Hey guys. So, I made the rounds in the area with the Rolex ADs. I politely asked to be placed on their waitlists for a Submariner (no-date) or any one of the Explorers (I or II in black or polar... preferably polar).
I'm in the process of selling a couple of my pieces, and more importantly, I've stopped buying other watches in preparation for the potential phone call.
I'm struggling with what I want Rolex should be first. I've always wanted a Submariner ever since I was a kid. I am actually SCUBA certified. But I also recognize how the Explorer IIs have become quite popular. I also give credit to the Explorer for its under-the-radar everyday watch look.
I'm positive I want a no-date Submariner, but should I be looking into the pre-ceramics? I do like the ceramic bezel and the new slide-lock bracelet. Not a fan of the fat lugs.
First Rolex... my preference is always the Submariner (ref 114060). That’s basically the only watch you will ever need. The fats lugs looks accentuated on the pictures but in real life they just blend in. 114060 all day every day!
First Rolex... my preference is always the Submariner (ref 114060). That's basically the only watch you will ever need. The fats lugs looks accentuated on the pictures but in real life they just blend in. 114060 all day every day!
I concur. I was in the same boat, debating between the 114060 or the 14060, bought a 214270 first but ended up with the Sub anyway. It's a bit of a moot point, but I ended up with the 114060 because I couldn't just go in and try on a pre-ceramic (lol since you can't exactly try on a ceramic Sub either), my main concern was the clasp on the older models.
raja is absolutely correct about the lugs, I don't notice how chunky they are in real life. They do just blend in.
Thanks raja_3012. I think you're right. I think I could be a two-watch guy with an 114060 and my Omega Speedmaster Sapphire. Do you think it'll be harder to score a no-date? Or do you think the masses are after the date which give me a better chance at a no-date?
Don't know whether it's supply or demand, but date Subs largely outnumber the no date Subs on Chrono24 (4 to 1). I'm sure a better informed person will confirm or deny my statement, but at a first glance, I'd wager that it might be more difficult to get a non date Sub?
Everyone is going to recommend the Sub. Why wouldnt they. Its a classic watch with a bomb proof movement that will outlive you and in 100 years it will sit in the Rolex range, fairly unchanged. BUT, I would go with the Polar Exp. First of all try them on your wrist. I had the money ready to go and several sub options on the table and ultimately didnt pull the trigger. You would probably be horrified at what I chose instead. Youve already ruled out the latest sub due to the giant lugs. I did too. However I couldnt get on with the lighter bracelet and clasp on the older versions. Theres also the slight niggle that its going to be spotted by someone who only knows the Rolex sub and the inevitable question that will follow it. The Polar is beautiful in the metal. Photos cant capture that white although some folks on this forum have done a great job. Its another bomb proof classic but fairly funky for the summer months. It does need to be in a rotation though as white dials can get a bit tiring if worn every day. End of the day you cant go wrong with either. Best of luck sourcing your next Rolex
I actually really like the Polar Explorer II. However, I've read here that it wears quite large? :think: Now, I have quite slim (some may say girly) wrists, at only 17cm.
So, for me, I went for the Sub 114060. It's an iconic piece, with tons of history. Importantly, it fit's my wrist very well indeed, making it a pleasure to wear.
Although the Explorer is seen by many as 'the watch', it, unfortunately, does very little for me. In my eyes, it just doesn't have any 'wrist presence'.
Since you are positive that you want a Submariner; and you dive, then a 114060 submariner is the watch to have as your first Rolex. You will caress it, sleep with it, love it like your first girlfriend. You never forget your first. ;-)
The "fat lugs" of the 6 digit is nothing. You don't even notice it at all. Now, as it is often said, a thread is useless without pictures.
Since you are positive that you want a Submariner; and you dive, then a 114060 submariner is the watch to have as your first Rolex. You will caress it, sleep with it, love it like your first girlfriend. You never forget your first. ;-)
The "fat lugs" of the 6 digit is nothing. You don't even notice it at all. Now, as it is often said, a thread is useless without pictures.
I have to agree with most here and say get the new version sub no date. I’m fortunate to have a sub from 1991 and still wear it often today. My next Rolex will either be an Explorer 1 or polar 2 or (call me crazy) an Air-King. Haha
I read somewhere that it was speculated Rolex produced half the number of no-dates compared to dates. Just because of the date's popularity. Just waiting on Rolex's annual report on their production numbers... LOL
I’ll have to agree with the Sub crowd! It is very comfortable, bulletproof and with the lack of cyclops many don’t even think it’s a Rolex. The douchebags (if you subscribe to that stereotype) go for the cyclops. Although I’m yet to meet one that’s in your face douche, think some folks are just quick to apply their beliefs to ALL Rolex owners.
I bought the Explorer I (214270) as my first. In retrospect, I think I should have gotten the Sub ND instead. Not that I don't like my Explorer but since I'm not sure I can afford 2 Rolex, I think I'd prefer to have the sub.
The glide lock can not be overstated on the sub. The Explorer II polar is cool but do you need a gmt? As for the lugs on the sub at least for me it actually works on my wrist but it took me putting one on to figure that out, which is what I suggest you do, I know that’s not easy but if you can pull off the 42mm Explorer II than you definitely can pull off the sub.
The glide lock can not be overstated on the sub. The Explorer II polar is cool but do you need a gmt? As for the lugs on the sub at least for me it actually works on my wrist but it took me putting one on to figure that out, which is what I suggest you do, I know that's not easy but if you can pull off the 42mm Explorer II than you definitely can pull off the sub.
Thanks. I do have a 7.25" wrist and 6'2" tall, 180 lbs, and I can pull off wearing the blue Oris Aquis 43.5mm (awesome watch by the way). I might even pick up the green version one day.
Prices on the Exp II polar are moving up for all versions. I'm seeing a near-doubling of the five-digit reference in the last 3 years or so, and secondary prices on six digits are at 20-30% over RRP. I'm saying this not as a piece of investment advice but as a warning that if you want to go in, go in now. The Exp II is no longer a bargain, and in fact is probably next on "ze list".
Sportura, I'd be interested in why you suggested that watch. If I go pre-owned/vintage, what reference should I go after? Something in the $7-9K range.
That's because references facing this sort of demand gets bought extremely quickly. The same watch will be available at the end of the month, but for $300 more. Skip that one, and you can hang on until later in the year when it'll be $900 more.
Non-NOS, regular, used 5-digit Subs will be $10k soon - I'm just saying. You mustn't miss out!
I'd go with the polar. GMT is so useful and the white dial is really unique and stands out. I love my 16570.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
WatchUSeek Watch Forums
22.5M posts
575.5K members
Since 2005
A forum community dedicated to watch owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about watch collections, displays, watch winders, accessories, classifieds, and more! We welcome all manufacturers including Casio G-Shock, OMEGA, Rolex, Breitling, Rolex and Tudor, Seiko, Grand Seiko and others.