There can be no doubt that all versions of the Rolex Explorer which have a separate 24-hour hand and fixed 24-hour bezel are examples of the “Explorer II.” Specifically, the 1655, 16550, 16570 and 216570 all carry such a name both in Rolex literature and on their dials :
It is common for people (trade and client) sometimes to differentiate the original, classic model by calling it the “Explorer I” rather than simply the “Explorer.” You will note, however, that no version of that model has ever carried the number designation on its dial :
Whether such models were called an “Explorer” or an “Explorer I” was never a problem for our clients or us, since all that mattered was that both parties in a conversation knew to what they were referring. However, we participate in a lively UK watch forum, www.tz-uk.com, where a small number of members found the practice of using the latter name unacceptable. “There is no such thing as an Explorer I” they would complain, accusing those who used the term of stupidity and perpetuating misinformation among a naive public.
For a while it was easiest simply to ignore this unnecessary nit-picking, but then I noticed the explicit use of the term as a heading in a Rolex Explorer booklet :
The logic of the following paragraphs seems clearly to embrace all those versions prior to the Explorer II as generically being “Explorer Is”:
The date code of this booklet’s back page showed it was printed in October 2007 :
I published these images on the forum and restated my case that all should be allowed to use the terms “Explorer” or “Explorer I” as they wished. This should have been the end of the matter, but my closing declaration that “the paradoxical position of the factually incorrect pedant is not a happy one” served as a red rag to a bull for the self-appointed “name police.”
First, they pointed to the Rolex website where the current model 214270 was named simply an “Explorer.” This itself established nothing, as it had been my proposal from the outset that both terms should be acceptable. Finding evidence of Rolex using one did not mean that we should use it to the exclusion of all others!
It was then suggested that the instruction booklet that I had found was a one-off aberration, a mistake by Rolex that could be ignored as such.
Faced with either working on a compliance document for the Financial Conduct Authority or spending half an hour finding the evidence to win a Rolex argument was an easy decision. I dug out every Explorer booklet from the Miltons archive and set about out my geeky task. What follows is lifted directly from the forum:
“First, the caramel-back 14270 series with sandy background to P2, having date codes for Jan 1993, Sept 1994, May 1995, Aug 1996, Dec 1996, Feb 1997 (USA), Feb 1998, Mar 1998 (USA), July 1998, Jan 1999, Feb 1999 and June 1999:
You will note that every one explicitly shows and writes about the Explorer I.
Now the second series, the caramel back 14270 with white background to P2, having date codes for May 2000, Sept 2000 (USA) and Jan 2001:
You will note that every one explicitly shows and writes about the Explorer I.
The third, transitional series is of course quite rare, detailing the 114270 model while – mirabile dictu ! – still enjoying a caramel back cover. So far I have seen it with only the July 2001 date code:
You will note that every one explicitly shows and writes about the Explorer I.
Finally, we have the common grey-back / 114270 series with date codes for Jan 2002, Mar 2003, Nov 2003, Feb 2004, Feb 2005, Aug 2005, Jan 2006, Sept 2006, Jan 2007 and May 2009 :
You will note that every one explicitly shows and writes about the Explorer I.
It thus seems that for sixteen years both Rolex Geneva and Rolex USA were happy to class any Explorer made prior to the Explorer II as an “Explorer I.”
Clearly squeezed by the weight of evidence, the “name police” tried to divert attention with reference to the GMT-Master and GMT-Master II. As if it were relevant, they gleefully claimed that there had been no “GMT-Master I”
With deep joy I retrieved and posted this Rolex instruction booklet, disproving the further claim:
While running the risk of spoiling the “name police’s” day, it was also possible to prove that Rolex didn’t always refer to a “Submariner Date“:
To be clear, I make no case here that we must call any of these watches by a particular name. My original proposal was instead that “the wisest course would be to let people call the models by any name that allows clear understanding by all involved.”
While the following picture was aimed at the “name police,” there is a part of me that knows it could equally be applied to all of us on watch fora at times!
If you are sick enough to have read this far, perhaps you, too, would enjoy the chatter on a watch forum. We consider http://www.tz-uk.com to be the outstanding forum for UK buyers, collectors, watchmakers and dealers in all brands, not just Rolex. Discussion there can be “robust” but lively, comprising many well-informed correspondents with local insight and feedback. Just don’t join and try to sell your old shoes on the Sales Corner, or they’ll have you.
Haywood Milton, July 2016
