Old or New Explorer

[mattty]

Looking at fremstars picture I still prefer the WG numbers.

Given the amount of time I where my watch in the dark, the white gold will be enjoyed far more for me

[FremStar]

Originally Posted by robcassell

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

Here you go...

[efredly]

Previous version!

Just had the same dilemma and after checking them both in person, I bought the previous version. The shorter hands don't bother me and I like the solid numerals without lume. If you like the old one, it doesn't hurt you can get good deals on BNIB versions. Mine arrived today!

[Man of Kent]

In my opinion the "shorter" hand version works better with the 39mm case because of the size of the winding crown. I stand to be corrected but to my eyes the crown used on the 39mm case is the same size as used on the 36mm case? It looks too small to me and the larger hands only accentuate this. Now, had Rolex increased the size of the crown and the hands I would have been all over it. As I say, just my view.

[WS9D]

I've seen so many pics of the older one with t-Rex hands it is now what my brain perceives as "normal" when I think explorer and the new one seems funny with longer hands. Having said that, I'd still probably go new because the legibility seems a bit better. When the new version came out, I thought to myself that I had to have it. Now seeing them side by side, I'm not so sure any more. I'd love another Rolex, but I'm going between ex2 as I love gmts or maybe a DJ.

[Earnyourturns]

New for me.

[aekdb]

Seeing them side by side now, the new one hands down!

[Engi.]

Thanks for the side-by-side picture !

I prefer the new one, and the new dial with the luminous 3 6 9 dial makes the overall watch looking smaller

[Raucky]

It would be the new version for me

[captain_NEMO]

I'm definitely a minority here. I love the elegant-yet-sporty look of the t-Rex version. The thin hands, albeit "shorter", and the non-lumed 3/6/9 lend more to watch's overall modern/vintage vibe than the maxi version.

I had the opportunity to flip my T-Rex recently, which would've allowed me to pick up the newer version with minimal out-of-pocket cost. After much consideration, I opted to keep my future rare Rolex piece.

Don't get me wrong, the new one looks amazing too - definitely sportier. It just looks too much like a blander version of the new AirKing.

[PatrickJ]

I love them both. However, on the new 2016 Explorer do the hands look out of proportion to each other? The minute hand is very long and the hour hand is very short. Look at the picture, the watch is at 9pm. Could it be to do with the proportions of the dial? This could be why the minute hand was shorter on the 2010 Explorer?

[SC11]

Originally Posted by PatrickJ

I love them both. However, on the new 2016 Explorer do the hands look out of proportion to each other? The minute hand is very long and the hour hand is very short. Look at the picture, the watch is at 9pm. Could it be to do with the proportions of the dial? This could be why the minute hand was shorter on the 2010 Explorer?

Oh no it's started again

[PatrickJ]

Originally Posted by F1polesitter

Hi folks,

I've been going through every thread i can find on the Explorer 214270, trying to decide between the old version or the 2016 version. Yet, I'm unable to find a pic of the two side by side in the metal. I'm sure there'll be someone in the same boat as me, so I'll contribute what I can to the forum.

Walked in to my local AD, and as luck would have it, they had them both.

Decisions, decisions.

Despite all the fuss about the short hands on the older version, I think they're actually fine in person, and don't detract from the look at all. Same can be said about the perceived "beefier" hands of the MkII. They look fine when not staring at a macro shot on a screen.

Slightly leaning towards the T-REx, as I think it looks more refined and less sporty. Both gorgeous pieces imho.

Look at the pictures side by side. Rolex had been correct on the 2010 model to have a shorter minute hand. The minute hand is proportional to the hour hand. On the 2016 model yes it looks better from one view with a longer minute hand but from another view the hour hand is to short and out of proportion to the minute hand. Just study the picture if you don't believe me. Now look at the hands of the Submariner in the second picture, look how proportional the hands look.

I love both Explorers. I have the 2010 model and if funds allow me to purchase the 2016 model I would like to do so in the future and own both.

What are your opinions?

[uscmatt99]

Originally Posted by 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.

My feeling as well. Sufficient amount and distribution of lume to determine the time in the dark on the first version. I think we all know where the 3,6, and 9 reside on the dial. I don't like the beefier hands or the too long lumed section of the minute hand. In my opinion, if I wanted a sportier look to the 214720 v1, I'd have just gotten a no-date sub with a rotating bezel and commensurately beefier bracelet and case.

That said, Rolex did a great job of responding to criticism from detractors of the first version, and the new one should sell like hotcakes

[wuyeah]

Personally I like the old.

[Oscarpapa]

I've got to get off this Forum! I was really happy with the new updates on the Explorer and the new hands but then with all the photos and posts/comments, I've started to think that while liking the beefiness of the new hands maybe they are out of proportion with the minute hand a little long and the hour hand a little short. Another wait for mark 3?. A lie down in a darkened room may be called for. Haha

[faz]

I was in love with the old one, WG 3/6/9.

My wife saw pics of new one a couple of months ago and said: new one looks a lot better.

(not knowing about size of hands etc)

I was still liking the old one better, something about WG markers.

Now, seeing them side by side, I think I would put my money on the new one. Will definitely make the wife happy too.

Both beautiful pieces. I think some people are too hung up on the hand size thing for nothing. It is really a non issue.

[faz]

Well, never mind. I just showed her picture above ( like a minute after posting the above comment), and she said the old model looks better.

Goes to show you, they are both beautiful.

[warrior]

I completely agree with this. I think the hand size thing is a complete non-issue created by the internet. The shorter minute hand of the old one is more retro and the longer minute hand of the new one is more modern. Both are fine.

For me, it comes down to whether you like the WG 369 or the more sporty lumed 369. That's it.

Originally Posted by faz

I was in love with the old one, WG 3/6/9.

My wife saw pics of new one a couple of months ago and said: new one looks a lot better.

(not knowing about size of hands etc)

I was still liking the old one better, something about WG markers.

Now, seeing them side by side, I think I would put my money on the new one. Will definitely make the wife happy too.

Both beautiful pieces. I think some people are too hung up on the hand size thing for nothing. It is really a non issue.

[Rolex fan 61]

I prefer the MK2 version

[Speed]

New = longer hands.

Nuf said!

[rmndran]

I've been going through every thread i can find on the Explorer 214270, trying to decide between the old version or the 2016 version. Yet, I'm unable to find a pic of the two side by side in the metal. I'm sure there'll be someone in the same boat as me, so I'll contribute what I can to the forum.

[F1polesitter]

Originally Posted by faz

I was in love with the old one, WG 3/6/9.

My wife saw pics of new one a couple of months ago and said: new one looks a lot better.

(not knowing about size of hands etc)

I was still liking the old one better, something about WG markers.

Now, seeing them side by side, I think I would put my money on the new one. Will definitely make the wife happy too.

Both beautiful pieces. I think some people are too hung up on the hand size thing for nothing. It is really a non issue.

The lumed version photographs better. But you really need to see both in person. Though not many ADs would have both in stock. That's the tough part.

[vman]

+1 for the new version.

[PatrickJ]

Either mk1 or mk2 are fantastic watches.

[cervantes]

New one for me, no question.

[Ruddiger]

Originally Posted by Earnyourturns

New for me.

Attachment 781908

Howdy,

Awesome picture!!!

Take care,

Ruddiger

[F1polesitter]

Thanks for all the inputs. I think I knew which spoke to me louder as I left the AD, just needed a few days to clear my mind and confirm.

Have to say I went against the grain on this one... pulled the trigger on the T-REx . I just preferred how much classier it looked. The short hands were not a concern to me in-person.

Guess the incoming thread won't be as exciting for the folks around here, but it's exciting to me!

[MATCH1969]

Side by side pics is nice, thanks

For me, I Will go for the new one before the end of this year.

[SC11]

Originally Posted by F1polesitter

Thanks for all the inputs. I think I knew which spoke to me louder as I left the AD, just needed a few days to clear my mind and confirm.

Have to say I went against the grain on this one... pulled the trigger on the T-REx . I just preferred how much classier it looked. The short hands were not a concern to me in-person.

Guess the incoming thread won't be as exciting for the folks around here, but it's exciting to me!

Congrats mate

You buy what you like as it's your watch and you will be wearing it.

Plus think how boring life would be if we all had the same opinion.

Looking forward to the incoming pics.