One year ago and for some months I was shopping for a new daily wearer that would assist me in answering that question: “Hey man, what time is it? ” To wear from suit to sea, peak to opera house was the thinking. Legibility, durability, distinctive but not flashy were among the criteria. Some previous watches included a 1997 Victorinox GMT ( still going strong) ; a titanium Tissot One-Touch ( binned it—what a piece of junk) ; and, a 1956 Bulova ( still great condition but gold and small-size limit its range for sure) . A Rolex was new ground for me.
And some months spanned before I began to better appreciate the Rolex line to include especially the Explorer I. Rolex appeared more to be “old man watches” ( sorry) or too much a trophy. Less keen about polished steel, the Explorer I appeared too shiny at first. Polished bezel, shiny numbers—what “explorer” would wear that watch to even the Marriott in Kathmandu? I thought the Arabic numbers were overly odd and large. At least with a Panerai ( 112 or 176) there is the 12 o’clock digit to provide continuity around the dial. Legacy of the Explorer I held in suspicion.
What I did appreciate about the Explorer I from the get-go was the fit on my wrist. Only an older ( 1978) Submariner no-date felt as comfortable and symmetrical. I tried to warm to the Explorer II given the brushed steel bezel and return to the original “Steve McQueen” maxi dial. White was too pale and the white gold rimming the markers on the Black was too distracting. The new Explorer II also felt too top heavy on my wrist. I also tried the new Omega Planet Ocean ( 8500 movement) , Blancpain’s 50 Fathoms, and several Panerai. Being less inclined towards the Diver tradition and more to the mountains, the dive watches were less appealing. There also appeared the tendency for many watches to be up-sized, to be a trophy of sorts rather than a simple, rugged, and versatile timepiece.
On that point this Explorer I does appear somewhat bloated on my 7-inch plus wrist. I would hasten to have a watch any thicker. This Explorer I is heavier than I expected, but maybe that weight is necessary given the movement’s upgrades to include durability to shocks.
The bracelet is of course first rate and “scratch magnet” it is not! I love the easy link extension. That is practicality to the maximum when it comes to wearing daily.
The above were the initial impressions after wearing the watch for three months. One year later I wear this watch all-the-time. And after shopping for a second watch ( a mental disease to be sure) gave me additional perspective on this Explorer I.
The Dial
The applied dial markings provide sufficient depth to always add interest and depth to a dial color I otherwise consider monochrome and uninteresting. Perhaps this understated style but depth in quality is part of what can make the Rolex sport watch line continually attractive.
I considered the critique of the minute hand being a tad short- being a design flaw in other words. I wondered at times why did Rolex not go with the conventional longer minute hand. Did the Rolex designers simply screw up? While no horologist I tend to think the minute hand’s length was very deliberate on the part of Rolex. For one, the white luminous portion of the minute hand exactly align with the luminous portion of minute markers. More significantly, the length of the minute hand may very well be a tribute to the previous generation ( and smaller dial) Explorer I. From a distance, especially when worn when passing a full length mirror—say, in a gym—the minute marker does look distinctively short, but to be longer would make the watch look like any other plain faced watch, maybe even a pilot’s watch ( yikes) . The short minute hand keeps the look swift, sufficient, and compact, keeping linkages to its 36mm predecessor. My theory for your consideration.
The dial is helpfully legible even when peering for the time at an angle. That the Arabic numbers are not luminous makes getting the