Old or New Explorer

[Watch Rob]

New

[beer]

my choice: old dial new hands

[Snow-Dweller]

I prefer the new one....more for the lumed numbers than the hands.

[karmatp]

New Explorer is perfect.

[superdog]

I'll vote new as well.

But both are winners. Huge fan of both.

[Rich M]

Wow...thanks for posting the side-by-sides. Definitely a great reference point for people dwelling on which one to go for.

[watchwatcher]

The short hands on the older model are a deal breaker for me. I agree, it looks better-and less noticeable-on the wrist, but knowing my personality , I would go for the newer version. Good luck with your decision.

[deerhunter]

I can't wait for a new version to come to the US. It's great with the hands and lume. Perfect but go with your gut.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tomchicago]

The prior model is really elegant with those WG romans, but with a sporty edge. I haven't seen the new one in person, but the lumed romans and large hands make it a lot sportier and "maxi-dial"-ish in terms of the sheer amount of lume that hits my eyes when I see the pictures. So the new one I consider to be strictly sporty, which, for me, detracts from the reference, as it's now just another squarely sports Rolex, whereas the prior one skated the line in a neat way.

[tomchicago]

Originally Posted by digitran

it depends on your current collection. Mine consists mostly of sport watches and just one dress watch. I consider the old explorer 214270 a more refined sport watch and i have no desire to "upgrade" to the current one. I have also seen them both live, like you have, so pick the one that sings to you!

+1

[Peter99]

I have the Explorer 39mm Mk 1 and a Sub-C date (black).
The Explorer 39mm is more resistant to shock than the Sub-C, having Parachrom hairspring and Paraflex shock absorbers therefore more suited to the rough & tumble of life on the mountains etc. which it was designed for.
The Explorer also has a smooth tapered bezel to more easily deflect blows.
The Sub-C is designed for underwater use.
I wear the my Explorer in the gym and hiking in the mountains and for tuxedo dinners and 'do's' etc. events I would not use my Sub for.
The Explorer is the most versitile of watches and can be worn in all sorts of situations/places being much under the radar.
The Explorer have a slightly curved back which fits better and is more comfortable on the wrist than the Sub-C.
The Sub-C I wear in normal day to day use when I would like people to know I have a Rolex!
For a first Rolex I would suggest the Explorer, being my first Rolex, and a watch for ALL occasions without doubt!
I like these two watches very much and I think together a perfect combination!

[Ruud Van Driver]

It would never have entered my head to consider an Explorer but seeing the new model against the old, it makes me want to take a closer look in the flesh. Great shots and very helpful.

Go new

[Scapegoat]

New pls!

[HunterThompson]

Just want to point out that on this forum, most would advise a 1st time Rolex buyer to "get a Sub."

Out in the wild, Subs are everywhere.

On this forum, most seem to prefer the 2016 Explorer - but I'll bet most have not seen the old and new side by side IN PERSON.

Some guys say "I don't want refined, I want sporty!"

Good for you.

Many of us want to walk a finer line between refined and sporty, and the T Rex does the job better than the new one.

The T Rex has many looks - depending on how the light hits it - It's a changling. A shape shifter.

The new one is what it is.

I guess "most" people on this forum need to see 3 6 and 9 in the dark...

Also - keep in mind, when the 14270 replaced the 1016, people cried foul. They said it was a lesser watch. They complained it was too different.

Now people are saying the 114270 is better than the 214270 - it's the more "classic" Explorer size...

You can't win with these nit pickers on a Rolex Forum.

They want more lume? Maybe they should get a Swatch.

Get the Explorer that sings to you. Don't be like everybody else who says "Get a Sub" - get the watch that calls to you. Doesn't have to look great in photos - only on your wrist.

[JohnFM]

The new one is easier to read at a glance.

[Watch@ddict]

as someone who has OCD, i can't stand those T-Rex hands on the old.

[HunterThompson]

...And guys who complain about "short" hands and need "beefier" hands... They remind me of men who need their sports car Red...

[Splash]

Very cool that your AD has both in stock! (mine has neither )

The length of the hands is a non-issue for me. I do prefer the lume filled numerals however, so I would go with the newer version- but that's just personal preference. Both are very nice.

[CLTRolex]

I'd love to see a side by side lume pic..

[sea-dweller]

Both gorgeous! I have an 114270 Y series and love it.

[masyv6]

I like the longer hands of the newer one, but I prefer the unpopular white gold numbers.

[Colin10101]

Small changes can make a huge difference. The old is one of my least favourite models, and the new is one of my absolute favourites.

[F1polesitter]

Some overwhelming support for the new version. Not as much love for the old one. Considering some members saying that they haven't considered an Exp 1 prior to the 2016 version, I wonder if much of the support is from seeing the pictures alone.

The 2016 is more photogenic. Even looking at my side by side, the lumed 3-6-9 does pop more. But as HunterThompson mentioned, pictures don't really do the old one justice, as it can't capture the play of light reflecting off the WG numerals.

Both pieces do look gorgeous in person.

I showed the pics to a few colleagues who are WIS's (non-Rolex specific). Not one noticed the short hands making the dial unproportional.

I appreciate the idea of "stealth wealth", hence the clean lines of the Explorer and it's under-the-radar appeal speaks to me.

[porschedude]

Definitely new for me

[PaulChronometer]

F1polesitter, thanks for posting the pics, great to see them side by side.

The nice thing about the MkI is that the WG 3-6-9, and the somewhat small hands, should not work, in theory. But it works in practice. It is a very balanced watch.

Having said that, when I first read on forums about the short hands, I longed for an update.. And here it is, but I don't get it: the minute hand overshoots, and I am not sure about the lume.. But these hands, what were they thinking?

I think Rolex likes to tease us..

Hence, between the MkI and MkII, I guess I am indifferent. The MkI is doing its own thing and pulls it off. The MkII is more predictable I guess.

[PaulChronometer]

Originally Posted by HunterThompson

Just want to point out that on this forum, most would advise a 1st time Rolex buyer to "get a Sub."

Out in the wild, Subs are everywhere.

On this forum, most seem to prefer the 2016 Explorer - but I'll bet most have not seen the old and new side by side IN PERSON.

Some guys say "I don't want refined, I want sporty!"

Good for you.

Many of us want to walk a finer line between refined and sporty, and the T Rex does the job better than the new one.

The T Rex has many looks - depending on how the light hits it - It's a changling. A shape shifter.

The new one is what it is.

I guess "most" people on this forum need to see 3 6 and 9 in the dark...

Also - keep in mind, when the 14270 replaced the 1016, people cried foul. They said it was a lesser watch. They complained it was too different.

Now people are saying the 114270 is better than the 214270 - it's the more "classic" Explorer size...

You can't win with these nit pickers on a Rolex Forum.

They want more lume? Maybe they should get a Swatch.

Get the Explorer that sings to you. Don't be like everybody else who says "Get a Sub" - get the watch that calls to you. Doesn't have to look great in photos - only on your wrist.

I like independent thinking like this. MkI: shape shifter. MkII: it is what it is.
Both are good in their own way, just different.
Paul

[SemperFi]

I prefer and own the older model. The so called short hands have never been an issue for me and I never noticed it myself until mentioned on this forum. I also love the non lumed 3-6-9.
Frankly, I don't get the preoccupation of many with the lume on their watches as the overwhelming majority of the time the watches lume is irrelevant to being able to tell the time. Just my take on things.

[kennethcooke]

Having had 3 starting with a Plexiglass model, it has to be old. In my opinion 39mm is 3mm too large. Find a 36mm recent model, you will love it. Having said that I am in the process of changing my Exp 2 for a new Sub no date. The again the new Exp 2 is another Rolex on steroids, it's 42mm. I decided to buy a Sub before they spoil it. Best if luck with your purchase

[FremStar]

Second series for me, however, own and love both. I prefer my second series 214270 over the much hyped 116500 which I also own.

[soundserious]

If you look at both watches side by side the answer is very obvious. I'm
Sure you'll make the right choice.