Explorer 1 as a Dress Watch

[XplusYplusZ]

I’m consolidating my collection a little, as I don’t use my JLC dress watch nearly as much as I was hoping I would (Too dressy for work, and invites to the Met Gala have dried up). A Speedy FOIS also got less wrist time than I’d imagined.

So I’m looking for something which can be worn casually, whilst travelling, to the office where there are a few watch enthusiasts, and can be dressed up with a smart strap for weddings and black ties. I also do a bit of hiking, camping and fishing but not sure I’d use it in that scenario. I hope it would become my daily wear - which is currently shared between Tudor GMT and an IWC mkXVIII heritage.

Do you think the explorer 1 214270 can pass as a dress watch? I’d likely buy a nice black alligator strap.

Does anyone have photos of one dressed up?

What alternatives do you think I should consider - particularly playing the dual roles of casual and dressy.

Cheers.

[JR16]

I don’t think any SS Rolex can be called a “dress watch”, but certainly most SS Rolex can be “dressed up” and worn to the office or a wedding - i certainly have. It’s 2020 so the concept of offending people by wearing a sports watch w a suit doesn’t hold any longer . The explorer is a great GADA watch that i have thoroughly enjoyed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[subprimero]

I think it would work, but a Datejust or Oyster Perpetual would probably be better for you.

[JDR888]

100% it can.

The 214270 covers all bases for everyday, anywhere, anytime wearability.

I'm business shirt every day with work and the 214270 slides under the cuff with ease.........

[BillA]

You own it, right? You can call it sporty or dressy, whatever you want to call it.

[Mamame]

114270 is a good choice

[Stud Screw]

Generally speaking, the classic definition of a dress watch is slim, often solid gold with a white dial and black hands. No seconds hand (although a small seconds is fine). Leather strap. Think Calatrava. Rolex are not dress watches, unless we are talking about the Cellini line.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Stud Screw

Generally speaking, the classic definition of a dress watch is slim, often solid gold with a white dial and black hands. No seconds hand (although a small seconds is fine). Leather strap. Think Calatrava. Rolex are not dress watches, unless we are talking about the Cellini line.

That’s the traditional WIS position, I agree

These days, with the dress down, wear anything you want, anywhere, the watch on your wrist is about the last part of the wardrobe people are concerned with

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by Stud Screw

Generally speaking, the classic definition of a dress watch is slim, often solid gold with a white dial and black hands. No seconds hand (although a small seconds is fine). Leather strap. Think Calatrava. Rolex are not dress watches, unless we are talking about the Cellini line.

Maybe in the 1950s. But when Connery strapped on his Submariner wearing his tuxedo that faded away.

OP, Wear that iconic DAGA Explorer with confidence. It’s a Rolex not an Invicta

[G.Montag]

Originally Posted by Stud Screw

Generally speaking, the classic definition of a dress watch is slim, often solid gold with a white dial and black hands. No seconds hand (although a small seconds is fine). Leather strap. Think Calatrava. Rolex are not dress watches, unless we are talking about the Cellini line.

This is not the “classic definition” but rather one invented on Internet forums in the past 10-15 years (and often repeated by people who have no idea what they are talking about). Historically, there has been no strict definition of a dress watch and no rule suggesting that a steel watch on a bracelet cannot be worn with business or formal attire. And there most certainly has never been a rule saying that a dress watch must have a white dial or black hands or no seconds hand unless it’s small seconds or anything silly like that. You are just repeating some guy who came up this “classic definition” while taking a break from arguing the merits of Date vs. No Date Sub.

[glamorama]

Originally Posted by G.Montag

This is not the “classic definition” but rather one invented on Internet forums in the past 10-15 years (and often repeated by people who have no idea what they are talking about). Historically, there has been no strict definition of a dress watch and no rule suggesting that a steel watch on a bracelet cannot be worn with business or formal attire. And there most certainly has never been a rule saying that a dress watch must have a white dial or black hands or no seconds hand unless it’s small seconds or anything silly like that. You are just repeating some guy who came up this “classic definition” while taking a break from arguing the merits of Date vs. No Date Sub.

Ehh.. some guy on Internet forum invented the dress watch 10-15 years ago? Right. Of course there are no strict definition or rule book on dress watch but there has always been a social etiquette, the higher up in society the more complex they are.

Sure you can do whatever you want etc. Although Americans often get surprised when they come to say Paris and get turned away in the door of restaurants because they have shorts or sneakers or whatever. They can be some rich business owner or half celeb but nobody cares if you don't follow the rules.

[G.Montag]

Originally Posted by glamorama

Ehh.. some guy on Internet forum invented the dress watch 10-15 years ago? Right. Of course there are no strict definition or rule book on dress watch but there has always been a social etiquette, the higher up in society the more complex they are.

Sure you can do whatever you want etc. Although Americans often get surprised when they come to say Paris and get turned away in the door of restaurants because they have shorts or sneakers or whatever. They can be some rich business owner or half celeb but nobody cares if you don't follow the rules.

Yes, some guy on the Internet invented the extremely narrow definition of the dress watch described in the post I was responding to. No restaurant in Paris is going to turn you away because your watch does not have a white dial or black hands (or, heavens forbid, has a seconds hand). The style rules for watches and other accessories have always been far less strict than the rules for apparel, even in the most traditional cultures.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by G.Montag

This is not the “classic definition” but rather one invented on Internet forums in the past 10-15 years (and often repeated by people who have no idea what they are talking about). Historically, there has been no strict definition of a dress watch and no rule suggesting that a steel watch on a bracelet cannot be worn with business or formal attire. And there most certainly has never been a rule saying that a dress watch must have a white dial or black hands or no seconds hand unless it’s small seconds or anything silly like that. You are just repeating some guy who came up this “classic definition” while taking a break from arguing the merits of Date vs. No Date Sub.

Originally Posted by G.Montag

Yes, some guy on the Internet invented the extremely narrow definition of the dress watch described in the post I was responding to. No restaurant in Paris is going to turn you away because your watch does not have a white dial or black hands (or, heavens forbid, has a seconds hand). The style rules for watches and other accessories have always been far less strict than the rules for apparel, even in the most traditional cultures.

Very well said. People try with all their might to perpetuate something that seems to make logical sense but in reality it’s because someone told them exactly what they wanted to hear probably(Hodinkee) or read something that’s in line with their preference.

Formal clothing has indeed been for the most part standardized, and I mean the real formal like a gala or sitting at a formal protocol dinner with royalty or diplomatic setting with foreign governments, but no such foolish thing exists for a watch.
All this for a ss black dial watch with no complications except a seconds hand, meanwhile people are wearing fitbits, Apple watches, gaudy jewelry or some 70’s style nylon leather bracelets without issue.

I remember in the 90’s when I worked at Tower Records, The Gap and Express, the uniform was you had to wear a collared button shirt and the jeans could not be excessively faded, while at Express no jeans were allowed. Now look at Apple employees or any retail store, standards have shifted in society. In the early 1920s to about the 1950s a family to include the children would get dressed in suits, ties, dresses, shoes heels to get ice cream or go to the park, yes to run, play and sit down on grass for a picnic.

Crazy that today in various polls, over 60% of men don’t even own a single suit. Yet there’s going to be a standard for a watch. One that’s obviously four to five figures in costs, because I know when they give that cool description, they aren’t referring to a Movado. We’re not asking an elegant woman in a flowing gown to wear a Breitling Emergency, goodness gracious lols.
Justifying a watch that costs $10k is hard to comprehend for the majority of the population let alone something so specific for such an isolated occasion, I can imagine the people who are sitting around coming up with this stuff and they are not the average everyday working man.

[1William]

There is a Rolex add that shows SS watches being worn with formal attire. I think it works and there are no rules today. Do as you please. Most others do.

[StillTrying]

Sounds like you should go with an Oyster Perpetual or Explorer 1. I wanted something that could be a little more dressed up than my sub c, so I went for an explorer 1 (214270). An Oyster P are dressier and you have choice of size and dial color, but if you are going to take hiking/camping I suggest the Explorer 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GST15]

I think YM 40 Rhodium can work as sport and dress watch

[polaris72]

No a dress watch, though versatile enough to cover lot of occasions. explorer could be for everything except a dress watch as you have JLC (assume Reverso), you would be all set.

If you want one watch only, DJ36 or DJ41 would fit the bill better. But then again, you have other watches too...

[HKBC]

Certainly not.

[DG123]

It's a no.

[007_Omega]

It can be worn with anything. It's not a dress watch in the truest sense but it's one of the most versatile watches ever made.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by 007_Omega

It can be worn with anything. It's not a dress watch in the truest sense but it's one of the most versatile watches ever made.

It should be noted that the Explorer in this picture is a 36mm model, though I'm not sure which one.

I do agree that the 36mm Explorers are about as versatile as any watch ever made.

[007_Omega]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It should be noted that the Explorer in this picture is a 36mm model, though I'm not sure which one.

I do agree that the 36mm Explorers are about as versatile as any watch ever made.

It was an error by the show. For one, the Rolex Explorer would be an extremely rare watch in America during the 1960s. Secondly, he wears a 5 digit reference like yours which wouldn't exist for decades to come.

I wouldn't say the 36mm is more versatile necessarily. The 39mm will still fit a variety of wrists and look natural in a suit or casual. I find the 36mm may fit the dress side more but it fits the casual side less. For me, 36mm is firmly a dress size and don't see it as sporty anymore.

Either way, unless you have very small or big wrists, I don't think the 36mm or 39mm Explorer is the wrong choice. It is a preference thing.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by 007_Omega

It was an error by the show. For one, the Rolex Explorer would be an extremely rare watch in America during the 1960s. Secondly, he wears a 5 digit reference like yours which wouldn't exist for decades to come.



I wouldn't say the 36mm is more versatile necessarily. The 39mm will still fit a variety of wrists and look natural in a suit or casual. I find the 36mm may fit the dress side more but it fits the casual side less. For me, 36mm is firmly a dress size and don't see it as sporty anymore.



Either way, unless you have very small or big wrists, I don't think the 36mm or 39mm Explorer is the wrong choice. It is a preference thing.

My Explorer is a 114270.

I believe that the reference used in the show, based on memory, was either a 14270 or a 114270. In either case, it's close enough for Hollywood.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[007_Omega]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

My Explorer is a 114270.

I believe that the reference used in the show, based on memory, was either a 14270 or a 114270. In either case, it's close enough for Hollywood.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

The show does a fantastic job with its other watches. Overall, for Hollywood, I think they did a great job. The Explorer fits Don well. Enjoy your watch, it's a classic.

[Aircraftman]

I wear business suits at work a lot, or did before the pandemic ��

And my Explorer 1 is my watch of choice. While clearly it is not a “dress watch”, it works very well for me. It fits under my shirt sleeve perfectly and is clearly not a “dive watch” which I prefer not to use while wearing a suit.

However at the end of the day it’s what makes you feel comfortable. My boss wears a 44 mm Breitling with his business suits and seems to have no problems pulling it off

[TimeOnHand]

Works with everything...

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by TimeOnHand

Works with everything...

I agree. Awesome pic

[iTreelex]

You're going to need curved spring bars to fit any kind of strap on the 214270 unless the strap ends are really thin. Best leave it on the bracelet and worry less about lofty dress ideals.

[mgsooner]

Originally Posted by XplusYplusZ

I’m consolidating my collection a little, as I don’t use my JLC dress watch nearly as much as I was hoping I would (Too dressy for work, and invites to the Met Gala have dried up). A Speedy FOIS also got less wrist time than I’d imagined.

So I’m looking for something which can be worn casually, whilst travelling, to the office where there are a few watch enthusiasts, and can be dressed up with a smart strap for weddings and black ties. I also do a bit of hiking, camping and fishing but not sure I’d use it in that scenario. I hope it would become my daily wear - which is currently shared between Tudor GMT and an IWC mkXVIII heritage.

Do you think the explorer 1 214270 can pass as a dress watch? I’d likely buy a nice black alligator strap.

Does anyone have photos of one dressed up?

What alternatives do you think I should consider - particularly playing the dual roles of casual and dressy.

Cheers.

Trying to unpack OP's post. Right off the bat he says he already owns a JLC but it is "too dressy" for his office. So my first question would be - do you even really need a dress watch? I understand you also mention weddings and black ties, but - how often do you actually find yourself in those situations? A couple of times a year?

From what you've said it sounds like the Explorer would cover you in virtually 99% of the scenarios you encounter. For that remaining 1%, I honestly would just consider getting a nice Seiko Presage. That's exactly the direction I've been moving recently - I love classic dress watches but I find it really hard to justify spending multiple thousands on something I'm hardly ever going to wear. One exception might be the Reverso, which I think straddles the line between casual and dress exceptionally well.

[XplusYplusZ]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

Trying to unpack OP's post. Right off the bat he says he already owns a JLC but it is "too dressy" for his office. So my first question would be - do you even really need a dress watch? I understand you also mention weddings and black ties, but - how often do you actually find yourself in those situations? A couple of times a year?

From what you've said it sounds like the Explorer would cover you in virtually 99% of the scenarios you encounter. For that remaining 1%, I honestly would just consider getting a nice Seiko Presage. That's exactly the direction I've been moving recently - I love classic dress watches but I find it really hard to justify spending multiple thousands on something I'm hardly ever going to wear. One exception might be the Reverso, which I think straddles the line between casual and dress exceptionally well.

Thanks for this response, you’re absolutely right - the times I need something really formal per year, can be counted on one hand = 99:1 split.

I’ve never really worn watches on bracelets, I tend towards a more vintage brown leather strap. This would be my first Rolex so it could be an interesting experiment. I’d probably go for a good black croc strap from Camille Fournet or similar for a dressier approach.

Thanks also for the DateJust suggestions but this explorer thing has me hooked.

There is one curveball which has caught my eye, which is another JLC - this time a Master Hometime Aston Martin. The car brand thing isn’t ideal for resale as a lot of buyers are put off by this association, it doesn’t bother me too much aesthetically, and the movement is famously robust - their autotractor movement sometimes compared to the robustness of Rolex. Price wise I get considerably more for my money with a proper GMT function and a date. Which might make it more usable for work.. however, I’m not sure if this can be dressed down for a trip to the pub, or travels abroad.. then again, I have an IWC and a Tudor GMT which suit these functions well..

It’s funny how a rarer, dressier piece with more complication comes in 30% cheaper than the very humble and simple Explorer..

Tough decisions! Definitely 1st world problems.

Thanks for all the input so far.