Is an explorer worth it?

I think the watch is worth it, I’d rather have an Explorer than a Ranger or Omega. But the buying experience? Not so much. I would only get an Explorer if I knew for sure I’d have the money at any time in the next few years. Then I’d get on the list and try not to think about it. But if I wanted a watch anytime soon, the anything from Rolex would be out.

I love my Ranger and would take it over the Explorer any day. The Explorer II is a different subject.

I was strictly speaking about the explorer 1 by the way.

I'd go for the explorer, if I knew for a fact I'd get it within two years, and the AD wasn't a twat. Waiting lists I understand. Demand outstrips supply, everyone wants one, first come first serve. But there's no reasonfor a sales assistant to be a knob when one is spending upwards of six and a half thousand pounds. If these requirements weren't met I'd either go grey or get a railmaster.

The Tudor Ranger to me wouldn't be worth it. Everytime I looked at it I'd feel that I 'settled' and don't have the real thing, the one I want. If I had to id buy an original ranger (one with history, back when Tudor was a mishmash of Rolex parts) off of Chrono24. No flack to anyone who owns and loves it but I look at the new ranger and I think its the Wilsdorf company making a half arsed Explorer.

Although I favour Rolex Explorer but Tudor BB36, Omega Aquaterra and Lgines Spirit 37 are real contenders. I think Rolex Explorer will pass the test of time as it has done for the last 70 years. I did also look in Grand Seiko - exceptional movement - but lack lume and not as versatile as the explorer but a blood good watches for the money.

I think the Railmaster is the nicest of the watches mentioned.

Personally I prefer the Ranger over the Explorer, as the Ranger is a more authentic "tool" watch than the old ladies broach(Explorer).

Try to find a reasonably priced 39mm Explorer, imho.

Alternatively, try to find a reasonably priced Railmaster limited edition piece. That’s the only real Railmaster to consider. Again, imho.

The Ranger is… umm? The Ranger is something to some people but it’s not really…? I don’t know what they were thinking when they approved the Ranger for production.

I’d pick the Tudor. The Ranger North Flag is a grail to me. It really comes down to what you want. If you want a Rolex, nothing is a good substitute. If you want just a quality adventure/field watch, why limit your brand choices?

Rail master meh it’s a good watch but it isn’t even close . I got the Ranger so this is a completely biased opinion but for me it was the 1016 in the discontinued 39 mm case . IN brushed tool steel look with a basically Rolex quality bracelet, but back to the Rolex roots , god I still love the 36mm Explorer, but it’s out my reach if I want anything else without selling off shit to get one . There is that …

What about the Tudor BB 36? That's much more Explorer-like than the Ranger

I'm only speaking on aesthetics, but the Ranger all day. But I also don't find Rolex's models appealing, so I'm rather biased. Rolex always gives me the "Old Man" watch vibe. At that Explorer price point, I can think of 80 other watches of better value..

Now if we're talking ROI, Rolex all day. But I have a feeling you're not contemplating this just to flip it a few months later..

Nice non explorer 1016 choice , horses for courses I guess .

Nice non explorer 1016 choice , horses for courses I guess .

There’s nothing as comfortable on the wrist than a Rolex on an oyster bracelet. If you’d wanted the Explorer, nothing will satisfy that desire. That being said I’ve never owned an Omega, I suspect a Seamaster Aqua Terra would be similar to a Rolex. I like Tudor but man they are thick. Too thick. My GMT is so so heavy it’s never going back on the bracelet.

I’ve always felt that the watch is only okay. For the price and having to put up with Rolex’s shiitake, I would go Tudor, or even something sub $1,000 there are tons a quality field watches in that range.

Movement wise the Railmaster is good. But there is just something quite plain in the design. The edges are flat and it just doesn't really feel like Omega. The METAS certified movement is small and there is a 35% space between the edge of the movement and the case, supposedly to provide it's magnetic resistance capability.

I would have gone for a traditional Seamaster if it was in 40mm.

Edit: Now that someone mentioned it, the Railmaster needs to be smaller like 38mm to work for me too!

Not saying the Explorer isn't a good watch. At the right price I would have bought one too. Let's play a game. Let's say the Rolex Explorer was a no brand watch. What made you like it? Is it the size, the accuracy of the movement, the bracelet or the no date. If it was the size, think about what other brands do those sizes (either 1mm above or below). Eg I can think of Grand Seiko and Zenith.

It can be hard to make these decisions because Rolex always have that upper edge in that it's resalable. But we have to remember that for many 2nd hand dealers, to make money, they have to buy the watch LOW. They will eventually sell them HIGH no matter what. So the prices you see online simply doesn't do us good because these were already marked up more than what the initial buyer (ie the 2nd hand dealer paid). If the watch was worth that much, how could the dealer have even sold it in the first place.

I agree. Technically a fantastic piece, movement, bracelet, finishing. But, and it’s a huge but, is that, that one superficial issue is the one thing you have to look at! If? And I am with you on this, that the Ranger evolves… Applied indices hopefully 🙏 I wouldn’t hesitate to purchase the Ranger Mk2 👌

Rolex gets a pass mostly because of the name. Im not even going to try and say its anything else. Accuracy, finishing, no-date, dial, history, style all these things can be found elsewhere for less and just as good or in many cases better. Not saying anything bad about Rolex but i think i would be lying to myself if i pretended it wasn’t about brand recognition.

🤣🤣🤣 A year, are you sleeping with the AD 😂😂😂

Out of those I'd take the explorer although generally prefer Tudor. I do like the Air King though. For that look I wouldn't rule out a Longines Conquest at a fraction of the cost and looks great.

Coming in hot with the Longines! I do love those too. But hey i can only do one and the option are very hard.

D. All of the above.

No, really. Like 'em all. Don't have any of them. All of them are unique enough to not be in direct competition with each other. Someday I may spring for one.

I think the Railmaster would be an excellent choice. With top-notch movement and high-quality finishing, the fit is perfect for me, and possibly you. I give the Railmaster very high marks. I own an Aqua Terra and it is very much like a Railmaster, I love my AT, so there is that.

which is exactly what I did...but at the time it was the 214270.

I have borrowed a 39 exp and wore it for a few weeks. It just really didn't bond with it. I think the Tudor or Railmaster are better options personally.

What kept you from bonding with the Explorer? Just curious.

It seemed bland to me. Also, and I know this is kinda weird, but the case shape seemed kinda feminine to me. Just kinda swoopy and rounded. I dont know, just didnt love it.

too expensive of a watch not to fall in love with it. Thank you for your thoughts on it. The polls and the comments have told a different story. It has been interesting being part of this conversation.

Rolex explorer for sure. The Ranger won’t scratch that itch for you.