I own the Explorer I 36 and it fits perfect on my 16cm circumference wrist, I’m not a fan of the bracelet though they went too small between lugs 19 and it tapers so much that the bracelet looks girly. Having said that it runs like a champ ~ 0 sec/day and is very comfortable to wear.
I agree. I tried it on a few weeks ago and the bracelet made it feel dainty and I have both a 37mm Yachtmaster (which wears like a vintage sub) and a 2008 36mm OP that never give me that feeling.
I've been wearing my black dial Exp II all over Japan the past 2 weeks. Occasionally rotating with one of my Panerai that made the trip. Love the Exp II. It is a new pickup this year and it has really won me over. I was a little uncertain about the look when I got the call but it has won me over. So glad I got the black dial too. I know I would have gotten tired of the white. I threw the Exp II on a black Zealande strap (not a bracelet guy, no matter how hard I try) and it has been so comfortable and versatile. I think this will be my go-to travel watch when things are of a more adventurous nature (and not going to sketchy places where I will have to fight off would-be thieves). As an added bonus... the watch is within 2 seconds of the reference time I set it to at the start of the trip. Even my spring drives can't touch that!
I would chose Explorer 1 36mm, as a reminder of how simple the things were in the past and how confident our grandparents were. And my wrist size is 7.25
5 digits Explorer 2 black dial, I do own one in mint condition and it's exactly the reminder I needed of why I do love Rolex. Brand new? 36mm Explorer for me since the 2 is too large nowadays
I had an explorer II in black (42mm) and sold it. I now have a 2009 Explorer (36mm) and love it. Far easier wearing and much better sized for my wrist. On a strap it’s unstoppable. I think it’s very wrist-depending. You guys can pull a 40-42 easily and it looks better than a 36mm on your wrists.
I own the 222650 white dial and just adore it. For me, black and orange together are just too “Haloweeny”. My solution in this scenario. Pick up a EXP I and with $2400 saved, go grab a mint pre owned BBPRO with that amazing yellow GMT hand. Regardless, the best part about both these watches is they are typically available with palpable waits from the AD, and if you can’t bear waiting, they available at close to retail plus tax at reputable resellers. Exp I is one hell of a GADA watch, and if I was limited to a one watch collection, the EXP I would be high on my list.
Explorer 1 all day for me - the 3-6-9 dial is beyond iconic. Easiest analog watch to tell the time, and the watch is both sporty and classy. The perfect GADA watch. My 124270 is one of my favorite watches in my collection and gets a lot of wrist time. I would not mind a polar 5 digit Explorer 2, but the current 42mm model wears too big on my 6.75" wrist.
As far as standard complications are concerned, GMT is in my opinion perhaps the most useless one. Even more useless than a moonphase. Because there is actually a chance that you don't know the current phase of the moon (if you had a reason to know anyway). But the problem with GMTs is that as soon as you know the time, then you instantly know the time in another timezone. The math is so simple, it is at least as fast doing it in your head as it is reading it using a GMT hand or bezel. That said, I love the look of the black dial Explorer GMT. Polar is cool but the black dial is even better.
Depends what you need,personaly i love the gmt look but using it its so opsolet!!! I prefer to use an classic explorer doing for being eficient ,resistant and simple,of course just my point of view
Passed on the 39mm Explorer several years ago. Just didn’t look right to me. The 36mm Explorer is perfect on my wrist. We’re fortunate these days that Rolex makes a watch that’s perfect for every size wrist, 36/40/41/42, take your pick.
I own the 42mm explorer II black dial and it is an absolutely amazing watch. In my opinion the best watch that Rolex makes. Same movment as the GMT master, same dial as the sub and it can do everything the sub can do in real practical life in regards to swimming or sport, and for less than the price of either. I also have the green OP 41 and it’s an amazing watch as well. Between those two I think it’s the perfect 2 watch collection.
I'm not sure if you mentioned the previous gen Explorer II 16570 black dial at 40mm, but that would be my pick for size versatility. Always a good conversation between the two of you.
"Explorer ONE." Like nails on a F'n chalkboard...it's THE Explorer. There is no "One." Also, wasn't Bruce's chap the one railing on the nonsensical idea that the Explorer 2 was too big just a couple of vids ago? Ugh...contradict much?
@@MPD90 To be fair, I'm going to need to see proof for validation. I've combed the Rolex website through the years, and I've NEVER seen them mention the Explorer as the "1." Even when referencing the watches' fantastic history.
@@mcasmcas6208 Sure, go to TZ-UK (the biggest watch forum in the UK) and search for thread 345500 which has the title “To those who say there is no such thing as an Explorer 1”. You’ll see evidence of Rolex using the term Explorer 1 in their literature.
Glad to see a bunch of guys evaluating watches from a functions perspective. Too many watch nerds are effeminate in over focusing on how things feel, how they look, and minutiae that you need to be 2 inches close to see
If it was about functionality they'd have a digital quartz watch over either of these any day. Sorry but any discussion on multi-thousand mechanical dinosaurs is a conversation about feelings, let's just be honest about it.
@@MPD90 Not true. First of all, you are twisting the meaning of functionality. I was speaking of watch people who think of time-only as being the same as GMTs or chronographs. Or who change watches everyday that it becomes a chore. Stupid watch nerd stuff, analogous to denim heads who never wash their jeans Second of all, digital quartz has functional advantages over mechanical, BUT mechanical also has functional advantages. When a quartz module craps out, what do you do, throw it out right? Mechanicals are literally built from bits of metal, you can maintain it with enough money, and pass it down the family. Also there are government secret sites where you can't be wearing electronics. (just a few things off the top of the head)
@@MegaThucydides funny stuff dude. Except quartz movements can also be built out of metal, are considerably more robust, can also be serviceable, and in the case of normal cheaper quartz movements the whole module could be replaced every single year for the rest of your life and still cost less than a single Rolex service. Not to mention quartz typically lasts much longer without intervention, is far more accurate, and enables far more features. So no, you’re simply wrong, there is no functional reason to wear a mechanical, it’s only about the emotions. P.s. secret government sites, come on 007, that’s enough martinis for the day LOL
@@MPD90 You keep running away from the fact that by functionality I meant useful complications. But even on your terms you are too myopic. You can make the plates of quartz movements out of metal or even diamonds for all I care, doesn't take away from the fact that its heart is an IC chip. When it fails there's no bringing it back. Sure replacement modules are cheap today, but take away a key supplier (I hear the quartz makers are buckling under competition from Apple), or god-forbid a trade war with China, and tell me how accessible replacement quartz modules are. Whereas we have had the ability to machine small metal parts for at least 300-400 years Lastly you can ignore realities of nat. sec regulations all you want, doesn't mean there aren't a number of use cases where mechanical is superior to quartz
Generally agree with you guys on explorer 2 over explorer but the difference in price, which is significant is what gives you the date and the GMT complication… I disagree with the last comment on the explorer 2 being the same the the gmt master but cheaper. The lack of a rotating bezel doesn’t give a third time zone.
I agree with Bruce 💯. I have 7.5 inch wrist which is flat & wide. I couldn’t wear a watch that is 42mm & below or watches with a short lug to lug. My collection of watches are Omega Planet Ocean XL, Breitling Navitimer 46, Breitling Superocean Heritage 46, Panerai Radiomir 183 45mm. That’s why I don’t have a Sub or GMT Master ii because they’re too small on me. Even the sales rep was laughing looking at how small those watches are on me. That is until I try the black Explorer ii 216570….this watch was made for me, so perfect in every sense of the word 💯💥. So thin & light for 42mm watch with the tapered bracelet, perfect! I bought it on the spot and it has been my daily beater ever since. Now I’m considering getting the Polar into my collection 👍
Ugh…you lost me with the 36 vs 40 nonsense. This is stupid watch dork stuff people feel they need to say to sound cool. No mention that the Explorer 2 has also changed size…as has the Sub. Are the smaller sizes of those not also the “the real version”. I think many are blown away with just how small the new 36 Explorer 1 is. It’s very dainty. That said the Explorer 1 is simply the better looking watch
I have the black Explorer II 226570, so I am biased and obviously behind your thoughts on that. It might have been a bit tougher if the Explorer 40 was out when I got mine (very close, actually), but I think I still made the better choice. I might even go with the current Air King over the Explorer, for a bit more personality. If you want to be absolutely under the radar, I will say the Explorer might be the perfect pick for that use.
The 2 Explorers have nothing in common except the name. Bit weird comparing against each other. One is Rolex's most boring watch, the other is their best sports watch that could be smaller and have a glidelock.
I would go with the explorer 2 16570. In fact I did, traded in the 214270 39mm Explorer 1 and happily wear the 16570 with the addition of a steel reef quick extension. All the watch you need for 95% of life.
The Explorer II would be the perfect watch for me if the bezel rotated. I use a timing bezel constantly! For this reason, I’d probably go with a GMT Master.
I love the Explorer but people often hype up the incorrect history of the Explorer as the Everest expedition watch which is actually not true. Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay were wearing OPs for their Everest expedition and in fact Edmund was probably wearing a Smiths. I agree though that the standard OP is just as capable and just as good looking as the Explorer especially older OPs with the 369 dial.
Hy Bruce what is going on with the Archie lux channel. many people were saying that now its a GAY watch channel. Marc was even talking about it on there show?
I own the Explorer I 36 and it fits perfect on my 16cm circumference wrist, I’m not a fan of the bracelet though they went too small between lugs 19 and it tapers so much that the bracelet looks girly. Having said that it runs like a champ ~ 0 sec/day and is very comfortable to wear.
The explorer 1 36mm is the absolute best design. I could wear it everyday and still be happy
I agree. I tried it on a few weeks ago and the bracelet made it feel dainty and I have both a 37mm Yachtmaster (which wears like a vintage sub) and a 2008 36mm OP that never give me that feeling.
I own both the 40mm Explorer and the Explorer II polar, 226570. They are both excellent I couldn’t choose between them if I had to,
I've been wearing my black dial Exp II all over Japan the past 2 weeks. Occasionally rotating with one of my Panerai that made the trip. Love the Exp II. It is a new pickup this year and it has really won me over. I was a little uncertain about the look when I got the call but it has won me over. So glad I got the black dial too. I know I would have gotten tired of the white. I threw the Exp II on a black Zealande strap (not a bracelet guy, no matter how hard I try) and it has been so comfortable and versatile. I think this will be my go-to travel watch when things are of a more adventurous nature (and not going to sketchy places where I will have to fight off would-be thieves). As an added bonus... the watch is within 2 seconds of the reference time I set it to at the start of the trip. Even my spring drives can't touch that!
I would chose Explorer 1 36mm, as a reminder of how simple the things were in the past and how confident our grandparents were. And my wrist size is 7.25
Any Rolex Modell is simple and a snoozefest
The Explorer 40 is actually 38.5 mm.
5 digits Explorer 2 black dial, I do own one in mint condition and it's exactly the reminder I needed of why I do love Rolex. Brand new? 36mm Explorer for me since the 2 is too large nowadays
I had an explorer II in black (42mm) and sold it. I now have a 2009 Explorer (36mm) and love it. Far easier wearing and much better sized for my wrist. On a strap it’s unstoppable. I think it’s very wrist-depending. You guys can pull a 40-42 easily and it looks better than a 36mm on your wrists.
Love the T-Rex! The gold 3, 6, 9 make it so classy.
I own the 222650 white dial and just adore it. For me, black and orange together are just too “Haloweeny”. My solution in this scenario. Pick up a EXP I and with $2400 saved, go grab a mint pre owned BBPRO with that amazing yellow GMT hand.
Regardless, the best part about both these watches is they are typically available with palpable waits from the AD, and if you can’t bear waiting, they available at close to retail plus tax at reputable resellers.
Exp I is one hell of a GADA watch, and if I was limited to a one watch collection, the EXP I would be high on my list.
Explorer 1 all day for me - the 3-6-9 dial is beyond iconic. Easiest analog watch to tell the time, and the watch is both sporty and classy. The perfect GADA watch. My 124270 is one of my favorite watches in my collection and gets a lot of wrist time. I would not mind a polar 5 digit Explorer 2, but the current 42mm model wears too big on my 6.75" wrist.
39mm Explorer (mk 2 dial) was the best of the line IMO, although respect some folk will prefer the traditional 36mm size.
Explorer 1 39MM is perfection! Rolex forgets that 39MM is the most popular watch size.
I own an explorer and really want an explorer II. I’m hoping they make one with a smaller case again as the 42 is a little big for me
Explorer 36 all day...or 40 if you have the wrist for it. It does it all and the 3-6-9 is so killer.
I had a 214270 and never felt compelled to wear it so I let it go.
As far as standard complications are concerned, GMT is in my opinion perhaps the most useless one. Even more useless than a moonphase. Because there is actually a chance that you don't know the current phase of the moon (if you had a reason to know anyway). But the problem with GMTs is that as soon as you know the time, then you instantly know the time in another timezone. The math is so simple, it is at least as fast doing it in your head as it is reading it using a GMT hand or bezel. That said, I love the look of the black dial Explorer GMT. Polar is cool but the black dial is even better.
Such great watches you can't go wrong with either one at the end of the day. Which one do you pick?
Depends what you need,personaly i love the gmt look but using it its so opsolet!!! I prefer to use an classic explorer doing for being eficient ,resistant and simple,of course just my point of view
Explorer just looks better and that’s why I prefer it
IMO the Explorer I should have the Air King case with the crown guards.
Passed on the 39mm Explorer several years ago. Just didn’t look right to me. The 36mm Explorer is perfect on my wrist. We’re fortunate these days that Rolex makes a watch that’s perfect for every size wrist, 36/40/41/42, take your pick.
Explorer
Thanks for answering my question fellas! Great insight from you both! I really like this style of video!
Have the black dial 42, it’s awesome. Had a 39 Explorer, never connected with it, a bit too small on my 7.2 wrist.
I own the Explorer 39, its the best GADA watch on the market but it's not the best at any one thing.
Explorer II polar , I love mine ❤
Explorer I
I own the 42mm explorer II black dial and it is an absolutely amazing watch. In my opinion the best watch that Rolex makes. Same movment as the GMT master, same dial as the sub and it can do everything the sub can do in real practical life in regards to swimming or sport, and for less than the price of either. I also have the green OP 41 and it’s an amazing watch as well. Between those two I think it’s the perfect 2 watch collection.
I'm not sure if you mentioned the previous gen Explorer II 16570 black dial at 40mm, but that would be my pick for size versatility. Always a good conversation between the two of you.
"Explorer ONE." Like nails on a F'n chalkboard...it's THE Explorer. There is no "One."
Also, wasn't Bruce's chap the one railing on the nonsensical idea that the Explorer 2 was too big just a couple of vids ago? Ugh...contradict much?
To be fair, Rolex have often referred to the Explorer 1, including in marketing materials and brochures.
@@MPD90 To be fair, I'm going to need to see proof for validation. I've combed the Rolex website through the years, and I've NEVER seen them mention the Explorer as the "1." Even when referencing the watches' fantastic history.
@@mcasmcas6208 Sure, go to TZ-UK (the biggest watch forum in the UK) and search for thread 345500 which has the title “To those who say there is no such thing as an Explorer 1”. You’ll see evidence of Rolex using the term Explorer 1 in their literature.
Glad to see a bunch of guys evaluating watches from a functions perspective. Too many watch nerds are effeminate in over focusing on how things feel, how they look, and minutiae that you need to be 2 inches close to see
We got you
If it was about functionality they'd have a digital quartz watch over either of these any day. Sorry but any discussion on multi-thousand mechanical dinosaurs is a conversation about feelings, let's just be honest about it.
@@MPD90 Not true. First of all, you are twisting the meaning of functionality. I was speaking of watch people who think of time-only as being the same as GMTs or chronographs. Or who change watches everyday that it becomes a chore. Stupid watch nerd stuff, analogous to denim heads who never wash their jeans
Second of all, digital quartz has functional advantages over mechanical, BUT mechanical also has functional advantages. When a quartz module craps out, what do you do, throw it out right? Mechanicals are literally built from bits of metal, you can maintain it with enough money, and pass it down the family. Also there are government secret sites where you can't be wearing electronics. (just a few things off the top of the head)
@@MegaThucydides funny stuff dude. Except quartz movements can also be built out of metal, are considerably more robust, can also be serviceable, and in the case of normal cheaper quartz movements the whole module could be replaced every single year for the rest of your life and still cost less than a single Rolex service. Not to mention quartz typically lasts much longer without intervention, is far more accurate, and enables far more features. So no, you’re simply wrong, there is no functional reason to wear a mechanical, it’s only about the emotions.
P.s. secret government sites, come on 007, that’s enough martinis for the day LOL
@@MPD90 You keep running away from the fact that by functionality I meant useful complications. But even on your terms you are too myopic. You can make the plates of quartz movements out of metal or even diamonds for all I care, doesn't take away from the fact that its heart is an IC chip. When it fails there's no bringing it back.
Sure replacement modules are cheap today, but take away a key supplier (I hear the quartz makers are buckling under competition from Apple), or god-forbid a trade war with China, and tell me how accessible replacement quartz modules are. Whereas we have had the ability to machine small metal parts for at least 300-400 years
Lastly you can ignore realities of nat. sec regulations all you want, doesn't mean there aren't a number of use cases where mechanical is superior to quartz
114270 for me.
This is the right answer
Generally agree with you guys on explorer 2 over explorer but the difference in price, which is significant is what gives you the date and the GMT complication… I disagree with the last comment on the explorer 2 being the same the the gmt master but cheaper. The lack of a rotating bezel doesn’t give a third time zone.
Polar Exp II for the win!
I agree with Bruce 💯. I have 7.5 inch wrist which is flat & wide. I couldn’t wear a watch that is 42mm & below or watches with a short lug to lug. My collection of watches are Omega Planet Ocean XL, Breitling Navitimer 46, Breitling Superocean Heritage 46, Panerai Radiomir 183 45mm. That’s why I don’t have a Sub or GMT Master ii because they’re too small on me. Even the sales rep was laughing looking at how small those watches are on me. That is until I try the black Explorer ii 216570….this watch was made for me, so perfect in every sense of the word 💯💥. So thin & light for 42mm watch with the tapered bracelet, perfect! I bought it on the spot and it has been my daily beater ever since. Now I’m considering getting the Polar into my collection 👍
You guys make a great team!!!
Thank you!
@@BruceWilliams thank you for the great content
Similar names very different watches
Glidelock is also on other OF models.
Explorer 2 all day long for me!
I have both :)
Ugh…you lost me with the 36 vs 40 nonsense. This is stupid watch dork stuff people feel they need to say to sound cool. No mention that the Explorer 2 has also changed size…as has the Sub. Are the smaller sizes of those not also the “the real version”. I think many are blown away with just how small the new 36 Explorer 1 is. It’s very dainty. That said the Explorer 1 is simply the better looking watch
I have the black Explorer II 226570, so I am biased and obviously behind your thoughts on that. It might have been a bit tougher if the Explorer 40 was out when I got mine (very close, actually), but I think I still made the better choice. I might even go with the current Air King over the Explorer, for a bit more personality. If you want to be absolutely under the radar, I will say the Explorer might be the perfect pick for that use.
The Milgauss all day long.
It’s go Explorer. But might take blue or green Milgauss over it. Would take the GMT master two over them both.
Explorer II Polar. With lots of patience - GO UTES!
Go Utes!
The 2 Explorers have nothing in common except the name. Bit weird comparing against each other.
One is Rolex's most boring watch, the other is their best sports watch that could be smaller and have a glidelock.
I would go with the explorer 2 16570. In fact I did, traded in the 214270 39mm Explorer 1 and happily wear the 16570 with the addition of a steel reef quick extension. All the watch you need for 95% of life.
The Explorer II would be the perfect watch for me if the bezel rotated. I use a timing bezel constantly! For this reason, I’d probably go with a GMT Master.
My father has Mk1 Explorer II. Black dial Explorer II is a perfect watch.
Both. The white dial Exp2 & the 39/40 version of the Explorer; the 36 is tiny!
Imagine a world where you can walk into an AD off the street, and try both watches on to see how they look and feel on your own wrist 😌
Exp II. Explorer is an ugly and overrated watch. Just get a regular OP. But...but...I like to hike and no other watch can do this. 😂
I love the Explorer but people often hype up the incorrect history of the Explorer as the Everest expedition watch which is actually not true. Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay were wearing OPs for their Everest expedition and in fact Edmund was probably wearing a Smiths. I agree though that the standard OP is just as capable and just as good looking as the Explorer especially older OPs with the 369 dial.
Hy Bruce what is going on with the Archie lux channel. many people were saying that now its a GAY watch channel. Marc was even talking about it on there show?
Jason (@watchrolling) is good people.
The best people