and you can easily convert to cash to get yourself out of any potential sticky situation.

however it does prove to be a magnet for people with evil intents.

[wanasub]

Originally Posted by buz-lh

Read this:http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...31#msg_1350160

Good article Buz, I like the explorer too.

[Spark]

The Explorer II bezel is not actually for another timezone.
It is really a 24 hour bezel as the 4th hand is really a 24 hour hand.
Although now with the 3185 movement you can adjust the 4th hand independently to use it for another time zone, it's original function was to differentiate between am and pm.
The watch was designed for spieliologists (potholers/cave explorers) so after some time in the constant dark they would lose track of whether it was day or night with the Explorer II they would be able to tell if it was say 2am or 2pm by looking at the 4th hand and corresponding this to the watch bezel.
On the original Explorer II the 1655 the 4th hands was not independent and was fixed to move with the normal hour hand.

The Explorer II is a totally different watch from the Explorer and they look and feel much better on than any picture could ever tell.
I also used to dislike the cyclops and would buy Rolex watches that didn't have the feature, but now I have no problem with it, you get used to it.
Try some and and see how you feel with it.

As for the case size of the normal Explorer I am sure it is the datejust case and is now 36mm, they used to be 34mm with a 19mm bracelet, but they are now 36mm with a 20mm bracelet.
Good luck with the purchase, whatever you decide to go for.

[Trurolexer]

WELCOME TO TRF, Man!!!
Milgauss, Sub ND, SD, Explorer 1 or Expy II all of 'em is GREAT Rolex sport. Whatever you like Bro!!!

[snaggs]

My wife wants me to buy the SeaMaster, my friend the JLC. I'm never going to take the back of it, so what do I care if Rolex hasn't hand polished every surface?

I prefer the Rolex Explorer I. Its just more masculine than either the Omega or JLC. This is a wear every day watch.. swimming, cycling, feeding babies.

And, theres a 2nd hand 3 time worn with receipts etc from Local AD Explorer I available for less than US$4k. Same price as the new Omega Seamaster my wife prefers..

*sigh*

Daniel.

[vukotab]

I had Explorer II for a three years and what can I say about it?It`s a wonderful watch,very classy,but now I would rather go for Explorer I!
And why?Because it`s an icon,because of it`s minimalistic,yet very ellegant look and because between Exp II and GMT master(not ceramic) I would always pick up GMT(they`re almost the same watch,but GMT have rotatable bezel,which can be useful).
And I`m Omega Man,I owe three Speedmasters(one of them is legendary moonwatch) and I `m completely satisfied!

[omega_seamaster]

Hi,

At present I'm wearing my 3 year old seamaster. This year I'm moving on to a SS sub date.
The seamaster is a fine watch and has served me well across many time zones. Good luck in your quest.