The Breitling Watch Source Forums

As I keep mulling over ideas for my next latest and greatest, I'll probably keep posting random threads asking for your thoughts on this model or that. This time it's about the Rolex Explorer I, updated in 2010 to be 39mm. I hadn't considered the model before, but it caught my eye as I was poking around online. It has a lot of the characteristics I'm looking for - a standard watch that straddles the line between dressy and sporty, reasonable dimensions (39mm - 41mm is ideal, and not too thick), high quality and durable. It doesn't have a date, which is a bummer, although I know purists like it that way. It has the updated bracelet and clasp with easy-link extension (not the glidelock clasp, alas). The lugs taper more, so it has a slightly more refined, better proportioned look than the new Subs and GMTs, imo. Purists seem to be outraged about the size of the hands, saying it suffers from "SHS," which I presume means Small Hands Syndrome. Honestly, I wouldn't have noticed that if they hadn't pointed it out, but since they did, I can see what they mean. I don't think it bothers me all that much, though. MSRP $6200. I'm curious what others think about it.

I am considering a pre-owned 14270 in 36mm... The size whether it's 39 or 44 or 36 is negligent... I try to top out at 45-46 or bottom out at 34mm...

I like these pieces because they're very simple... no frills... some say boring... I say classic...

having said that sometimes less is more huh? I really don't know for the purist how much more one can ask for... in house movement, decent looks to boot, reliable and robust. I agree on the dressy to casual... lately I've been trying to simplify my collection as well, moving away from vintage to a bit more contemporary, but my first true loves are from the old school...

_________________
"I don't got the bright watch I got the right watch" -Jay Z

jackson if you like it i say go for it. have you considered the milgauss? that might be an option too. also look into the 14060M (no date sub) it still has the older style case most rolex guys love this watch. another option might be the 39mm Sea Dweller, that does have a date and it believe its 39mm.

It's my impression, reading through Rolex forums, that the purists largely don't like any change, simply because it's a change. They have the older models in mind, and the new one simply doesn't add up. Not all of them feel that way, of course, but the initial response was largely negative. I see the same phenomenon here with Breitling's newer designs, although, in my opinion, most of the new Breitling designs suck on their own merits, and not simply by way of comparison with what came before. But I digress. The one practical thing the Explorer enthusiasts seem to dislike the most is the size of the hands, which are virtually the same size as the ones on the 36mm model, which makes them proportionally smaller on the 39mm model. That would appear to be the case, based on comparison photos, but taking the new model on its own merits, I can't say it bothers me much. I still like the fact they're the sport hands, rather than the "dressy" hands of the Datejust and the Milgauss. Also, the lume on the new Explorer is blue, which is pretty cool. On the whole, I think it's a great "watch" watch, although I will reserve judgment until I see one in person. I don't remember seeing one at any of the ADs in my area, although I wasn't specifically looking for one, either.

I have to say, the more I see of the Milgauss, the more I like it, although I hadn't previously considered it as an option. Still, I don't think I like it as much as the Sub, and at its asking price, it wouldn't be that much harder to afford the Sub. The question I'm asking vis a vis the Explorer is if the Sub is $1800 "better." I won't settle for a watch I don't like simply to save money, but if two models are comparable, and one is less, obviously the price can be a swaying factor. The Explorer offers enough of what I'm looking for that it's becoming a serious contender alongside the Sub.

As for older models, I'm pretty set on the new bracelet, since the older one just didn't cut it, especially the clasp. I think that pretty much rules out older models. Although only the Sub (and Deepsea) has the actual Glidelock, all the new Oyster bracelets have the better construction, and the Easylink is a good second choice. Evidently Rolex sees the Glidelock as replacing the diver's extension, since only their diver models have it. It would seem they think the Easylink is sufficient for "normal" wearing.

For me, the too-short hands ruin what would otherwise be a great watch. It's one of those things that I didn't notice at first, but since it was pointed out it's become all I see when I look at the watch.

Very out of character for Rolex to miss a detail like this, increasing the size of the case but using the same old hands.

And to answer your question, yes I do think the Sub is $1800 "better".

- Date
- Greater WR
- Ceramic bezel
- Glidelock clasp
- Does not have a serious design fault with the hands

These things are easily worth $1800 to me.

That's a good point.


Some enthusiasts have speculated Rolex might correct the issue in a few years by putting on hands more in proportion to the dial. In which case, the limited-run "short hand" version might become a sought-after collector piece. Sounds like a stretch to me, but who knows?

If that's going to happen with any brand, it would be Rolex (or Panerai). Rolex clasps with misspelt stampings are collectible.

I'm a fan. I really like this model in particular by Rolex. Up until about 6 months ago, I was very adamant about not buying a rolex because I feel too many people I know own one - although the majority of them are into the brand for the status and not the watch itself. However, as Breitling has disappointed me to the point that I am no longer interested in any of its new models, and my love for my BlackBird has been waning, I started to rethink my position on Rolex and I have been drawn very much to this model which could be a potential replacement for my BlackBird.

For me, as an "everyday" watch, the biggest drawback for me is the lack of a date window. I find myself referring to my watch often to check the date and the lack of this feature is probably the only thing that has prevented me from pulling the trigger on the explorer - as well as the Milgauss which I really like as well.

So there you have it - I am no help

_________________
************* ************************ **********
PAM359, Omega PO Big Size, 1951 Omega Seamaster, Rolex Sea Dweller

Did they just use the hands from the 36mm model on this one? It's all I can see when I look at it.


The lack of a date window is a deal breaker for me. Especially if this was a "one watch."

_________________
SHARKMAN

I have to concur with most people here.

Go for the Submariner. It is easily worth the extra $1800.

I do like the Explorer 1 but it would have to be as part of a collection. There are a few Rolex models I would have first. In fact I have two of them, Submariner and Milgauss.

_________________
Forum Representative for Andrew Michaels Jewellers, UK

Please visit my Watch Blog at http://www.AndrewMichaels.co.uk

******Our new Pre-owned watch site www.amjwatches.co.uk is now live*****

IMO the new subc is a better watch than the Explorer 39mm. I know the Rolex purists might beg to differ but the overall look and feel of the 116610 is amazing. The glide lock clasp and date feature are easily worth the extra money. plus the look of the case has serious wrist presence. Thats the main reason that converted me to Rolex.

Between the Explorer I and the Milgauss I prefer the Milgauss due to the dressier nature of the case and bracelet. For an everyday wearer though the Explorer looks like a nice option.

The Sub is what gave me a Rolex jones, too. It's opened my eyes to other Rolex models I hadn't even looked at - case in point, the Explorer. I need to see the Explorer in person and try it on to really know how much I like it. Until then, I'm not going to make any decisions either way. As it stands, though, the balance does seem to favor the Sub. Another point we haven't discussed is the dial itself: the Explorer has a matte dial, whereas the Sub has a lacquered dial. Some people really seem to like the matte dial, but the lacquered dial of the Sub is one of the things that drew me to it.


Ricardo, great pics. Those are two of the biggest looking 40mm watches I've seen. Just out of curiosity, what's your wrist size?