Omega Polar vs Polar Explorer pick one

[Cassian739]

I own both - Exp2 all day / every day, and it's not even a close decision.

[John Doyle]

Explorer 2 for me

[Scottyboy]

It really depends if I needed a white dial Diver or a Spelunking watch which for some reason is shown on a really awful orange NATO?

[Scottyboy]

Originally Posted by 1NTRANSIT

I’ve owned both, ExpII hands down(wearing it now)

The SMP300 misses the mark in white, its very photogenic but on the wrist it reminded me of a low end Tag. The bezel just looked off to me. Mine was on rubber and major fail they didnt incorporate a deployant, the tang puts off a cheap vibe. Legibility also suffers with the sword hands.

No Omega hater here, Im a long time fan of POs and older Seamaster.

Completely agree, a multiple thousand £ or $ watch on rubber should never be on tang, always on deployant.

[agriculture&watches]

Explorer II polar for sure

[fishingbear]

Rolex

[travisb]

Polar Exp II is probably my favorite white dial watch. So there you go.

[Jackie Daytona]

Explorer II by a significant margin. Dual time zones. Cooler case design. The pop of orange is nice. Just a cool watch.

[krounchou]

Explorer Polar for sure. And a 16570 !

[rolexjackson]

Two completely different watches. One is a dive watch the other is an exploring watch. I think there is room for both pieces in your collection. A better comparison would be the white sky dweller to the polar expII


Life is short, buy the watch.

[Dave455]

As others have suggested, the watches are really totally different, which makes comparisons difficult.

Quality wise, the Seamasters are good. Perhaps the best they have ever been. But they're not in the same league as the Explorer II, so from a quality perspective, it's the Explorer.

Style wise, both watches are nicely proportioned, and neither are disappointingly thick like the Planet Ocean. Both have black hands, essential on a white dial. (Note please Breitling). But, speaking as a Seamaster owner, the skeleton hands are awful. Not highly visible in low light, and turn the watch from a tool watch into a divers "style" watch. The escape valve is hideous too.

The Explorer II is just superb. A subtly different watch from the GMT or the Submariner, but is perfect for it's role. The bold black hands, the lume, everything, are perfect. The orange 24 hour hand looks great on the white face, especially with the orange script.

There's no doubt, the Explorer wins it every way.

Incidentally, the original reason for the white faces on tool watches was for use in sunny conditions. Black faces allow the movement to get hotter, reducing accuracy.

I own one watch with a white face (an OP 34 mm) which I use as a dedicated tool for sunny conditions. I also own an Explorer II, but in black.

[1William]

I have owned both and still have the Explorer II in both black and white. Believe it or not the black dial gets more wear than the Polar. The Explorer II for fit, finish and overall looks.

[KatGirl]

Is this a serious question? There is no contest here. Apples and oranges. Polar Explorer by a country mile!

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[B2 Stealth]

Polar ExplorerII is the best "tool" watch Rolex makes. My everyday. A special reference.

[cdmorenot]

Very tough choice ! I own a variation of both. I don't think I would be able to choose.

[PeteNYC13]

Originally Posted by deeman54

Which would you choose and why? I they they both are amazing time pieces.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted on "Rolex Forums", gee, which way will the opinions go?!

Talk about an echo chamber. That being said, 100% Explorer, that's why I am on the Rolex Forums and not the Omega Forums

[gamingdoctor]

polar explorer, but the 16570! The seamaster is too big and garish.

[londondude]

Explorer II

[173rdabn]

Explorer II hands down. I'm wearing mine right now.

[luk4s83]

From technical standpoint Omega is a better watch - it has better, nicely decorated movement with display case back, ceramic laser etched dial, clasp with quick adjustment and more refined watch case. Rolex is pretty plain but Rolex is Rolex so obviously I'd pick the Explorer II.
That being said it's better to have Omega on a wrist than wait forever for a Rolex.
I had fantastic buying experience getting my SMP300m from Omega AD few years back and it's still one of my favorite watches in my collection. So far Rolex is thousands miles away from that.

[belutak]

Originally Posted by gamingdoctor

polar explorer, but the 16570! The seamaster is too big and garish.

Seamaster is more comfortable to wear and is technically a superior watch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carguy87]

I go back and forth on this as I would like to add one of these as a summer beach/pool watch. Not really a fair fight since the EXPII is twice the price but that’s the direction I’ve been leaning.

[White Collar Boy]

Unpopular opinion here, but I prefer the SMP.

[Navin Johnson]

Explorer ii for me. I’m actually still waiting for one with my AD

[goheel]

Do yourself a favor and check out the Omega SMP great white GMT. 2538.20 great watch at great price.

[watchwatcher]

The EXP2...but the Omega is nice, too.

[Texex]

I have and love both. The Rolex is a better watch in my opinion. That being said the Omega can often be had for a 10-20% discount which is what I got last year. With that discount it's half the price of the Explorer. As I said I feel the Rolex is better but not twice as good. The Omega is way more watch for the money.

[samson66]

I prefer the SMP ... EXCEPT ... I can't stand the skeleton hands. So in this battle I side with Rolex

But I would take the white dial Moonwatch over both of them

[Hollie_Rollie]

Between these 2, I would go Explorer 2.

Blue dial SMP is a different story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack T]

I have always liked the 300M series in particular, in black or blue preferrably, and Omega in general. Subs and Explorers get votes on here because they are Rolex's, not necessarily because they're better watches.