# Rolex Explorer 1 alternatives?



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

What alternatives do you have for the explorer 1, 36 or 39mm?










All of a sudden really interested in the do it all 3 hander.
You know the type, no bezel, no date, 3 hands and formal enough to pass at dressy occasions.
I suppose a date could pass.

The Rolex does it so well, I'm actually unsure that it has any genuine competition bar the limited edition JLC Geophysic.


----------



## pastawatcher (May 13, 2014)

The Omega Aqua Terra at 38.5 mm is a better looking watch. But if you want a Rolex, scratch the itch.


----------



## inhaus (Jul 30, 2014)

I think the air king would be great if you can deal with 34mm.


----------



## NightScar (Sep 4, 2008)

Rolex Oyster Perpetual


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

I know it's not even close but because I wanted the no bezel and 3,6,9 numbers I tried a VSA night vision 3. But if you're looking for $5k range then stick with the JLC Geophysic.


----------



## OrangeSport (Jan 2, 2012)




----------



## little big feather (Mar 6, 2013)

I like the Datejust......Got the Oyster case, comes in like 50 diff. dial combos. and two bracelets.


----------



## OrangeSport (Jan 2, 2012)




----------



## OrangeSport (Jan 2, 2012)

But not three hands....


----------



## richnyc (Feb 21, 2013)

A bit different suggestion than you probably had in your mind. Still classy and outdoorsy and yet totally distinct and different as not to be confused with a Rolex Explorer I: Archimede OutDoor Protect. Plus, 1,200 HV hardened ss steel


----------



## scooby (Jun 3, 2009)

Omega Railmaster fits the bill if you can find one...


----------



## scooby (Jun 3, 2009)

Sinn 556A at 38.5mm&#8230;.


----------



## biggpoppa (Jun 22, 2014)

Orient Chicane Orient Watch "Chicane" ER1X001W Automatic - YouTube


----------



## DenverBuff (May 19, 2009)

Depends on how much you want to spend.

Good used Rollie Explorers and DateJusts are available all over the 'Net.

Below that in price (not quality) there are Omega AT's.

Sub $1000, there is the Smiths Everest, Armida A6's and Zeno Explorers. Sinn 556 too.

Personally I'm pretty happy with my Bernhardt Binnacle Anchor II - sapphire crystal and a bracelet superior to the Rolex and Omegas for about $ 250.00.


----------



## Quotron (Dec 6, 2013)

Some good options so far, these all have a date complication (I know, against the rules), but they're in the same vein - a luxe sports watch. While no price range was given, I'll stick to around the price of the Explorer (i.e no PP Aquanaut - LOL). No date, 3 hand sports (non-dive) watches are not all that common...

Blancpain Leman Aqua Lung

(big date)








Source

(regular date)








Source

Chopard LUC Sport 2000









Source

Look at that micro-rotor!!









IWC Ingenieur Auto
















A Look At The New IWC Ingenieur Automatic: 40mm And Anti-Magnetic, This Is The Purist's Ingy (Live Pics, Pricing) - HODINKEE - Wristwatch News, Reviews, & Original Stories

A thead with some awesome Railmaster pics
Omega Railmaster - pics

Maybe a used VC Overseas, but that might still be too much money.

Besides curiosity, is there some reason you're looking for an alternative to the Explorer? I've found that if you're always looking to compare something to _X_, what you really want is _X_.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

If you're going to get an Explorer's watch, then definitely go for the Explorer I instead of the JLC Geophysic. While the JLC Geophysic 1958 might have originally been created to commemorate the International Goephysical Year, I don't think it's actually been associated with any event of note, and the alligator strap on the watch means that it isn't all that practical for any actual exploration. While I'm generally a fan of JLC, the Geophysic leaves me cold.


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

I agree that the Rolex's well-balanced mix of simplicity, austerity, legibility, elegance and sportiness seems so... "just right" and is hard to beat in that segment. It's a very traditional and (pardon the pun) time-proven design.

For me, the lack of a date feature would be an annoyance for day-to-day use, but if a date is not important to you, then there are many watches that play in the same segment yet do not quite tick all the boxes quite as well, in my view.

Since I need a date however, I spent my money on the slightly more exuberant Explorer II, but could have equally gone for a Datejust or Datejust II with the silver bezel and stick hour markers. I also especially like the Blancpain Aqualung pictured above, which is discontinued, rare and hard to find on the used market.


----------



## wwarren (May 1, 2011)

Smiths Everest


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

Tried these on at the Watchbuys Roadshow. Both are super value for the money IMO. Elegant, simple yet interesting.


----------



## Godan (Nov 4, 2013)

I have an Explorer I, a DateJust and a 60's era Rolex hand wind. Each fits with different dress and into different social and professional situations, but the Explorer is the most versatile. If you want one, find a deal on WatchRecon or look at sites like that of RightTime in Denver. From long experience, I think they can be trusted, and they usually have an Explorer or two. Going in, be realistic in your anticipation of routine maintenance costs.


----------



## Maxy (Aug 15, 2011)




----------



## iam7head (Dec 16, 2010)

Railmaster, IWC pilot, Rolex OP/Airking, Omega AT 38.5mm, IWC Ingy 40mm

Just to name a few


----------



## valmak (May 29, 2010)

Seiko SARB033. Really think it looks like an explorer from about a foot away.


----------



## jrb715 (Jul 3, 2013)

Memphis1 said:


> I know it's not even close but because I wanted the no bezel and 3,6,9 numbers I tried a VSA night vision 3. But if you're looking for $5k range then stick with the JLC Geophysic.


I have no idea where you will find a new Geophysic for anything near $5000. Suggestion?


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

pastawatcher said:


> The Omega Aqua Terra at 38.5 mm is a better looking watch. But if you want a Rolex, scratch the itch.


Personally I don't agree but the Aqua Terra is a terrific watch.
Particularly the Skyfall edition;










Reason why I don't agree is because I don't like the date so much.



OrangeSport said:


> View attachment 1787682


Yeah I can see this but then again isn't the Tangente also a viable alternative;










Tbh I don't think water resistance makes much difference as I'm not going in the water with it anyway.



scooby said:


> Omega Railmaster fits the bill if you can find one...


This is a valid comparison and I do like the Railmaster, more pic searching required!



Quotron said:


> Some good options so far, these all have a date complication (I know, against the rules), but they're in the same vein - a luxe sports watch. While no price range was given, I'll stick to around the price of the Explorer (i.e no PP Aquanaut - LOL). No date, 3 hand sports (non-dive) watches are not all that common...
> 
> Blancpain Leman Aqua Lung
> 
> ...


Wow that Blancpain!!
More research on that one for sure!
I would love an Explorer 1 but with such a small collection I'm not sure I want to limit myself to 2 Rolex's and a Nomos.
Or 2 Nomos's and a Rolex.

As a young married man it's unlikely I'll be getting many watches any time soon so a bit of variety would be nice.

Perhaps a few off the beaten path/oddball alternates;


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

I agree with previous posts, I think the air-king and oyster perpetuals are both nicer than the explorer 1. Seiko doesn't really _do _numerals on their higher end watches, so I'm all out of ideas


----------



## actorius (May 26, 2014)

How about a Tudor Ranger?



Very versatile and I believe it checks all the boxes. No bezel, no date, 3 hands and formal enough.

When you get the bracelet version, they throw in the brown leather strap and when you get the bund, they throw in the camo one.


----------



## mpalmer (Dec 30, 2011)

Blancpain Aqualung is the one that comes to mind.


----------



## hdms (Oct 23, 2011)

IWC pilot mark xvi. 
But I'll be getting an explorer too. One thing I realized is that once you fall in love with the explorer, it never goes away. Been wanting to get one since 2007 and despite getting other watches, I still go back to wanting one.


----------



## Triton9 (Sep 30, 2011)

Rolex Milgauss Blue


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

actorius said:


> How about a Tudor Ranger?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Beat me to it. One of the few with no date like faiz requested!


----------



## UKMike (Aug 4, 2012)

Explorer I - accept no substitutes


----------



## Ed.YANG (Jun 8, 2011)

Explorer style with ETA2824 under the dial... guarantees you a wide selection of hands out there for you to mod!


----------



## james.uk (Jun 30, 2011)

Everything you want at £300.


----------



## james.uk (Jun 30, 2011)

It's a Zeno. Hand is in the way!


----------



## MrDagon007 (Sep 24, 2012)

Why not a Stowa 40mm flieger, can be both sporty and elegant. Crisp and clean:










Or, quite interesting in the affordable segment, the Dagaz Thunderbolt. Has a date though. Thin, crisp and simple:










Finally, the Damasko 3x series is somewhat less formal but universal enough. There is a reason why these are cult watches. DA36 as an example, but they have day and date (not my picture):


----------



## Mr TPG (Feb 28, 2014)

Ed.YANG said:


> Explorer style with ETA2824 under the dial... guarantees you a wide selection of hands out there for you to mod!


What is this please?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

Mr TPG said:


> What is this please?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's a watch, it's used to tell time


----------



## Mr TPG (Feb 28, 2014)

Memphis1 said:


> It's a watch, it's used to tell time


Yes, sorry I should have been more specific.

What brand/model is this explorer homage please?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## actorius (May 26, 2014)

Mr TPG said:


> What brand/model is this explorer homage please?


Uhr 321

https://www.uhr.info/products/en/Th...321.html?PHPSESSID=69bgj1uoac3bvblbi2pck2ec62


----------



## dkpw (Jan 12, 2009)

TINA - There is no alternative. Trust me, I've had a PRS-25 Everest, a MKII Vantage, an Alpha Explorer and a couple of no-name homages. The real deal _is_ the way to go.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

faiz said:


> What alternatives do you have for the explorer 1, 36 or 39mm?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about the Tudor Heritage Ranger?


----------



## v76 (Dec 29, 2009)

A watch currently out of production, but still available with a thorough search (despite low production numbers). Well, truth be told, perhaps not terribly easy to find in new/mint/NOS condition - I lucked out ...



































My Girard-Perregaux Classique Elegance ref. 49570 (cal. 4000, based on the in-house JR 1050 and similarities with its big brother, the cal. 4500).


----------



## dkpw (Jan 12, 2009)

mui.richard said:


> How about the Tudor Heritage Ranger?


I had a good look at the THR when I put my Sub in for a service at my AD; they had just started selling the Tudor range.

The THR is a much larger watch than an EXP1 and I mean in terms both of diameter and case thickness. Sorry, I don't have the specs to hand but it was noticeably chunkier. That's not to say it's a bad watch but it's less refined than the EXP1. I'm not enamoured of the second hand and the "snake" hour hand just reminds me of something else. Finally I'd say that there are many other military style watches available at more affordable price points, such as the PRS-29B - 39mm.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

dkpw said:


> I had a good look at the THR when I put my Sub in for a service at my AD; they had just started selling the Tudor range.
> 
> The THR is a much larger watch than an EXP1 and I mean in terms both of diameter and case thickness. Sorry, I don't have the specs to hand but it was noticeably chunkier. That's not to say it's a bad watch but it's less refined than the EXP1. I'm not enamoured of the second hand and the "snake" hour hand just reminds me of something else. Finally I'd say that there are many other military style watches available at more affordable price points, such as the PRS-29B - 39mm.


Yes the Tudor Heritage Ranger is a more modern watch, bigger case and thicker...but not by that much.

And I think your referral of military watches is off the mark...when I see the Explorer I, I see a tool/field watch...which is exactly what the THR is. And with the 3-6-9 dial I doubt you can get much closer without getting the real thing.

And by the way, I have the Heritage Ranger and I have a smallish wrist...but the Ranger wears very nicely, especially on the camo strap that comes with the watch...light and extremely comfy.


----------



## ryanmanyes (Oct 21, 2013)

Never seen this GP before. I absolutely love it. 2nd only to Rolex in design. Wear in good health


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

What's going on - nearly 50 posts and not one mentioned the best looking "explorer" type watch?;-)


----------



## dkpw (Jan 12, 2009)

mui.richard said:


> Yes the Tudor Heritage Ranger is a more modern watch, bigger case and thicker...but not by that much.
> 
> And I think your referral of military watches is off the mark...when I see the Explorer I, I see a tool/field watch...which is exactly what the THR is. And with the 3-6-9 dial I doubt you can get much closer without getting the real thing.
> 
> And by the way, I have the Heritage Ranger and I have a smallish wrist...but the Ranger wears very nicely, especially on the camo strap that comes with the watch...light and extremely comfy.


I looked it up it's 41mm, quite away up from 36 or 39mm Rolex Explorers. Without a dive or tachymeter bezel to reduce the apparent wear size, it looked even bigger. Check out the review on ablogtowatch and you'll see I'm not alone in calling it a "military style watch."

Look you have the watch and I'm not trying to knock it, I'm just saying that's it not the same type of watch. Having owned several homages and having briefly looked at the Tudor, the closest in feel and size to the real thing, is the real thing - then the MKII Vantage.


----------



## Emtee (Mar 23, 2013)

Whilst there are alternatives there can only be 1 Explorer 1!


----------



## Henry T (Feb 9, 2006)

Omega Railmaster 39 mm?


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

dkpw said:


> I looked it up it's 41mm, quite away up from 36 or 39mm Rolex Explorers. Without a dive or tachymeter bezel to reduce the apparent wear size, it looked even bigger. Check out the review on ablogtowatch and you'll see I'm not alone in calling it a "military style watch."
> 
> Look you have the watch and I'm not trying to knock it, I'm just saying that's it not the same type of watch. Having owned several homages and having briefly looked at the Tudor, the closest in feel and size to the real thing, is the real thing - then the MKII Vantage.


If from a 36mm then maybe there's some discernable difference, but from 39 the difference is 2mm...are you really sure you can tell without actually measuring?

Anyhow, I do prefer the slightly larger size compared to the old school...I have a Tudor vintage sub in 36mm that I seldom wear nowadays, just look to small even on my puny wrist.

To each their own.


----------



## flyingpicasso (Jun 28, 2010)

mui.richard said:


> If from a 36mm then maybe there's some discernable difference, but from 39 the difference is 2mm...are you really sure you can tell without actually measuring?
> 
> Anyhow, I do prefer the slightly larger size compared to the old school...I have a Tudor vintage sub in 36mm that I seldom wear nowadays, just look to small even on my puny wrist.
> 
> To each their own.


To me the sub looks like a far better fit than the bloated Ranger, but of course that's just my personal opinion. Couple of nice watches you have there.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

flyingpicasso said:


> To me the sub looks like a far better fit than the bloated Ranger, but of course that's just my personal opinion. Couple of nice watches you have there.


The wide angle lens typically found on phones make watches look bigger, especially with the on wrist shot.

But don't take my word for it, what do I know about taking photos...I'm just a full time photographer on his mobile.


----------



## Split Second (Apr 18, 2007)

Rolex Explorer is in a league of its own. Love my 39mm; one of the best, all-round watches on the market today, and easily one of Rolex most overlooked models.


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

IMHO, the Explorer was pretty underwhelming on the wrist. Nothing really wow either good or bad ... Just "meh" YMMV

The Aqua Terra, especially in blue, has one of the most hypnotic dials out there.

For my money (and the difference in price is HUGE), I would go with a Ball Fireman Racer Classic or Engineer II Ohio, Chronometer Red Label, or Marvelight.


----------



## richnyc (Feb 21, 2013)

Split Second said:


> Rolex Explorer is in a league of its own. Love my 39mm; one of the best, all-round watches on the market today, and easily one of Rolex most overlooked models.


^^^ I wholeheartedly agree! ^^^


----------



## gordon9999 (Feb 16, 2013)

mui.richard said:


> The wide angle lens typically found on phones make watches look bigger, especially with the on wrist shot.
> 
> But don't take my word for it, what do I know about taking photos...I'm just a full time photographer on his mobile.


I'll grant that, but there's no escaping the fact that the lugs on the Ranger are really struggling to fit on your wrist. The 36mm has just the perfect amount of lug spacing&#8230;


----------



## dkpw (Jan 12, 2009)

To each their own, naturally, 

The Sub looks better IMO on you than the Ranger, but I'm a "random" from the net so go with what *you* like. I would genuinely be interested in seeing a comparison shot side on, so we could see the height of the watches on your wrist rather than just the face. If you have the time and inclination only, of course.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

dkpw said:


> To each their own, naturally,
> 
> The Sub looks better IMO on you than the Ranger, but I'm a "random" from the net so go with what *you* like. I would genuinely be interested in seeing a comparison shot side on, so we could see the height of the watches on your wrist rather than just the face. If you have the time and inclination only, of course.


Here's the same watch, shot with a normal perspective lens, the difference is pretty obvious.

And in the end, I'm enjoying the watch tremendously...and that's what counts.


----------



## flyingpicasso (Jun 28, 2010)

mui.richard said:


> Here's the same watch shot with a normal perspective lens, I think it proves my point.
> 
> And in the end, I'm enjoying the watch tremendously...and that's what counts.


Quite a difference indeed!


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

mui.richard said:


> Here's the same watch, shot with a normal perspective lens, the difference is pretty obvious.
> 
> And in the end, I'm enjoying the watch tremendously...and that's what counts.


First time I've seen a pic of the ranger and thought wow!
Might be worth checking out!


----------



## Ian_D (Mar 5, 2014)

Grand Seiko with Spring Drive. The specification is similar to the Explorer: three hands, 39.9 mm diameter, stainless steel bracelet, 100 m water resistance and screw down crown. My SBGA105 is posing on a Martin Baker ejection seat shortly after landing. I use the incredible accuracy to set the aircraft standby clock. It is a fantastic watch with no hairspring that will be susceptible to deformation under high g loading to boot. The Explorer is lovely though, and if that is what is on your mind then nothing else will fill the void satisfactorily.


----------



## gordon9999 (Feb 16, 2013)

james.uk said:


> Everything you want at £300.


I second that. Extremely faithful to the style of the old Explorer 1016, well-made (especially if you can still find one of the ETA 2824 models) and affordable. This is one of the rare cases where I prefer the homage to the original. I greatly prefer the simple utilitarian look of the 1016 to the "blingier" larger modern Explorer, and I can take the Zeno outdoors and bang it around without worry - something I'd be loathe to do with an actual vintage 1016.


----------



## flyingpicasso (Jun 28, 2010)

gordon9999 said:


> I second that. Extremely faithful to the style of the old Explorer 1016, well-made (especially if you can still find one of the ETA 2824 models) and affordable. This is one of the rare cases where I prefer the homage to the original. I greatly prefer the simple utilitarian look of the 1016 to the "blingier" larger modern Explorer, and I can take the Zeno outdoors and bang it around without worry - something I'd be loathe to do with an actual vintage 1016.


Plus, it has "super precision." Rolex can't say that. Superlative, maybe, but not super precision.


----------



## gordon9999 (Feb 16, 2013)

flyingpicasso said:


> Plus, it has "super precision." Rolex can't say that. Superlative, maybe, but not super precision.


I thought that was a rather strange (and slightly tacky) thing to put on the dial, so I googled it, and apparently older Rolexes did actually say that. I guess it was the precursor to "superlative chronometer?" (Which is also tacky, frankly)

I'd have preferred they hadn't included it - it's kind of straggling the line of homage differentiation when you start including the same dial text as the original. The latest revision of the Zeno Explorer no longer has this tag line.


----------



## flyingpicasso (Jun 28, 2010)

gordon9999 said:


> I thought that was a rather strange (and slightly tacky) thing to put on the dial, so I googled it, and apparently older Rolexes did actually say that. I guess it was the precursor to "superlative chronometer?" (Which is also tacky, frankly)
> 
> I'd have preferred they hadn't included it - it's kind of straggling the line of homage differentiation when you start including the same dial text as the original. The latest revision of the Zeno Explorer no longer has this tag line.
> 
> View attachment 1862978


Nice find! So they both have "super precision!" Who knew?!


----------



## hanshananigan (Apr 8, 2012)

gordon9999 said:


> I thought that was a rather strange (and slightly tacky) thing to put on the dial, so I googled it, and apparently older Rolexes did actually say that. I guess it was the precursor to "superlative chronometer?" (Which is also tacky, frankly)
> 
> I'd have preferred they hadn't included it - it's kind of straggling the line of homage differentiation when you start including the same dial text as the original. The latest revision of the Zeno Explorer no longer has this tag line.
> 
> View attachment 1862978


I thought oyster perpetual referred to waterproofing and date?


----------



## gordon9999 (Feb 16, 2013)

hanshananigan said:


> I thought oyster perpetual referred to waterproofing and date?


The Explorer uses Rolex's Oyster-style case with a screw-down crown, hence the Oyster. This isn't limited to dive watches. It's kind of of a marketing thing for Rolex that just about all their cases are highly water resistant.

Somewhat confusingly, Rolex uses "perpetual" to mean an automatic movement (I.e., a movement that moves perpetually without winding,) not as an indication of a perpetual calendar feature.


----------



## hanshananigan (Apr 8, 2012)

Ahhh... Thanks!


----------



## chinochano (Jul 2, 2013)

~tc~ said:


> IMHO, the Explorer was pretty underwhelming on the wrist. Nothing really wow either good or bad ... Just "meh" YMMV
> 
> The Aqua Terra, especially in blue, has one of the most hypnotic dials out there.
> 
> For my money (and the difference in price is HUGE), I would go with a Ball Fireman Racer Classic or Engineer II Ohio, Chronometer Red Label, or Marvelight.


its the aqua terra all the way... unless you want to buy a rolex for whatever reason.


----------

