Explorer 214270 (Newer vs. Old?)

[RazorD]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to add an Explorer 214270 to my collection and looking to get peoples thoughts. I love the watch, but I go back and forth as to which version of the reference I want. (The earlier one seems to go for a little less $ pre-owned). I have no plans on selling the watch anytime soon, nor do I view it as an "investment," but I'm curious if you guys think the non lume version may one day be sought as a rarer collectable piece? or will it be like some of the transitional references that don't really see a premium?

I know I don't have a bad choice here, just curious others thoughts on the matter.

Thanks!

[Andrejb]

I like the gold digits. The “ugly duckling” if you will, always has more character


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AEC]

My advice is to buy the version you prefer for the purpose of wearing and enjoying.

There is one other thing to consider: if you buy a Mk.1 now, then you have the option of keeping it configured as a Mk.1, or perhaps having the Mk.2 dial and hands installed at some point in the future. If you do this then it's unlikely the original Mk.1 dial and hands will be returned with your watch, so the change would be permanent.

I wear a Mk.1, and I have to say that I kinda like being in the position of having this option.

The 214270 is a dynamite watch to wear, and I'm confident you'll enjoy it, which ever version you decide on.

[Wrist Watcher]

I prefer the newer version with the fully lummed numbers on the dial in addition to the longer minute hand, but like most things on here it's strictly a personal preference.

[watchwatcher]

Don't try to play the investment angle...go with which one you like the most. I mean really, which would you rather own, a watch you love or one the *might* be worth more money some day?

For me, the issue with the "older" version is more about the hand length, I could take or leave the gold numerals. So, my vote would be newer. Just my thoughts.

[dafuture]

I personally prefer the Mk1 (no bias, I had the option to buy either). I felt like the Mk2 loses some of the character of the older models when you replace the white gold numerals. It's just a bonus that they're a little less money.

[Friar]

I have a Mk1 but would prefer a Mk2 for the slightly longer/wider hands which might result in greater readability. But the preference isn't so great that I'd buy and sell.

[freesole]

Definitely prefer the Mk 2 with the fully lumed 3,6,9. It is a beautiful watch that I very nearly purchased myself.

[dnpina]

Explorer I is a great watch. I had the mk1. I would buy the mk2. I don't think either is an investment.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Justinmg]

I can’t get over the short hands and the like the lume 3 6 9 better, if it was me I would find a nice 114270.

[run23]

It’s impossible to tell future value, and I think anyone that says otherwise is just making stuff up.

To me the never version looks much better, with the better proportioned hand and the lumed numbers I would go for that over the older 214270 in a heartbeat. But ultimately I would go with a what you like better, and they are both great watches.

[Spoonage]

I bought the newer version late last year. I'm enjoying it very much... Gets more wrist time as of late than my SubC

[twitch54]

I'm a 'II' , 216570 guy myself (actually planning on it to be my next Rollie), but as others have said buy what your heart / gut tells you

[Justindo]

I have the Mk. II version and I saw the Mk. I version an AD case the other day and I'm happy to say I made the right choice for me. The shorter hands just look wrong and the solid white gold Arabic numerals are harder to read in various lights.

[dwamps]

214270 mk2 is what I've been saving for and eyeing. I first saw it at the Rolex boutique by Wempe in Nov and was a bit thrown off by how grey the dial looked in person and it wore larger than a Seiko SKX007 which I wasn't expecting.

I'm 2-4 weeks away from having enough saved and I stopped by Tourneau at Bryant Park, Wempe, and the Rolex boutique to inquire about seeing it again. No one has it of course.

Those that own it, how often does the dial look grey vs black?

[Earnyourturns]

Originally Posted by dwamps

214270 mk2 is what I've been saving for and eyeing. I first saw it at the Rolex boutique by Wempe in Nov and was a bit thrown off by how grey the dial looked in person and it wore larger than a Seiko SKX007 which I wasn't expecting.

I'm 2-4 weeks away from having enough saved and I stopped by Tourneau at Bryant Park, Wempe, and the Rolex boutique to inquire about seeing it again. No one has it of course.

Those that own it, how often does the dial look grey vs black?

I have it and love it. To me the dial is definitely black and never looks grey.

[Spoonage]

Originally Posted by dwamps

Those that own it, how often does the dial look grey vs black?

I wouldn't say grey... But it does seem a shade or two lighter and more matte than my BLNR and SubC... Seems closer to my Tudor Sub in terms of shade / matte / looks.

[geebob]

Originally Posted by RazorD

I'm pretty sure I'm going to add an Explorer 214270 to my collection and looking to get peoples thoughts. I love the watch, but I go back and forth as to which version of the reference I want. (snipped) Thanks!

The Mk1 is pretty, but I find that Mk2 is prettier I have Mk2

Seriously, both are pretty... but personally, I prefer the fully lumed 3,6 and 9 and the longer minute hand of the Mk2 to the Mk1 WG number and shorter minute hand.

Originally Posted by dwamps

214270 mk2 is what I've been saving for and eyeing.
(snipped)
Those that own it, how often does the dial look grey vs black?

I'm staring at mine at this very moment... from several angles... and it looks black to me. Maybe...maybe, it would look grey from a certain angle, but I do not notice it and I never notice it. It's black to me.

[tatery]

I bought the mk2 version, but funnily enough it kind of looks off to me in some glances because I had always looked to the mki for reviews and so on in the years prior. So there really isn’t a wrong choice I’d say. I like them both but would get a 5 digit if I would do it again


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RolexPD]

I prefer the MK1 dial and the MK2 hands. I wonder if it would be worth it to buy the cheaper MK1 and get new service hands.

[The Libertine]

I personally prefer the white gold numbers. Lume on markers is fine, but numbers with lume is a bit much for my own preference.

[jdpny]

Those that own it, how often does the dial look grey vs black?

Rarely, only when looking at it at a certain angle in direct sunlight (as in my avatar image).

[Earnyourturns]

Originally Posted by jdpny

Rarely, only when looking at it at a certain angle in direct sunlight (as in my avatar image).

Sun is not something we get much of in Scotland. They say that when the sun is out, there is no better place to be than Scotland. As for the other 360 days......

[Betterthere]

In answer to your original question : no the mk 1 won't be more desirable.

[tomchicago]

The WG roman version is best and getting harder to find.

[upsidedownbelt]

I own and prefer the Mk1. I like the gold number better than the lume and the hand size is not very noticeable to me.

[spoilsofwar01]

I've had the same dilemma recently and the 114270 gets my vote,

[dwamps]

Thanks everyone! I have an opportunity to buy one today if I want it. Haven't talked price, but likely full MSRP.

Debating...

[faz]

Both MK1 and MK2 are beautiful, and you should really go with your gut feeling of which one you like better.

I had a choice as both were available when I bought mine, and I decided to go with MK1 for the gold numerals. For me, that one looks more elegant while the lume version looks more modern. Again, both beautiful and worthy in my opinion. Good luck with the search.

[gregmoeck]

one of each is the very best route