Rolex Explorer 124270 vs 1016

[dannyp]

Another consideration: An early 114270 will be serviceable easier for longer, since Rolex commits to maintaining service parts for (I believe) 30 years after end of production. Seeing as that watch movement, for all intents and purposes, is still used in the Milgauss, you're guaranteed to be able to have RSC work on a 114270 for decades to come.

[airansun]

So, first off, I must be an old man. Second, some of the responses here made me put my 1016 back on my wrist.

I bought my IV-67 1016 in the late 80’s for around $425, when nobody wanted them and used ones were even cheaper than used Airkings. I fell in love with the dial.

I wore this watch daily, on and off, for twenty five years. During the decade I swore off cars and rode 200,000 miles on motorcycles, I wore this watch. It fit under motorcycle jackets without catching and was very easy to read at speed (so to speak). The dial still makes me smile all the time.

New Explorers, to me, suck. Too much makeup and too much weight. A case study in why I dislike any Rolex made in the last 30 years.

Honestly, I hate how much 1016s are worth. As I’ll never sell mine, there’s little upside to its value. In the last 10 years, I’d mostly stopped wearing it — because I couldn’t afford to replace it and would be heartbroken if something happened to it.

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by airansun

As I’ll never sell mine, there’s little upside to its value.

Dibs anyway ... I love it.

[airansun]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Dibs anyway ... I love it.

That means a lot to me. With all the watches of mine you’ve seen, this is the first time I think you’ve actually called out dibs.

I’d actually love to do something nice for you, as I very much appreciate the quality, quantity and gentleness of your contributions here and over on OF, but I plan to be cremated with this watch on my wrist.

Please have a wonderful New Year and thank you!

[Dan S]

Originally Posted by airansun

I plan to be cremated with this watch on my wrist.

Haha, just my luck!

[Swiftneck]

For a daily, I would go with the new one.

Especially for the explorer, who, as you say, is very true to the original..

Sendt fra min SM-F711B med Tapatalk

[FrenchBigCrown]

Originally Posted by airansun

So, first off, I must be an old man. Second, some of the responses here made me put my 1016 back on my wrist.

I bought my IV-67 1016 in the late 80’s for around $425, when nobody wanted them and used ones were even cheaper than used Airkings. I fell in love with the dial.

I wore this watch daily, on and off, for twenty five years. During the decade I swore off cars and rode 200,000 miles on motorcycles, I wore this watch. It fit under motorcycle jackets without catching and was very easy to read at speed (so to speak). The dial still makes me smile all the time.

New Explorers, to me, suck. Too much makeup and too much weight. A case study in why I dislike any Rolex made in the last 30 years.

Honestly, I hate how much 1016s are worth. As I’ll never sell mine, there’s little upside to its value. In the last 10 years, I’d mostly stopped wearing it — because I couldn’t afford to replace it and would be heartbroken if something happened to it.

Very nice.

Health to enjoy!

[espanol]

IMO, vintage Rolex is an absolute minefield. Non-OEM parts, re-luming, refinished dials, polishes, laser welding, etc. It's actually rather difficult to discern good honest examples, albeit some dealers are better than others.

I'd love to get a good 1016, but the risks and secondary prices are too great. Therefore, I find solace in being able to be the first owner of a new 124720, with all of the modern technology. To me it's a blessing that Rolex released a 36mm Explorer again. If this will be your daily, then I'd agree with the consensus to go new. It's a phenomenal watch, rather unassuming, but capable. One more vote toward the 124270.

[SAP7]

Originally Posted by airansun

New Explorers, to me, suck. Too much makeup and too much weight. A case study in why I dislike any Rolex made in the last 30 years.

Eh?
Prefer a vintage all you like, but that statement is hard to evidence.
The new models have a substantially better bracelet, with solid links, so any added weight is for all the right reasons.
The better power, lume and strap make it hard to agree.
A study in why you don’t like a modern Explorer is more down to you liking something old for purely aesthetic reasons.

[Toronto Soup King]

Originally Posted by SAP7

The better power, lume and strap make it hard to agree.

And you can find watches which excel at all three of THOSE points in any Seiko shop. If you want a handsome Explorer you won't see on everyone's wrist, 1016 is the way to go. I'm with u/airansun on this one. The new ones are decent looking, sure. Then look at the two together. The old one is handsomer.

[TuRo]

The reason I don't frequent the General Rolex Forum (apart from the lack of knowledge displayed therein), is that I.m.h.o. the last good Rolex was the 16610LV.
All the 6 digit supersized chunkfests with polished centre links have sucked since then.... incl. all the 40mm Daytonas since the final lovely 6263/65s of 1988 !
Hopefully now the big watch craze is coming to an end, and some of the nouveau wealth arrivistes have disappeared, they'll return to more elegant/understated/smaller pieces as Tudor have just started to do with the 58 BB/39mm Ranger.
But I'm not convinced, as a modern Rolex is now a wealth beacon, rather than an elegant and functional timepiece.

[Styles Bitchley]

Originally Posted by logo

This would be to wear in all scenarios, but especially in the mountains, ocean, water, snow etc - it'll be worn the way it was intended.

Despite what the marketing says, modern Rolexes aren’t truly intended to do what their predecessors did so well. Even the “tool”watches are are just expensive jewelry. There are many robust modern non-Rolex options (Eg, the Tudors mentioned here) that would suit these activities very well.

[logo]

Originally Posted by Styles Bitchley

Despite what the marketing says, modern Rolexes aren’t truly intended to do what their predecessors did so well. Even the “tool”watches are are just expensive jewelry. There are many robust modern non-Rolex options (Eg, the Tudors mentioned here) that would suit these activities very well.

I do have an Apple Ultra which is great for any activity that would get really roughed up. But I’d like something that I’d enjoy wearing on the mountain, at the beach, seeing patients, at dinner, at a business meeting all in one while still looking understated. So really a go anywhere do anything watch. My TT DJ does all of these things except for being understated, and I absolutely love it and do not baby it, but sometimes I think the situation better calls for a SS piece. My SS 321 Ed White is also great for all of the above except that the 321 does require servicing in Switzerland for any issues, and given the scarcity I tend to be more selective of when I wear it. So I’m looking for something to fill the gap between my Apple Ultra and the DJ/321. I’m thinking perhaps the 6 digit is my best option for what I’m looking for, but man I absolutely love the look and feel of the 1016, tough choice.

[SAP7]

Originally Posted by Toronto Soup King

And you can find watches which excel at all three of THOSE points in any Seiko shop. If you want a handsome Explorer you won't see on everyone's wrist, 1016 is the way to go. I'm with u/airansun on this one. The new ones are decent looking, sure. Then look at the two together. The old one is handsomer.

What are you on about!?
You have just agreed my point that it’s aesthetics, not the new ones are worse for being heavier. To chuck in the comparison to Seikos isn’t logical as the post I referenced was JUST comparing old with new Explorers
You just can’t say the heavier and newer one is worse for being heavier.
It’s heavier as it has a bracelet that isn’t cheap tat. The vintage Explorer might look better to you, but its flimsy bracelet still sucks if you are honest in comparing to the modern benchmark.

[Dan S]

Well, it's certainly a matter of taste, but for me, a heavier bracelet isn't generally better. I think that watch manufacturers have successfully marketed the idea that heavy solid bracelets indicate high quality, but I much prefer lighter vintage bracelets. Back in the day, the goal was to keep watches and bracelets light and comfortable. They may feel "cheap" because of the way that manufacturers have manipulated our sensibilities, but I find them to be perfectly secure, and much more comfortable to wear. Heavy bracelets tend to slide down and dig into my wrist. I really dislike them.

[TuRo]

No offence sir, truly....but you'll find kindred spirit to your opinion in the General Section not vintage section.

You are, as a comparison, in the vintage Ferrari Car section saying a La Ferrari is better than a 250 gto, or even a lusso...faster, better built etc etc but everyone will disagree with you, because our/their love comes the soul of the product at what we believe was it's heydey and it was still a stylish (but, and this is the kicker, not showy) accoutrement to ones life.

This is why people pay up to 4x more for a sublime 1016 than the modern razzle-dazzle 'upgraded' versions !!

[espanol]

What'd you decide OP?

[logo]

Originally Posted by espanol

What'd you decide OP?

I know both the 124270 and 1016 will handle what I throw at it. The 124270 seems the more logical choice and I do really like the modern aesthetic and new bracelet. However, I love the overall package of the 1016 in terms of the fonts, bracelet clasp, reliable movement, and the “idea” of owning something special from a different era.

But the single biggest point for me is that I want the watch to be mine, and not feel like I’m wearing someone else’s. So, I registered interest with my AD for a 124270 and in the meantime I’ll keep an eye on the Rolex market looking for a 1016. Maybe prices will come down slightly, and if I can find an R or L serial in excellent near pristine condition with minimal signs of wear I’d probably go for it (recognizing this will cost me vs well worn examples).

[brandrea]

Honestly with your collection, I’d go new.

You have the modern “vintage feel” with your 321, so if what you want is a daily - worry free driver, newer is better IMO.

No wrong answer really, and I can see why you’re drawn to the 4 digit.

[logo]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Honestly with your collection, I’d go new.

You have the modern “vintage feel” with your 321, so if what you want is a daily - worry free driver, newer is better IMO.

No wrong answer really, and I can see why you’re drawn to the 4 digit.

Haha yes my collection theme is basically “modern classics” with an eye towards adventure watches. Between the classic TT DJ and 321 Speedmaster, an Explorer would fit nicely.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by logo

Haha yes my collection theme is basically “modern classics” with an eye towards adventure watches. Between the classic TT DJ and 321 Speedmaster, an Explorer would fit nicely.

I like your style. and I’m trending in this direction as well.

I’ve contemplated selling my 6 digit BLRO for a 5 digit but just haven’t quite come to terms with it, as I really do like the modern refence…

[logo]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I like your style. and I’m trending in this direction as well.

I’ve contemplated selling my 6 digit BLRO for a 5 digit but just haven’t quite come to terms with it, as I really do like the modern refence…

It’s a great watch. Would your brushed sub bracelet fit on it? Could give that a try - might be best of both worlds.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by logo

It’s a great watch. Would your brushed sub bracelet fit on it? Could give that a try - might be best of both worlds.

It probably would fit, but I’m lazy when it comes to changing straps (also not that talented :chuckle).

I’d love to put my 321 on the nato, but I’m all thumbs

[espanol]

Originally Posted by logo

I know both the 124270 and 1016 will handle what I throw at it. The 124270 seems the more logical choice and I do really like the modern aesthetic and new bracelet. However, I love the overall package of the 1016 in terms of the fonts, bracelet clasp, reliable movement, and the “idea” of owning something special from a different era.

But the single biggest point for me is that I want the watch to be mine, and not feel like I’m wearing someone else’s. So, I registered interest with my AD for a 124270 and in the meantime I’ll keep an eye on the Rolex market looking for a 1016. Maybe prices will come down slightly, and if I can find an R or L serial in excellent near pristine condition with minimal signs of wear I’d probably go for it (recognizing this will cost me vs well worn examples).

Seems like a great plan! Will look forward to either incoming

[logo]

I have returned! This time with an inquiry for vintage experts.

I’ve been reading a lot about the Explorer history lately, trying to dig through the old refs, and learn as much as I can. One thing caught me by surprise. I had always assumed the rounded dial font used on the 1016 (and immediate predecessors) were the standard for the Explorer, and that the 14270 update had used flattened modern-styled applied fonts. The departure being applied numerals and a different flattened font (that I think looks like a G hook). No matter, I presumed it all to just be part of the modernizing aspect from 4 to 5 digit. But then I started digging deeper and found several examples of Explorer cousins from the ~1950s that use the same flattened and applied numeral fonts. Some examples and photos summarized in this post: https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...4&postcount=12

So it seems in fact the 14270 and subsequent 6 digits have more vintage design language than I previously thought, in what seems like an atypical move from Rolex to use an older design language in an updated ref. I suspect Rolex was using several different formats for the dial color, numeral style, indices etc, for various prototypes and Explorer-related watches, and eventually settled on the design language that we see in the 1016 but would be curious to hear any thoughts, or other data and knowledge from some of the experts here.

I’m also looking to solve the question of why Rolex chose black for the Explorer dial, when we do know they have done some white dials early on and since the piece that Sir Edmund Hillary wore (maybe or maybe not at the top of Everest) had a white dial.

Thank you!

[joe100]

I don’t think there is much to the black dial choice for the Explorer, it’s just the look they were going for. All of these watches (Explorer, Commando, 5500 Explorer) grew out of the exploration/military/field watch genre anyway, and black works better I guess. I really want a white dial, black indices/hands Explorer myself, here is hoping.

As for the numerals, yeah Rolex used the more square numbers especially on the earlier Air Kings and some of the Explorer or near-Explorer models in the 1950s and very early 1960s. We were discussing the G-hook aspect of the 14270 numbers recently, and I kinda data dumped the fact those flat numbers went all the way back to 1952-ish, maybe a bit earlier. I think the similarities between a G-hook and an Explorer 6 and 9 is just a zeitigest, even if it does look cool as hell.

So yeah a 14270 or 114270 or a 214270 does reach back to those early days. About your quandary though, why not get the 214270 for the hard-wearing days and the 1016 for when the going is a bit smoother? Certainly money is a consideration since the 1016 will be quite a bit more than a new Explorer, but no one says you have to buy them at once. Look for both, and whichever comes first is the one you get first. I’m usually all for wearing a Rolex to the limits, but a 1016 would be a bit too dear for knocking about. I wouldn’t want to see a 1016 get destroyed.

[logo]

Thank you very much. Similarly, the best I’ve been able to come up with is that the black provides a bit more contrast when out in the snow. In terms of fonts, I did some digging on this as well – forgot to post this, but here’s a link to a patent from 1904 showing a G hook shape. So the G-hook predates the Rolex font (interesting!): https://patents.google.com/patent/US779279A/en

Yes my search is in no rush. I’m keeping an eye on the used market, following for any 1016s that come up and in the meantime have given my AD interest for a 124270. But, like you, would jump all over a white dial explorer with black numerals.

[joe100]

The closest we came was the 114200 AK in 34mm. It was one of the launch dials in 2007, along with the 2 concentric orange dials, so we know what it would look like. I hope they surprise us this year with something like that, but I’d be willing to bet we get a gold Explorer instead.

[boring_sandwich]

It sounds to me like you really want a 1016 so I would just get one and be done. There are currently two nice examples that Mike Wood has for sale in the UK so may be worth having a look at his website (theoldwatchshop). One is a full set R digit from 1987 and Mike is highly respected so you won't go wrong.

I have had a couple of 124270 and found them very jewellery like, plus didn't like the taper on the bracelet or the small chunky clasp. I recently got a late production 114270 and could not be happier. While its not a 1016 it has a Neo vintage charm and is a great daily wearer.

[logo]

An update! After many months of research, consideration and searching, I have made a decision and I am expecting an arrival shortly. In the meantime, a few hints on what I chose.