ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
16 January 2010, 12:47 AM | #61 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Dan
Location: Essex, UK
Watch: West Ham! COYI!!
Posts: 7,941
|
Quote:
__________________
Onwards & Upwards Rodders...... Onwards & Upwards. Life is not about how fast you can run or how high you can climb........... It's about how well you can bounce!! TRF HALL OF FAME JANUARY 2010 |
|
16 January 2010, 12:49 AM | #62 |
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
2024 SUBMARINER Sponsor & Boutique Seller Join Date: Jul 2009
Real Name: Tony Geha
Location: San Diego, CA
Watch: Yacht-Master
Posts: 50,752
|
__________________
Instagram @JustRolexes 2FA security active |
16 January 2010, 01:02 AM | #63 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Texas on my mind
Watch: Sub Date; SS/WG DJ
Posts: 2,445
|
Too different really to compare. The most glaring differences between the two are aesthetic, which is a completely personal decision. White v. Black; shiny v. brushed; blocky and visible v. sleek and subdued....
Explorer II does have poorer resale value if you buy at MSRP from an AD. However, you can get a great 1-yr old for right at $4K and let that dude eat the poor resale value.
__________________
16610 Submariner Date; D Serial 16234 DateJust SS with WG Fluted Bezel & Jubillee, White Roman Dial; F Serial 16570 Explorer II White Dial; M Serial And Hers: 78240 Mid-Size DateJust SS with Domed Bezel & Oyster, White Roman; D Serial |
16 January 2010, 01:28 AM | #64 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 84
|
If you think the rotatable bezel is worth the $1500 or so extra the GMT costs over the Explorer II, buy the GMT. The black dial Explorer II is a very sexy watch and does it all.
|
16 January 2010, 01:31 AM | #65 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Watch: Panerai 000
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
|
|
16 January 2010, 01:39 AM | #66 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
|
GMT II C here...
__________________
TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007) |
16 January 2010, 01:54 AM | #67 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Tom
Location: Chi town
Watch: Daytona AP DD Sub
Posts: 3,717
|
GMT for SURE~
|
16 January 2010, 02:16 AM | #68 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Simon
Location: Devon U.K
Watch: Rolex GMT 2c
Posts: 240
|
Both excellent watches as stated by many. It really comes down to value. If buying pre owned the Expo 2 would be considerably cheaper than the GMT 2c. Making the Expo 2 far better value. But if you want the latest design from Rolex at any cost then it is of course the GMT 2c. Here in the UK a very nice 2004 Expo 2 can be bought for around £2,300. The GMT on the other hand would cost you around £3, 600 + for a 2007/8 model.
I've just sold my Expo 2 white for a 14060M. Sub no date. Cost me £100 to change my 2004 Expo 2 for a 2007 14060M. I think I did ok. |
16 January 2010, 02:18 AM | #69 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Europe
Watch: Movies
Posts: 4,531
|
GMT IIc all the way!
|
16 January 2010, 12:10 PM | #70 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 45
|
Explorer II (White face) most definitely...Waiting for new ceramic ss sub date in 2010..Hopefully....
|
16 January 2010, 01:21 PM | #71 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: John
Location: Washington
Watch: 16710, 16610, DJ
Posts: 7,329
|
Whichever one sings to you. Both are great watches.
|
16 January 2010, 02:26 PM | #72 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Dave
Location: Los Angeles
Watch: 116234-116520
Posts: 640
|
gmt cersmiccccc bezell always
|
16 January 2010, 03:23 PM | #73 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southeastern PA
Watch: 1216610
Posts: 2,131
|
easy answer
GMT2C. I had an Explorer II. Nice watch but too understated
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.