Sub vs explorer

[Watchingdaily88]

Which above is more valuable?

[satch]

What do u mean by valuable? Higher retail price? Or resale price?

[rabid]

and which explorer vs which sub? nhnt

[louie]

Which above is more valuable?

Subs is more valuable, especially the ancestors of them **slurp slurp** even the vintage rolex sub is much sought after than the orangies and lemonades keke. But strangely the list prices of the new Explorers are near to the subs. I remembered in the olden days, explorers are lower prices than the submariners.

[subtime]

massive target audience for Sub's

[lufu]

would really love to buy both.

Basel World 2011 brochure looks good for Explorer II.
http://www.rolex.com/sites/all/downl...XPLORER_II.pdf

[ongyw]

+1 vote for Submariner

[Wafflelee]

sub or exp

I have both, Subs hold their value much better and are very easy to "flip"
Exps make very good buys second hand, and yes the second time zone helps a lot if you travel often. Buy subs new or almost new as you wont save much on an old one esp if you sent it in to RSC for service.

[Exp2_Sub]

Sub is more popular and hence able to hold value better than Exps. Exps is under appreciated may be due to its history as compared to Sub with rich history. I find Exps (older version 16570) is more comfortable to wear compared to the sub C.

[Ymc]

Er... if I'm not wrong, the Explorer has had as long and rich history as, if not earlier than the Submariner. The Explorer made its first debut in 1953 in commemoration of Sir Edmund Hillary's and Tenzing Norgay's conquest of the Everest summit. However, the original Explorer did not bear the Explorer name on the watch nor had Mercedes hands. It had Precision printed on the dial. It was only after the successful climb that Rolex named the watch Explorer and introduced the Mercedes hands in 1953. The Explorer II on the other hand only came into the scene in 1971.

The Submariner 200M came in 1954. Prior to that, there was the Submariner 100M in 1953, around the same time as the Exolorer. The Submariner was of course made very famous by Ian Fleming's 007. James Bond (Sean Connery) first wore it in the 1962 movie, Dr. No. This was followed through by several other Bond 007 movies, worn by Sean Connery and Roger Moore. The Submariner was the original James Bond watch. But we know now that the James Bond watch has become the Omega Seamaster, since Goldeneye (Pierce Brosnan) in 1995.

[KviSt]

Nothing will go wrong with submariner.

[PO8500]

+1 for Submariner for its versatility and durability
Can be worn for sport, casual and formal attire
slim enough to be worn under your cuffs..and the Subs holds better resale value over time

you cant be wrong with Subbie..

[david.tan]

buying watch usually i'm not looking on how value in future, i always prefer a clean watch, the more simple the better, unless i need the function like GMT, else i'd go for sub, one of reason is easy operate, and service fee would cost lesser too.

if you were to look for better resell value, sub is the best to go

[Ymc]

No doubt in Spore and in many places, the Sub wins hands down in terms of popularity. As a sports watch, it's an icon for Rolex. Explorer dun even come close. Can't even smell. Lol. Explorer II seems to be the next popular watch but think it's still a long way behind.

However, for me I prefer the Explorer II. The polar dial is simply gorgeous to me. And there are just way too may knock-offs by other watchmakers that look similar to the Sub.

Agree with David that if the intention is to sell the watch later, better to go with the Sub.

[Matty]

Hmm...ur question is rather open ended cos there r too many variables to consider like sub nd/sub date vs. expI/expII.....so depends on which model exactly u r targeting?