Thoughts on The Explorer - NOT A REVIEW!

[ExpSubGMT]

Like the title suggests, this is NOT a review of the Explorer, just... Thoughts.

Some argue that the "true" Explorer is 36mm, not 39mm.

Would that mean only the 1016 is a true Explorer? Or is any 36mm a true Explorer?

If the new 2016 lumed 3 6 9 version is back to a 'true" Explorer, then are the 14270's and 114270's not "true?"

If you believe the 39mm Explorers are not "true" Explorer size, how would you justify your love for, say, a 41mm Tudor Ranger?

Give your thoughts. Not a review...

[Spoonage]

I like the 36mm Explorer, 39mm Explorer, and 41mm Ranger. Dont like the "true" vibe that's getting thrown around lately. If its an authentic Rolex then its true... If you are really talking the true Explorer.... Then it would only be the first reference that held the name Explorer.

[GradyPhilpott]

It is my humble opinion that the 114270 is the apotheosis of the Rolex Explorer concept.

[rushca01]

Same argument could be made between the 50th anniversary sea dweller and every SD before it. Things change and Rolex makes changes to market demands I suppose.

[teamkitty]

The only true Explorer is the one you have on your wrist when you're out living life.

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It is my humble opinion that the 114270 is the apotheosis of the Rolex Explorer concept.

Hey JJ - Thanks for your input.

Can you elaborate as to why the 114270 is the apotheosis?

Why not the 14270? Is it the 114270's 3130 movement being superior to the 3000? Is no lug holes superior to lug holes?

Is the answer b/c YOU own a 114270?

How is a 114270 superior to a 1016?

Please spell this out, otherwise it does seem like you're only picking the 114270 b/c you own one.

You're obviously also against lumed numerals, ala the 1016 & updated 214270.

Why are non lumed numerals the apotheosis of an Explorer?

Does this mean the MK1 is closer to the truth than the 2016 model?

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by teamkitty

The only true Explorer is the one you have on your wrist when you're out living life.

Excellent answer!

[15minprior]

I believe the 1016 to be the last true Explorer in tool watch terms.

The 14270 and later models have lost their heritage and are more luxurious items.

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by 15minprior

I believe the 1016 to be the last true Explorer in tool watch terms.

The 14270 and later models have lost their heritage and are more luxurious items.

Fair argument. Isn't it ironic that the "last true tool watch" Explorer runs over 10K on the pre-owned market?

The non luxury model has highest price tag.

Go figure

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by ExpSubGMT

Hey JJ - Thanks for your input.

Can you elaborate as to why the 114270 is the apotheosis?

Why not the 14270? Is it the 114270's 3130 movement being superior to the 3000? Is no lug holes superior to lug holes?

Is the answer b/c YOU own a 114270?

How is a 114270 superior to a 1016?

Please spell this out, otherwise it does seem like you're only picking the 114270 b/c you own one.

You're obviously also against lumed numerals, ala the 1016 & updated 214270.

Why are non lumed numerals the apotheosis of an Explorer?

Does this mean the MK1 is closer to the truth than the 2016 model?

The 114270 is the most advanced of the 36mm Explorers, in my opinion and I prefer the 36mm Explorers

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Jack T]

The history of the Explorer is less important than its current functionality, reliability and appearance. I own a 214270, white gold numerals, short hands, solid newer clasp. And it keeps excellent time, well within standards.

To me, it is the apotheosis of simplicity in time keeping in the Rolex line. Durable, discreet and versatile. I have several great watches, three Rolex and the Explorer gets the most wrist time, by far.

As I've said to anyone considering an Explorer, it was my third Rolex; had it been my first, it might be my only.

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

The 114270 is the most advanced of the 36mm Explorers, in my opinion and I prefer the 36mm Explorers

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Well, not exactly a thesis argument for "why" you prefer the 114270, more of a size issue in the end - and that's fine. You prefer a 36mm.

If "advanced" is an argument, I'd venture to say the 214270 has more advanced movement, better bracelet, better lume...

Size of the dial doesn't really affect performance

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by ExpSubGMT

Well, not exactly a thesis argument for "why" you prefer the 114270, more of a size issue in the end - and that's fine. You prefer a 36mm.

If "advanced" is an argument, I'd venture to say the 214270 has more advanced movement, better bracelet, better lume...

Size of the dial doesn't really affect performance

The 214270 is not 36mm.

I didn't equate case size to performance.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by Jack T

The history of the Explorer is less important than its current functionality, reliability and appearance. I own a 214270, white gold numerals, short hands, solid newer clasp. And it keeps excellent time, well within standards.

To me, it is the apotheosis of simplicity in time keeping in the Rolex line. Durable, discreet and versatile. I have several great watches, three Rolex and the Explorer gets the most wrist time, by far.

As I've said to anyone considering an Explorer, it was my third Rolex; had it been my first, it might be my only.

I hear ya, Jack. Well thought out reasons. Thank you

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

The 214270 is not 36mm.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

No, it's 39mm.

Got your point, JJ. You like the 114270 b/c it's 36mm.

Thanks for playing

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by ExpSubGMT

No, it's 39mm.

Got your point, JJ. You like the 114270 b/c it's 36mm.

Thanks for playing

I'm not JJ.

I'm GradyPhilpott.

JJ was one of TRF's greatest members who is now deceased.

The JJ in my signature is a tribute to him.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I'm not JJ.

I'm GradyPhilpott.

JJ was one of Ted's greatest members who is now deceased.

The JJ in my signature is a tribute to him.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Got it.

Thanks for playing, Grady Philpott

[GradyPhilpott]

This is JJ.

[NLYogi]

There are so many questions in the first post, I cannot answer them all. I have the 2016 version and love it. All older Explorer iterations are also killer.

[ExpSubGMT]

Thanks NLyogi. No need to answer all questions This is supposed to be fun.

2016 Explorer is a great one

[polaris72]

Originally Posted by teamkitty

The only true Explorer is the one you have on your wrist when you're out living life.

Enough said.

[Tridor]

JJ was a pretty awesome dude. One of the nicest and most knowledgeable guys on TRF.

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by Tridor

JJ was a pretty awesome dude. One of the nicest and most knowledgeable guys on TRF.

Let's make this a thread about Explorers and JJ -

Did JJ wear an Explorer?

Any photos of JJ wearing an Explorer?

What size Explorer did JJ prefer?

[AK797]

For true I read small, and there are now small, medium and large sizes for Explorers.

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by AK797

For true I read small, and there are now small, medium and large sizes for Explorers.

3 sizes?

Huh

[Toony]

ExpSubGMT

Why not leave JJ out of this. He was a friend to many on this forum. Stick to what your original post was about.

[gregmoeck]

It's the perfect watch I prefer short hand, the only other watch in its category is the non ceramic sea dweller, it's a coin flip which is best

[mtgjr]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

It is my humble opinion that the 114270 is the apotheosis of the Rolex Explorer concept.
[/img][/INDENT]

I agree. The 114270 is perfection. Great picture.

[ExpSubGMT]

Originally Posted by Toony

ExpSubGMT

Why not leave JJ out of this. He was a friend to many on this forum. Stick to what your original post was about.

Others, namely Grady Philpott, brought JJ into this. Not me.

[rph08]

I had a 214270 MK I, and traded it about a year ago. I bought a 114270 earlier this year, and I like it much better. It has nothing to do with whether or not a 114270 is a "true" Explorer. I like the layout of the text on the dial, the proportions of the 36mm case in relation to the bracelet, and the length of the hands in relation to the dial better than the 214270 MK I. The newer bracelet is nice, but definitely something I can live without. I never used the Easylink system on the clasp. FWIW, I have a Tudor Heritage Ranger, and I like it very much. I keep in on the OEM camo strap.