The Explorer II Enigma. Historical Thread

[whiskyguy]

IMO the most underappreciated sport model out there.

With the thimmer profile it fits nicely beneath the shirt cuff

[applebook]

I love the Explorer II, but it does not have the same historical legacy as the GMT. Not only is the GMT much older, but the current Explorer II looks almost nothing like the original Explorer II.

[BiG JeEzY]

Well said everyone! I love my Explorer II for all the reasons that everyone has mentioned. It is just such a special watch for me, its definitely unique. I have seen someone wear one on their wrist this weekend (white dial) and it looked so striking. The lights illuminated the dial beautifully. I never talked to the person but I wanted to compliment him that he had a nice watch.

The Explorer II will always be my favorite sports model. Its one of those styles that Rolex had designed to perfection and does not need to make any upgrades or changes to just like the Sub.

***Mark my words everyone, in due time, I believe the current Explorer II will be a very COLLECTIBLE watch. It may not sell as well as the other models now but I believe it will once its long discontinued. Want an example? Just look at the Orange hand Explorer II. It never sold well when it was in production, but now look at how much it is currently valued at.

[sparky]

I really wanted one, and my wife got me one for our 20th wedding anniversary 5+ years ago. It gets about all the wrist time of my small collection. I have heard people say the bezel is a scratch magnet, it hasn't been in my experience.

[ral]

Here is a short comparison between the Explorer II and GMT Master II.

Someone already mentioned that the Explorer II does not have the same sense of history as the GMT Master. This is in part the reason for its lesser popularity I think. The original Explorer was a Rolex Oyster Perpetual with a high visibility dial and a tougher case.

When the Explorer II came out, well the 24 hour hand was a day night indicator to enable cave explorers to determine day and night. It was than updated to have an independent 24-hour hand... so now it is a dual time watch. I think Rolex is a bit confused about where this watch fits in their line-up, and that makes for poorer marketing.

Why? People looking for a though watch for hard use, even those who don't scuba dive, will probably lean towards the Submariner. As a "though" watch it has to contend with the Submariner and its 300m water resistance.

At the same time, it is not marketed as a dual time watch for travelers and pilots. Hikers, mountaineers and even cave Explorers would not really appreciate the dual time feature.

It is about 1K cheaper than the GMT Master II and almost 2K when you consider real world discounts. It is a good looking watch too, so it should be more popular. I think it just has to be marketed differently.

[BiG JeEzY]

Originally Posted by ral

Here is a short comparison between the Explorer II and GMT Master II.

Someone already mentioned that the Explorer II does not have the same sense of history as the GMT Master. This is in part the reason for its lesser popularity I think. The original Explorer was a Rolex Oyster Perpetual with a high visibility dial and a tougher case.

When the Explorer II came out, well the 24 hour hand was a day night indicator to enable cave explorers to determine day and night. It was than updated to have an independent 24-hour hand... so now it is a dual time watch. I think Rolex is a bit confused about where this watch fits in their line-up, and that makes for poorer marketing.

Why? People looking for a though watch for hard use, even those who don't scuba dive, will probably lean towards the Submariner. As a "though" watch it has to contend with the Submariner and its 300m water resistance.

At the same time, it is not marketed as a dual time watch for travelers and pilots. Hikers, mountaineers and even cave Explorers would not really appreciate the dual time feature.

It is about 1K cheaper than the GMT Master II and almost 2K when you consider real world discounts. It is a good looking watch too, so it should be more popular. I think it just has to be marketed differently.

I agree, well said. Maybe if the Explorer went back to its original roots and lost the independently adjustable 12 hour hand? Well I guess, people do not necessarily really have to use that feature if they do not want to. It is a nice touch to a watch designed for speleologists in mind.

[speicher1]

Hey David. Great thread! To me, the Explorer II has been something of an enigma in the Rolex line. All I know if that I've wanted one for a long time; that is until I tried on a Sea Dweller. I compared them side by side at an AD and ultimately decided that the Explorer II wasn't for me. I think the relative unpopularity of the Explorer II can be attributed to a few things (in my opinion):

1. Esoteric and weird marketing- Cave exploration? C'mon. I can believe that there are quite a few divers in TRF. Shoot. I might even say some of you high rollers here might be yachters or even work in auto racing. But speleogists?

2. Legacy (or pedigree)- Rolex likes to use the Explorer II for their Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay ad. But in fact, Sir Edmund wore an Explorer I (which looks more like a dress watch, than something used for summitting Everest). So in this sense, the Explorer II is something of an unproven bastard child in Rolex's sport watches.

3. Design- If the watch is really that rugged, then why the average water resistance rating and twin-lock crown? The 24hr hand is certainly notable, but it wasn't enough to sell me on the watch. I think if somebody really needed a rugged Rolex, then the Sea-Dweller or 14060M would be better choices.

[ral]

Maybe if the Explorer went back to its original roots and lost the independently adjustable 12 hour hand? Well I guess, people do not necessarily really have to use that feature if they do not want to. It is a nice touch to a watch designed for speleologists in mind.

I hope they do not loose the 24 hour hand, and I do not know that the Explorer I is that much more popular.

Maybe they should just call it the Rolex Oyster Perpetual GMT (and print GMT in red on the dial please)? Maybe they can even call it the GMT Explorer.

That way they would have a GMT tool watch (the Explorer II) and one for more formal Occasions (the GMT Master II now having abandoned the brushed steel bracelet).

But there is not pleasing everybody. Hell, I want a GMT Turn-O-Graph :)

[BiG JeEzY]

Originally Posted by ral

I hope they do not loose the 24 hour hand, and I do not know that the Explorer I is that much more popular.

Maybe they should just call it the Rolex Oyster Perpetual GMT (and print GMT in red on the dial please)? Maybe they can even call it the GMT Explorer.

That way they would have a GMT tool watch (the Explorer II) and one for more formal Occasions (the GMT Master II now having abandoned the brushed steel bracelet).

But there is not pleasing everybody. Hell, I want a GMT Turn-O-Graph :)

I think you misunderstood me. Sorry if I confused you.

I did not mean lose the 24 hour hand. I want it to still be there. What I meant was take away the ability to make the hour hand "jump" at one hour intervals and instead make the model a full quick-set watch. THat way its less of a GMT watch and is more convenient to set too because of the full quick-set date.

You have pretty good suggestions though.

[BiG JeEzY]

Originally Posted by speicher1

Hey David. Great thread! To me, the Explorer II has been something of an enigma in the Rolex line. All I know if that I've wanted one for a long time; that is until I tried on a Sea Dweller. I compared them side by side at an AD and ultimately decided that the Explorer II wasn't for me. I think the relative unpopularity of the Explorer II can be attributed to a few things (in my opinion):

1. Esoteric and weird marketing- Cave exploration? C'mon. I can believe that there are quite a few divers in TRF. Shoot. I might even say some of you high rollers here might be yachters or even work in auto racing. But speleogists?

2. Legacy (or pedigree)- Rolex likes to use the Explorer II for their Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay ad. But in fact, Sir Edmund wore an Explorer I (which looks more like a dress watch, than something used for summitting Everest). So in this sense, the Explorer II is something of an unproven bastard child in Rolex's sport watches.

3. Design- If the watch is really that rugged, then why the average water resistance rating and twin-lock crown? The 24hr hand is certainly notable, but it wasn't enough to sell me on the watch. I think if somebody really needed a rugged Rolex, then the Sea-Dweller or 14060M would be better choices.

All valid points definitely but I just have a few questions...

When you say that the legacy of the Explorer II is all contributed from the first Explorer that went up Mt Everest, would not the same principle apply to the GMT Master? Because Chuck Yeager did not wear a GMT II when he broke the speed of sound on a jet, he wore the first GMT. So the legacy of the GMT II is inspired by the first GMT and exact same should apply for the Explorer II, so why do you consider to Explorer II to be a "bastard child" in this case? I, for one, believe the legacy of the Exp II to be just like that of the GMT.

Secondly, I already believe the Explorer II is the most rugged designs in the sports models. You know what adds to that ruggedness? The fact that it is the one of the only sports models manufactured ENTIRELY in SS besides the SD, ND Sub, and Milgauss. While I consider the SD and ND Sub to be the most rugged, I believe the Exp II is more rugged than the GMT, Sub Date, Daytona, Yacht Master, and Milgauss. Especially since it has a matte bracelet and bezel and every part of the watch is SS, even the bezel.

[ral]

I don't think the GMT Master's legacy is based on Chuck Yeager having worn the watch when he broke the speed of sound, but the fact that it was designed for Pan Am, and after that was selected by many civilian and military pilots.

I guess the the comparison between the Explorer I and II is that the Explorer I was supposedly tougher than other watches and could withstand extreme conditions hence the choice of "Explorers' who need a reliable watch in adverse conditions. The Explorer II is really a dual time watch, but recent changes in the GMT Master II, does widen the gap between the two and give the Explorer II more breathing room.

[BiG JeEzY]

Originally Posted by ral

I don't think the GMT Master's legacy is based on Chuck Yeager having worn the watch when he broke the speed of sound, but the fact that it was designed for Pan Am, and after that was selected by many civilian and military pilots.

I guess the the comparison between the Explorer I and II is that the Explorer I was supposedly tougher than other watches and could withstand extreme conditions hence the choice of "Explorers' who need a reliable watch in adverse conditions. The Explorer II is really a dual time watch, but recent changes in the GMT Master II, does widen the gap between the two and give the Explorer II more breathing room.

I guess you are right about the GMT. The Explorer II though was never originally a dual timezone watch. The watch was originally used as a day/night indicator when it was first released, hence it was the ideal Explorer watch. The first model, ref. 1655, could never be set for a second timezone, but still had the 24 hour hand as you will see...

[Asian Sub]

Having had the Explorer 2 16570 with black dial, i can say that it is a very comfortable watch due to its lower profile and weight. But for me, after having bought a Submariner with date, its really not comparable with a Sub. When i had the Explorer 2, i just felt that there was really something missing. But now with a Sub, i can say that this will be with me for a long, long time. Its just now that i understand when TRF members would say that it is an iconic watch. I love mine and i will never flip this

[speicher1]

My main point about the Explorer II was that it occupies a vacuum in the line of Rolex tool watches. The Submariner is indisputed as "the" Rolex tool watch because it's been used by Comex, crossed the Channel, issued to SBS Commandos, etc. Likewise, the GMT I was used by Chuck Yeager. The GMT II was worn into space by Jack Swigert and to the North Pole by Ranulph Fiennes (before he endorsed Kobold). And of course, the Explorer I went to Everest.

How is the Explorer II an icon? What is its distinction?

[GMTII Owner]

When I first started looking at which Rolex to buy, I considered all the SS sport watches. It seemed to me that all the AD's I talked to about the Explorer II seemed to push me away from the watch and more to the Sub w/date and GMTII. Of course, they wanted me to buy the more expensive watch. However, all the AD's mentioned the issue of the non-rotating bezel.

Since I was only going to be able to afford one watch, I wanted the rotating bezel and HAD to have a black dial. I think the black dial on any watch is classic looking. In any case, the rotating bezel seems to be the big issue I remember as to why the Explorer II was not being pushed as hard.

Now that I have my one Rolex, somewhere down the line, I plan on getting another (imagine that). Of the sport models, the SS Sub ND is at the top of the list but the Explorer II is a close second.

John

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by DSJ

Why did you get rid of it Hammer?

Hi David.

I brought a Sub ND, as a treat for my 40th, which is next Month.I felt I couldn't justify having two, so the Explorer went Now I wish I had it back.What's that old saying "You never miss your water, 'til the well is run dry" Never a truer word spoken.

[Ragu]

My White Exp.II is my daily wearer and most favorite of my collection.
I've often been tempted in getting the black face Exp.II so I could have both!
On special occasions I wear my Platty or 5513. Other times my Sub no-date.
But I always go back to my White Exp.II. It is truely a "beauty".

[Trurolexer]

I think Expy II specially the white dial is a STUNNING watch. I like the bezel & the dial. So sad I flip mine to bought Sub ND. In Asia, they more choose the black dial for Expy II than white. I don't know why. Asian love black dial.

[redshirt1957]

Originally Posted by speicher1

How is the Explorer II an icon? What is its distinction?

Because I bought one!. Since I always keep my Explorer II and GMTs on zulu time I only rotate the bezel on the GMT Master. For me the GMT II and Explorer II serve the same purpose. The difference is looks and comfort and the GMT's can better be used as a timer.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by speicher1

My main point about the Explorer II was that it occupies a vacuum in the line of Rolex tool watches. The Submariner is indisputed as "the" Rolex tool watch because it's been used by Comex, crossed the Channel, issued to SBS Commandos, etc. Likewise, the GMT I was used by Chuck Yeager. The GMT II was worn into space by Jack Swigert and to the North Pole by Ranulph Fiennes (before he endorsed Kobold). And of course, the Explorer I went to Everest.

How is the Explorer II an icon? What is its distinction?

Some clarifying info is needed here...

The GMT II (16760) was introduced in 1983. Swigert died in 1982. He owned a GMT 1675. The Explorer was during the fifties available with special oil for large differencies in temperature. The Explorer 1016 was water resistant to 100 m, whilst in the same time the GMT, and standard oysters where proof to 50 m. The 1655 was delivered with a thicker case and a larger crown compared to the GMT 1675 at the time.

If you check the Rolex website you get a couple of examples of Rolex sponsored Explorers... using the Explorer or Explorer II. One of them is Chuck Yeager.

This is info you can get by googling for about five minutes.

Best,

A

[speicher1]

Originally Posted by acce1999

Some clarifying info is needed here...

The GMT II (16760) was introduced in 1983. Swigert died in 1982. He owned a GMT 1675. The Explorer was during the fifties available with special oil for large differencies in temperature. The Explorer 1016 was water resistant to 100 m, whilst in the same time the GMT, and standard oysters where proof to 50 m. The 1655 was delivered with a thicker case and a larger crown compared to the GMT 1675 at the time.

If you check the Rolex website you get a couple of examples of Rolex sponsored Explorers... using the Explorer or Explorer II. One of them is Chuck Yeager.

This is info you can get by googling for about five minutes.

Best,

A

I stand corrected.

[DSJ]

Originally Posted by chevycorvette

thanks for david, i pulled my explorer 2 black from the market. it s a good watch. and just gonna keep it.

by the way, which part of minnesota are u?

my hometown is saint cloud, mn.

I live in St Paul. Where in CA are you? Looks like you and I traded spots Willie. I grew up in the Bay Area, went to college in SoCal, then moved back to the Bay Area for 5 years, before moving to MN at 30.

[DSJ]

There's a lot of dialogue and strong feelings on the Explorer II that have been expressed here, which is great, and was what I was hoping to get when I created this thread.

It seems that for many, the "history" of a Rolex model, even though most are successors to the actual models with the history is very important. I have to say that for my purchasing decisions, the legacy of a model wasn't even a tertiary thought for me. In fact, as many of you know from my previous ramblings, the Explorer II was not even on my radar until only weeks before purchasing it. It was a compromise initially, that I am glad I made in retrospect! It is odd, though that the watch was initially marketed for the narrow-focused spelunking sport!

We talk about the ruggedness of a particular Rolex model, and I have come to the conclusion that while the Explorer II may not have an amazing story attached to it, for most people who are into the outdoors, this is the PERFECT Rolex to have. The 14060m is also great, as my brother and others can attest to, but its limitation is that when he turns the bezel, you can hear the grit in it. That wouldn't happen on an Explorer II. It's light, comfortable, dressy enough to be worn with work attire (as are all Rollies, IMO), and has the convenience of a 24H hand that can either be used as a day/night indicator, OR second time zone, depending on the preference of the owner. I think that is a good enhancement.

I think we all agree that the Explorer II IS an enigma, and for those of us who have one, or aspire to own one, it's great because it makes the cost of acquisition/ownership more attainable, and makes us a unique group of Rolex owners. The downside is when the purchase of one is made, then regretted, as there is usually a loss associated with selling it, in the short run. Bottom line is that I love mine, and glad I bought it for me, and then for my son. I think that when I give it to my son in 2027 or so, it will be a unique watch, to be sure, irrespective of its value or collectability at that time!

[DAN.K]

...I would love a 1655!!!

[Dave Kopf]

I'll be buying a used or Gray market Explorer II in the next few weeks. At $5600 (or whatever full retail is) it's not an attractive watch. At $3400 for a Z serial number it's a must have. It's Cheaper than some Tags.

[mfer]

Originally Posted by whiskyguy

IMO the most underappreciated sport model out there.

With the thimmer profile it fits nicely beneath the shirt cuff

Wow! I've never seen that combo before.

I mentioned before that I've tried on the white expy II and it didn't smile that much at me, but that combo is smiling big time. I think your combo makes the bezel POP more. I never realized it before, but I notice your bezel in the picture above. With the steel band, the bezel kind of gets lost. The YM avoids this by being higher profiled bezel and the polished/matte combo.

Does any of this make sense or am I just rambling....

[DSJ]

Hey all, I did a little photo shoot today...
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=41007

[Perdu]

I don't own one but I've always thought of the Explorer II as Rolexes hard core adventure watch. The name is perfect.

[14060m]

Its been daily watch fopr awhile now, couldn't agree more about the comfort and ruggedness. My is from 1998 and will get a little rest, as soon as I get my 14060m

[chevycorvette]

Originally Posted by DSJ

I live in St Paul. Where in CA are you? Looks like you and I traded spots Willie. I grew up in the Bay Area, went to college in SoCal, then moved back to the Bay Area for 5 years, before moving to MN at 30.

just moved to walnut, CA a year ago due to my business. otherwise i would stay in minnesota. minnesota is such a nice state, very friendly people. i would move back soon. may be we could watch some viking's game.