Everest vs Pan AM

[TheHobbit]

Well not really Explorer vs GMT Master but more of Explorer II vs GMT Master II (pre ceramic). So with the amount of love shown for the Explorer II, why Explorer II and not the GMT Master II?

Basically both have the same movement, rated to the same depth, but the GMT Master II can be used to track a third time zone. So why no love (or lack of)?

I know that some consider the Pepsi/ Coke aluminium bezel a bit cheesy, but there is the black bezel. I know that (some say) the Explorer II was created for spelunking (hence the 4th hand), hence the fixed bezel, and looks much 'tougher' than the GMT Master II (brushed finish vs polished), but what are the other reasons? What made you choose the Explorer II?

[G.MAC]

I wont know the answer to this as my Polar ExpII and not my Coke GMTII that was the one to go when i wanted to go for Panerai. Maybe it has something to do with the white and 'too simple dial' that makes it a little bit more 'clinical' (same feeling I get with the white milgauss) plus i prefer the robust diver-styling of the GMTII . My love goes to the GMTII . Although now i am looking forward to owning the 2011 explorer II .

[jacky8888]

To me I would prefer the Pepsi GMT2. Its is a truly classic watch. Moreover it's discontinue.

[hanz079]

My answer is based on my feelings.
When I first saw the ExpII, I even started a thread asking about this model because I have NEVER seen it... I know... dumb...
The first time I saw it, I was like... This is a Rolex? Stealthy... me likey...
GMTII? Just too similar to the legendary Sub in design... something just does not sit right with me, cannot pinpoint exactly...
At 1st, I was ignorant to the fact that GMTII's design is with input from commercial pilots.
I guess the functionality is there... but the design is lazy...

I would have preferred Rolex differentiate the design for the Sub and the GMTII... but since it has been around for so many years, any design changes have to be done gradually right?
Rolex might be going the "Evolution not Revolution" Porche Design mantra...

If you look at the recent Rolex design trends... every model have it's own distinctive design, latest being the 2011 ExpII (love to own it one day minus the premium)
Correct me if I'm wrong... the recently updated sub and gmtII with the thicker lugs to give the case a more "squared" look, both still use the same case right? Wouldn't in be cool if Rolex evolve the sub and gmtII individually to carry different feel?

[G.MAC]

Bro Hanz,
If you mean they use the same case as the older versions, then the answer is no. If you mean that the GMTII C and the sub ceramic share the same case then the answer is still no. There are differences between the cases. They both look similiar though.

[hanz079]

Bro Hanz,
If you mean they use the same case as the older versions, then the answer is no. If you mean that the GMTII C and the sub ceramic share the same case then the answer is still no. There are differences between the cases. They both look similiar though.

Yakar? Sorry, my bad... but they look and feel identical leh...
Can tell me the differences? Thanks

[landyshah]

Pan Am...there will be a TV series soon 

But seriously, I went for the Exp II as I found the GMT function very useful when travelling. Rolex's way of doing it (back/forth adjustment of hour hand, 24hr hand set to home time) was the most elegant application of it on a mechanical watch - far easier to use when travelling compared to ETA style 24 hr hand setting IMHO

Apart from that, its very stealth and most people dont know its a Rolex, even more so on a leather/NATO. Its also very slim and sleek and fits well under cuffs. Didnt need a third time zone either, or wanted a bezelled watch as I was going to get a Sub ND later, which I did. Chose black...well, because I like black face/SS case/black strap combos. The red of the GMT hand sets it off nicely. I dont mind removing that cyclops tho     

All in it was the right package that made me get one. Well, thats my reasons 

[hanz079]

Pan Am...there will be a TV series soon 

But seriously, I went for the Exp II as I found the GMT function very useful when travelling. Rolex's way of doing it (back/forth adjustment of hour hand, 24hr hand set to home time) was the most elegant application of it on a mechanical watch - far easier to use when travelling compared to ETA style 24 hr hand setting IMHO

Apart from that, its very stealth and most people dont know its a Rolex, even more so on a leather/NATO. Its also very slim and sleek and fits well under cuffs. Didnt need a third time zone either, or wanted a bezelled watch as I was going to get a Sub ND later, which I did. Chose black...well, because I like black face/SS case/black strap combos. The red of the GMT hand sets it off nicely.

Well, thats my reasons 

Uhh... landy... we have the same route but you're faster... I wanted a Sub ND as well but after a visit to my local AD, It's like I want it all.... ALL..... ALLLL!!! 

[TheHobbit]

Hahaha perhaps the thread should include the Submariner as well. I like the Submariner as well as it does not have the cyclops.

[hanz079]

Hahaha perhaps the thread should include the Submariner as well. I like the Submariner as well as it does not have the cyclops.

I found out that the cyclops irks most younger people...
People like my dad with less than perfect eyesight thinks they're the best thing invented since sliced bread!!! 

[G.MAC]

The sub is slightly thicker. The gmt IIC is slightly wider at the middle but it tapers more as it gets closer to the lugs as opposed to the submariner. However these differences are so slight that it is negligible. How can we see 0.6mm of difference?..hence they are only similiar. Just not the same. Although it can be felt when it is worn. It always seem to me after trying both that the submariner ceramic looks bigger than the GMTII C.

[hanz079]

The sub is slightly thicker. The gmt IIC is slightly wider at the middle but it tapers more as it gets closer to the lugs as opposed to the submariner. However these differences are so slight that it is negligible. How can we see 0.6mm of difference?..hence they are only similiar. Just not the same. Although it can be felt when it is worn. It always seem to me after trying both that the submariner ceramic looks bigger than the GMTII C.

I see... Thanks for the clarification there.
I have yet to try a GMT2C but I did molested a Green Hulk Ceramic and it feels huge and hefty...
Try out a Sub ND as well and it "feels" smaller...

[hanz079]

I started the sub and gmt2 thingy and I think I will stop here as I am unintentionally swaying off topic...
My apologies...

[dpkong]

i prefer the white dial Explorer2 because it has a cleaner look. time is easier to read and the red hand sticks out more compared to a black dial.

i never liked the GMT2 in any form. coke/pepsi/black/brown bezel all didn't appeal to me. didn't like the rotating bezel either.

[ykl]

Both also appeal to me, but if only can choose one is the explorer2 due to the white dial, very hard to find white dial that appeal to me, explorer2 appear to be the one...

[TheHobbit]

I started the sub and gmt2 thingy and I think I will stop here as I am unintentionally swaying off topic...
My apologies...

hanz079,

No worries. Perhaps we should start another thread, Submariner vs Submariner date. 

[Sid Vicious]

submariner 

[TheHobbit]

submariner 

Me too, just a question of vintage 5513 or modern 14060/ 14060M. But back to the thread.

For me personally, I would love it if the bezel of the Explorer II is rotatable (and no cyclops). But we can't have everything. So it will have to be the GMT Master II.

[landyshah]

A hard decision is sometimes best avoided 



Sorry I digress...+1 to a no-cyclops Exp II, that would be the perfect watch I think