Why does my Explorer II feel like junk compared to a RO ?

[ArcticMoose]

Originally Posted by Mickey®

Question on the Glidelock
How much thickness does the Glidelock add?

Not much, but it does have a higher profile.

My perspective is a bit different than most users here I think since the first Rolex I bought was Glidelock-equipped. When I bought my Explorer II I thought "this rickety bracelet must surely be a fake", I couldn't stand how it felt cheap and was so light that it didn't balance the watch head at all. Now I'm used to it and think they both wear equally well. I did have to flip the old bracelet around before I could get a comfortable fit, though, something I didn't have to do with the Glidelock.



The thing that still irritates me about the Explorer II is that sides of the bracelet and clasp are polished, but sides of the fliplock are not.

[Joey_V]

The reason why you feel that way is probably because you've hyped up the RO in your head and you are having a little "other side is always greener" envy.

Apparently, if he is willing to trade, he's feeling the same way too.

[capote]

Both quartz and TT is off-putting for me, I also love the 16570. But to each his own.

[TopNotchChach]

just send it over.

[Mickey®]

Originally Posted by ArcticMoose

Not much, but it does have a higher profile.

My perspective is a bit different than most users here I think since the first Rolex I bought was Glidelock-equipped. When I bought my Explorer II I thought "this rickety bracelet must surely be a fake", I couldn't stand how it felt cheap and was so light that it didn't balance the watch head at all. Now I'm used to it and think they both wear equally well. I did have to flip the old bracelet around before I could get a comfortable fit, though, something I didn't have to do with the Glidelock.



The thing that still irritates me about the Explorer II is that sides of the bracelet and clasp are polished, but sides of the fliplock are not.

That is a great shot...that looks pretty thick to me!!!YOWZA

I just checked my ExplorerII...LOVE the fact that the sides are polished for some reason but NEVER noticed the fliplock are not!!! YOU SIR have a great eye for detail or TOO MUCH time on your hands!!

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

Posts like this really make me wonder if people know what they're talking about:

1. I see the whole "fake screw" thing has already been addressed, so I'll say no more.

2. "AP to(sic) big and clunky". So, the Jules Audemars, Edward Piguet and Classic lines are "to(sic) and clunky". Yeah, OK... (considering the JA handwind is 36mm and 7.7mm thick)

To the OP's original subject headline question: who knows why you feel the way you do?

Perhaps I should have worded my post differently, my apologies.
The aesthetic of the the RO has never appealed to my eye. I find the size and thickness of the bezel to be disproportionately large relative to the size and thickness of the case. To me, this makes the watch look unbalanced, "clunky" and inelegant, this despite the small case size (by today's standards).
I have also never liked those large hexagonal screws in the bezel (again proportions), and I have always found that the slots look silly. I did however believe that they were nuts and not screws, live and learn.
I don't like the looks of all Rolex models, but I know that they are all fine watches.
I don't like the looks of the Royal Oak, but I know that it is a fine watch in it's own right.
Like you I am entitled to my opinion, it would be a boring world if we all wore the same watch.



Paul

PS. Hope I got the tipos(sic) this time.

[jemwatch]

maybe you just like the weight of the AP. or that explorer clasp possibly. the newer rolex clasps feel nicer to me.