Explorer Question

[InsDawg]

Hi All,

I have a modest collection that includes a Sub Date 41m, Explorer II 42m Black Dial, Datejust 41 Blue Dial, Omega Man on the Moon 3861, Tudor Pepsi GMT and JLC Master Date White Dial.

Not really looking to add too much as it's really hard to rotate the watches as it stands, but have always wanted an Explorer I 39m and i might have another move left in me.

My question is, is it redundant to have both the Explorer I and II both in black dial? Don't they sort of serve the same mission, albeit different size / look?

Appreciate thoughtful opinions.

[Chute]

I would definitely add the Explorer 39 especially the mark 2 214270. It’s got a sweet matte black dial and the size is perfect. I’ve got a similar collection and wear the 214270 more than most of them. Just be warned, if you get one, you’ll wear your other watches less.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by InsDawg

Hi All,

I have a modest collection that includes a Sub Date 41m, Explorer II 42m Black Dial, Datejust 41 Blue Dial, Omega Man on the Moon 3861, Tudor Pepsi GMT and JLC Master Date White Dial.

Not really looking to add too much as it's really hard to rotate the watches as it stands, but have always wanted an Explorer I 39m and i might have another move left in me.

My question is, is it redundant to have both the Explorer I and II both in black dial? Don't they sort of serve the same mission, albeit different size / look?

Appreciate thoughtful opinions.

I have owned both watches at once at one point or another in my collecting life. Totally not redundant at all. I mean literally the only thing that makes them similar is they are black dial steel Rolexes. If one or the other had "Omega"on the dial, nobody would say they are redundant because they serve such different purposes. If anything these two would be a killer 2-watch collection and all someone would need.

I do think however for maximum versatility I'd rather have the I and the II Polar, but for you probably not as much of an issue since you have several other watches.

So I'd say go for it!

[espanol]

It's only redundant if YOU will see it that way. I find owning a modern GMT and Submariner would be redundant, but the average fellow here would love to own those two.

The Explorer is an incredible watch. 36mm reigns supreme, but I personally like the 39mm more over the new 40mm. To my eyes, the lower "Explorer" text on the 39mm better balances the dial relative to the 40mm. You can't go wrong with either the MK1 or 2. Discrete, modern, and a nice change from the sea of ceramic-bezeled Rolex.

[logo]

Originally Posted by InsDawg

Hi All,

I have a modest collection that includes a Sub Date 41m, Explorer II 42m Black Dial, Datejust 41 Blue Dial, Omega Man on the Moon 3861, Tudor Pepsi GMT and JLC Master Date White Dial.

Not really looking to add too much as it's really hard to rotate the watches as it stands, but have always wanted an Explorer I 39m and i might have another move left in me.

My question is, is it redundant to have both the Explorer I and II both in black dial? Don't they sort of serve the same mission, albeit different size / look?

Appreciate thoughtful opinions.

Not the same mission at all. Explorer is to go UP, Explorer II is to go DOWN.

[InsDawg]

Thank you guys for the comments, appreciate your encouragement! I shall begin the quest!

[InsDawg]

Originally Posted by logo

Not the same mission at all. Explorer is to go UP, Explorer II is to go DOWN.

Good point, i need to brush up on my history!

[Kevin of Larchmont]

I own a black ExpII and a 36mm Explorer at the moment. They are not redundant at all. The 39 Explorer will perfectly compliment your ExpII. Proceed with gusto!

[noshame]

First, I wouldn't call your collection modest! It's solid and well rounded!

To answer you question, the only thing similar between the Explorer 39 and Explorer II 42mm black dial is the black dial, oyster bracelet, and the word "Explorer". Two very different watches that could totally co-exist in a 3+ watch collection. Good luck!

[OG1982]

Completely different watches, the only thing they share is a very similar name and a bit of 904L.

[KatGirl]

I agree with what everyone else said. They are different watches. I also think you have a very nice collection. Cheers!

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cglondon]

That’s a great collection you have there! All serving a purpose and place in the collection.

As others have said, the 214270 is completely different to the Exp2. I’ve had my 214270 for a couple years now. My appreciation for it has grown a great deal since I first bought it.

The Matt dial is fantastic and when the light hits that dial at a certain angle, the white gold 3,6,9 indices look fantastic. The 39mm offers a bit more balance to the dial (IMO) compared to the new 40mm text at 12 o’clock.

I would say go for it. Is your moonwatch the sapphire sandwich or hesalite?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lew_Ashby]

Warning: Cynical Rant

This quasi comparison is tantamount to comparing a cart mule to a racehorse.

IMHO the Explorer (I) is as fresh as a week old donut that was left in the Sun.

I’d literally wear a 21st century Rolex (Cellini) Prince, a black dial Cartier Drive or a 47mm day-glo Swarch before choosing to wear and or own an Explorer (I).

Buying these tired, old designs only encourages Rolex to continue pumping out the same tired designs year after year and century after century. Imagine if the Ford Pinto, the AMC Gremlin and Pacer were flagship models of their respective brands to this day… That, IMHO, is Rolex’s Explorer…. Stagnant…

The Explorer (I) hasn’t been fresh since these chaps did their thing…

[dannyp]

1. All of your watches are redundant, as they all share a common "mission" of telling time.
2. If you like it, can afford it, and will wear it, get it.
3. Personally, I prefer the proportions of the new 40mm, even though both 39 and 40 are too big for me (I wear the current 36).
4. As an alternative, if you like the 39mm size and want to spend half the money, consider the Ranger (assuming you've been satisfied with your Tudor thus far).

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by Lew_Ashby

Warning: Cynical Rant

This quasi comparison is tantamount to comparing a cart mule to a racehorse.

IMHO the Explorer (I) is as fresh as a week old donut that was left in the Sun.

I’d literally wear a 21st century Rolex (Cellini) Prince, a black dial Cartier Drive or a 47mm day-glo Swarch before choosing to wear and or own an Explorer (I).

Buying these tired, old designs only encourages Rolex to continue pumping out the same tired designs year after year and century after century. Imagine if the Ford Pinto, the AMC Gremlin and Pacer were flagship models of their respective brands to this day… That, IMHO, is Rolex’s Explorer…. Stagnant…

The Explorer (I) hasn’t been fresh since these chaps did their thing…

Talking about tired old designs, how's that Daytona holding up on your thumbnail pic? Does that get a free pass because it get's loads of likes on Insta?

[Watch-Geek]

Originally Posted by Ollie1982

Talking about tired old designs, how's that Daytona holding up on your thumbnail pic? Does that get a free pass because it get's loads of likes on Insta?

I think he meant it as a joke, EVERY Rolex is pretty much a slow glacier like evolution, which makes then iconic

Sent from my SM-A415F using Tapatalk

[watchwatcher]

No, I don't think they're redundant. But then again, take that as someone who'd love to have the new 40 alongside two EXP2's.

[brandrea]

This future purchase is APPROVED

[zi464]

Completely different style and vibe.
I have the 36mm Exp I and 5 digits Exp II love both of them , but if I in a hurry go to work that Exp I and Speedmaster are always my pick . They both just fit any style.

Exp II is more like tool watch to me.
If there is one Rolex " I ask if safe to travel " it will be Exp II.

[WatchGuy1966]

Explorer and Explorer II are similar in name only

[heonrlx]

The Explorer 1 should have come first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[InsDawg]

Originally Posted by cglondon

That’s a great collection you have there! All serving a purpose and place in the collection.

As others have said, the 214270 is completely different to the Exp2. I’ve had my 214270 for a couple years now. My appreciation for it has grown a great deal since I first bought it.

The Matt dial is fantastic and when the light hits that dial at a certain angle, the white gold 3,6,9 indices look fantastic. The 39mm offers a bit more balance to the dial (IMO) compared to the new 40mm text at 12 o’clock.

I would say go for it. Is your moonwatch the sapphire sandwich or hesalite?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I went Hesalite on the moonwatch; I wanted to keep it as close to the original feel and look as possible!

[Lew_Ashby]

Originally Posted by XxxxXXXX

Talking about tired old designs, how's that Daytona holding up on your thumbnail pic? Does that get a free pass because it get's loads of likes on Insta?

You must own a Two-Tone Explorer

[996marty]

I’d be saying get the Explorer bought they are a great looking watch and will enhance your collection

[Johnnynic]

Mark 2 Explorer 39 is the sweet spot. Every collection needs one of these

[LA_LEC]

Originally Posted by Johnnynic

Mark 2 Explorer 39 is the sweet spot. Every collection needs one of these

Fully agree Great timepiece!

[travisb]

Totally different in my eyes. Purchase approved!

[Harry-57]

Different watches. I don't see how one could make the other redundant. At the end of the day it's your choice.

[Kenny G]

Fully agree with the masses here.

Go for it…no redundancy and both great watches.

[Calatrava r]

Two totally different watches. Approved.