Explorer (214270) durability ?

[alexo]

Where would the Explorer (214270) be placed in terms of durability and every day use compared to a SUB ?

I’m thinking scratches on bracelet, crystal etc.

Thanks in advance for any replies …

[The GMT Master]

Exactly the same, really. Both very tough watches. Brushed stainless bracelet, sapphire crystal, there's not a lot that can mess the watch up unless you're really abusing it

[SaddleSC]

Originally Posted by alexo

Where would the Explorer (214270) be placed in terms of durability and every day use compared to a SUB ?

I’m thinking scratches on bracelet, crystal etc.

Thanks in advance for any replies …

Some would make the argument that the Explorer is even more robust than the Sub Date because it lacks the date complication. One less thing to fail in extreme conditions.

[slcbbrown]

I would lean towards saying the Explorer is more robust. A rotating bezel with a bezel insert can't be as bullet proof as a solid stainless bezel.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by slcbbrown

I would lean towards saying the Explorer is more robust. A rotating bezel with a bezel insert can't be as bullet proof as a solid stainless bezel.

this, plus, doesn't the explorer have a slightly modified movement that's supposedly more shockproof than before?

i'm probably making this up, but, i seem to remember reading that somewhere.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

this, plus, doesn't the explorer have a slightly modified movement that's supposedly more shockproof than before?

i'm probably making this up, but, i seem to remember reading that somewhere.

It's an all new movement inside (cal. 3132), which would have Rolex's in house anti-shock system. Whether it would be any better than the traditional anti-shock system is debatable, but it will have all of Rolex's typical ruggedness

[Michael M.]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Exactly the same, really. Both very tough watches. Brushed stainless bracelet, sapphire crystal, there's not a lot that can mess the watch up unless you're really abusing it

Exactly Only thing is that the Sub-C has a bigger case so it may be more prone to scratches.

[onryo]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

Some would make the argument that the Explorer is even more robust than the Sub Date because it lacks the date complication. One less thing to fail in extreme conditions.

Funny thing is that I think a date on the Explorer is more appropriate than the Sub. You can remember what day of the month it is at sea level or slightly below. When suffering from hypoxia, you don't know have much of a frame of reference for dates, times, etc. My 2 cents...

[alexo]

valueble info ... greatly appriciated ... thanx to all of you ...

How about instant hot and cold situations ... warm tent seconds later icecold mountain water ... and about "waterproof to 100 m" ? means SCUBA diving to 30 m should be well within range ?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

It's an all new movement inside (cal. 3132), which would have Rolex's in house anti-shock system. Whether it would be any better than the traditional anti-shock system is debatable, but it will have all of Rolex's typical ruggedness

Hardly a completely new movement Chris just a slightly modded old one its still based on the cal 3135.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by alexo

valueble info ... greatly appriciated ... thanx to all of you ...

How about instant hot and cold situations ... warm tent seconds later icecold mountain water ... and about "waterproof to 100 m" ? means SCUBA diving to 30 m should be well within range ?

No need to be concerned about shifts in temperature. Same thing when it comes to pressure. All Rolexes are overengineered, and can take much more than the indicated depth. There is a video of a deep sea diver diving with his GMT 116710 below 100 meters, and the thickness of the crystal and caseback are the same for all 36mm and bigger watches, with two exceptions: Submariner and Seadweller, that have even thicker casebacks (and crystal for the SD).

Applying some materials science and mathematics to the Rolex case says that ANY Rolex can go way beyond 100 meters. Much more than I'll ever go.

If I did my math correctly the 2 mm thick crystal should be good for some 700 meters. The triplock is good for 5000 meters, the twinlock not so much... but enough... the weak part is the caseback, that will bend at a certain pressure. I don't remember exactly, but the margin is very very good. I know that the YM, and the GMT 116710 has been tested to 300 meters with no problems, and they have the same caseback thickness as the standard DJ (including the Explorer).

If I remember correctly one of the active (advanced?) divers on this forum had a friend diving really deep with his Daytona. There where a picture thread about this.

When it comes to water and pressure I really trust my watches, but I have them tested at least every second year.

Best,

A

[slcbbrown]

Originally Posted by alexo

valueble info ... greatly appriciated ... thanx to all of you ...

How about instant hot and cold situations ... warm tent seconds later icecold mountain water ... and about "waterproof to 100 m" ? means SCUBA diving to 30 m should be well within range ?

Cold or hot that you can handle is no problem for any Rolex. I had a rootbeer in -55 degrees with tent living and had no problems. IMO, the only thing to be slightly concerned about is the surface scratching-- gold scratches easier and smooth surfaces show scratches more. However, I have used tt, gold, and all stainless Rolex for decades and they all do very well.

The waterproof to 100m doesn't take into account pressure changes caused by moving your arm, etc. while diving. So, you have to take the 100m number as a means to compare it to others. The actual depth that it performs in diving situations is less. 30mm should not cause a problem, though.

[Ultrawatches]

Explorer is alot less complicated that submariner. There are many things that can happen to sub that would never happen to explorer. So i would definitely go with Explorer.

[Explorer 2011]

Get both!! Explorer can take a beating and the subs got the extras.

[Paulie 50]

If the Explorer is your choice, and you want to really work it, ie. sports, outdoor activities, or just rough and tumble everyday wear, then get yourself a 1016, because they were made with a stronger case.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by slcbbrown

The waterproof to 100m doesn't take into account pressure changes caused by moving your arm, etc. while diving. So, you have to take the 100m number as a means to compare it to others. The actual depth that it performs in diving situations is less. 30mm should not cause a problem, though.

The pressure added by moving arms whilst diving adds at most the equivalent of a meter or two, and since all Rolex watches are tested to 125% of their rating the way you are moving under water has little (if any) impact. It is a myth, that seems to live strong.

I have done some calculations on the materials used, thickness of materials, and shape of materials on Rolex watches and my conclusion is that they are way overengineered. As long as you have an Oyster, and have it pressure tested at least every second year you should be fine doing any type of diving, unless you are a specialist deep sea diver spending time in a pressure chamber.

I believe there was someone over at the german rolex forum that had a professor do some calculations on the real added pressure from movement under water and the conclusion was an extra meter or so. So if your at 100 meters below the surface, and move as fast as you can, the pressure on the watch is no more than 101-102 meters. And since any Oyster is tested to 125 meters you should be more concerned about the actual depth where you are.

BTW: This is what Rolex themselves once said when it comes to pressure:



The current watches are as good, if not even better.

Any Oyster will do anything you do!

Best,

A

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by Paulie 50

If the Explorer is your choice, and you want to really work it, ie. sports, outdoor activities, or just rough and tumble everyday wear, then get yourself a 1016, because they were made with a stronger case.

It is true that the 1016 was once rated to a bigger depth (stronger, if you wish), and that there were ads presenting the 1016 as the "strong Rolex". At the time of the 1016 it was rated to 100 meters, whilst a standard DJ (or DD or GMT) was rated to 50 meters, but since the introduction of the sapphire crystal watches all Oysters are rated to a minimum of 100 meters. It is also true that the 1016 could be ordered with special oils for use in low (extreme) temperatures, but now synthetic oils are used, and I'd argue that any modern Oyster can take more than a 1016 (and the 1016 is a vintage piece that you perhaps should let rest from action today). This said I prefer a 1016 over a 214270 any day. The 1016 is (IMHO) THE Explorer classic.

Actually the earlier Explorer 14270 and 114270 has the same case as the DJ 162X0. The only difference for the 114270 is that the lug holes have a different position. So any mens DJ will perform exactly as good as a 114270 or 14270.

I am uncertain on the 1016, but I'd say that it had the same case as the earlier DJ 160X(X), with extra large lug holes (for thicker lug pins), and possibly a slightly thicker caseback (but I do not think so). I would love to see some facts proving me wrong here!

Best,

A

[travisb]

Just as durable as a Sub.
Go for the one you like best and I assure you it won't let you down..

[alexo]

thank you all ... lots of info ... decision made, watch purchase in progress ... ( Explorer - Model: 214270 )

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by alexo

thank you all ... lots of info ... decision made, watch purchase in progress ... ( Explorer - Model: 214270 )

Good decision. Congrats! Make sure to post pictures here when you have it.

Best,

A

[Flyjet601]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

Some would make the argument that the Explorer is even more robust than the Sub Date because it lacks the date complication. One less thing to fail in extreme conditions.

What extreme conditions

Swimming in the pool, which suit to wear, taking pictures of it........most people are scared to get them wet

[horseco]

they are the same as far as durability...

[Lion]

Lots of good information shared on this topic.....what changes did they make to the 214270 to make it more shock resistant???

[slcbbrown]

Originally Posted by acce1999

The pressure added by moving arms whilst diving adds at most the equivalent of a meter or two, and since all Rolex watches are tested to 125% of their rating the way you are moving under water has little (if any) impact. It is a myth, that seems to live strong.

I have done some calculations on the materials used, thickness of materials, and shape of materials on Rolex watches and my conclusion is that they are way overengineered. As long as you have an Oyster, and have it pressure tested at least every second year you should be fine doing any type of diving, unless you are a specialist deep sea diver spending time in a pressure chamber.

I believe there was someone over at the german rolex forum that had a professor do some calculations on the real added pressure from movement under water and the conclusion was an extra meter or so. So if your at 100 meters below the surface, and move as fast as you can, the pressure on the watch is no more than 101-102 meters. And since any Oyster is tested to 125 meters you should be more concerned about the actual depth where you are.

BTW: This is what Rolex themselves once said when it comes to pressure:



The current watches are as good, if not even better.

Any Oyster will do anything you do!

Best,

A

I think it's safe to say that the laboratory testing done was performed with "like new" watches in near perfect condition. The typical Rolex scuba diver has a used watch and the last service was anytime from yesterday to never-been-done.

[alexo]

How does one adjust the bracelet on the Explorer ? screwdriver size ? type ? or will it be supplied with the new watch ?

[alexo]

Next Wednesday I will pick up my brand new Rolex Explorer I ...

[Dr. Robert]

It's a Rolex, it's built well.

[theken]

I bought the new Explorer reference 214270 as a "golf" watch.
It is lighter weight with a lower profile than the other Rolex sports watches.

[mrbill2mrbill2]

Sure the Sub is rated 1000 feet. Most of us never excee 100 feet, if that. Go for what YOU want - you will not be dissatisfied with either. Just buy what makes your heart sing!

[alexo]

FINALLY !

Today I picked up my Explorer ! What a feeling to wear this watch !
It feels so me ... but I guess that's how it is ... a Rolex ... it talks to you.

Enough with the sentimental BS ... down to business.

I had a lot of questions about the durability of this model (that is the Explorer).

I had the watch for 6 hours now and I already got a few hairline scratches .. not that I'm concerned about them more like taking notes about durability.

I will wear the watch all the time at work ( work as a Personal Trainer ), I scuba dive, and do a lot of outdoor stuff. It will be interesting to see how it will hold up as time goes on.

As mentioned in this thread ... my AD wasn't so sure about taking down the watch when I dive below 5-10 m ? any thoughts about that ?