Similar to our last Face Off, this one will see three Rolex references compete against each other. This time it’s the classic, tough as nails, yet often underrated Explorer I. The Datejust, Daytona, GMT, and Submariner are all instantly recognizable, even to those with little to no knowledge of horology. The Explorer I, however, is the most non-Rolex Rolex, which is perhaps what is most appealing. Similar to the Sea Dweller, it’s not a watch one simply stumbles upon but one that those with the knowledge of its history and capabilities seek out. The spartan 3-6-9 black dial is elegant while emanating purpose-built minimalism. Its understated looks are functional, beautiful, and can be worn in virtually any situation without looking out of place or in-your-face. Spanning five decades of production, the references we’ll dive into are the 1016, 14270, and 214270.
1016
Original ref. 1016 advertisement
It’s hard imagine a watch that better fits Rolex’s history of the tough tool watch. Sure, one could argue for the Submariner; however, I think in terms of purpose-built toughness, the 1016 Explorer takes the cake. Produced from 1963 till 1989, the 1016 is one of Rolex’s longest running references. This Explorer had no superfluous frills or complications — each feature of the watch served a specific purpose. In a situation with little to no light, the luminous tritium markers made identification easy. Its Oyster case and screw-down crown provided 100 meters of water resistance. The second generation 1016 featured an upgraded Caliber 1570 movement and more secure Oyster bracelet, replacing the folded link one. Everything you need, nothing you don’t.
Depending on age, condition, and service history, and various other factors befitting a vintage Rolex, prices can vary from around $6,000 to over twice that amount. Obviously, the early gilt dials are going to be more desirable and expensive, but a nice matching dial and hands on a later version with the updated movement is a great option.
14270
ref .14270, courtesy Monochrome Watches
In 1989, Rolex unveiled the reference 14270, which showcased numerous changes to the beloved Explorer. There was a new case, dial, movement, sapphire crystal, with only the hands remaining the same. Like the rest of the lineup, Rolex updated the Explorer with a glossy dial with numbers and markers lined with white gold surrounds. The new number typeface and glossy dial definitely throws out the vintage charm of the 1016, but it remained in place as a minimalist tool watch.
Like the other Rolex watches at the time, the 14270 used tritium for its lume up until about 1998, when the switch to Superluminova occurred. Curiously, Rolex didn’t apply the lume to the numbers, just to the stick markers and 12:00 triangle. The new 27 jewel Calibre 3000 movement had a higher beat and greater shock resistance. Proportionally, the case still has the classic Rolex feel without being too bloated like many modern examples that followed.
Although differing significantly from the vintage 1016, the 14270 represents the perfect blending of modern features yet still in keeping with the history that that made the Explorer so great. The 14270 was produced until around 2001, when the 114270 took over. We’re going to mostly gloss over the 114270, as the only changes were the slightly upgraded caliber 3130, the addition of solid end links, and the subtraction of lug holes. A quality example of the 14270 can easily be found for under $5,000, which is a tremendous value when it comes to Rolex watches. And as far as collectibility, the only 14270s pulling in significantly more money are the “blackout” Explorer I’s produced for a very short period of time in the early 90s. The numbers were done in black instead of the typical white, and the low production numbers command a solid premium (if you can even find one).
214270
ref. 214270
Rolex’s 214270, released in 2010, was a completely new Explorer. One of the most immediately noticeable differences is the size. By today’s standards, the previous generations’ 36mm size is quite small, so Rolex decided to increase the Explorer to a larger — but still fairly modest — 39mm. Aside from the case, the main update was the new Calibre 3132 movement. In addition to the larger diameter, the overall case design and proportions changed slightly as well. You’ll notice a beefier appearance, which is in line with other current Rolex models.
There were significant changes to the dial: the words “Explorer” were moved to the lower part of the dial, the white gold surrounds of the 3-6-9 markers were replaced entirely with white gold, and the rehaut was engraved. This creates a slightly flashier look, as flashy as Explorers get, anyway. In comparison do the increased dial diameter, the hands were also shorter. The minute hand does not reach the minute markers at the edge of the dial and the hour hand looks disproportionately short. It almost looks like Rolex had left over hands and didn’t want to go through the trouble of designing new ones with the proper length.
Although 39mm is still relatively small by today’s standards, let’s hope Rolex resists the urge to increase this any further as they did with the 214270’s counterpart, the 216570 Explorer II, ruining its proportions in my opinion. Visually, the 214270 is more the part of a dress watch than a tool watch, although, rest assured, it is sure to be the toughest iteration with its modern 904L steel, sapphire crystal, Oysterlock bracelet, and 3132 movement with Parachrom hairspring and Paraflex shock absorbers. It’s the Explorer for the 21st century, and hovering around $5,000 depending on if new or used, it’s still a great value.
Conclusion
I’ll get the obvious out of the way first, each one is a fantastic watch that will make its owner proud. And since the Explorer is a Rolex that can be had for relatively little as far as Rolex watches go, it’s one of the best values on the entire Rolex collection. There’s got to be a winner, however, so let’s get to it.
In the modern era of watch collecting, it seems that size and proportions are some of the most frequent and important aspects when choosing which piece to purchase. Taking that into consideration, the relatively small 36mm size 1016 and 14270 might be enough to dissuade potential buyers, leaving the 214270 a more practical choice for those desiring a larger watch. That being said, I feel the 36mm is that classic size for this historical piece. It’s a size that anyone can wear comfortably, and suits the understated style of the Explorer perfectly. You can always put it on a NATO or Bund strap to increase the visual size and wrist presence. So, it’s between the 1016 and 14270. For the buyer that may want a little more modern reliability and construction, the 14270 would probably be their choice. For my money however, the 1016 is the clear winner when it comes to the Rolex Explorer. It’s the quintessential tool watch. Thanks to its long production run, many permutations with varying degrees of quality, patina, and rare features like underline dials, gilt dials, and chapter rings means that there’s a 1016 for every type of collector. Exuding the history of exploration and toughness the Rolex was known for, the 1016 is timeless. The vintage cool factor is well worth paying a little more. Next time I’m in the market for a Rolex Explorer, it is the one I will buy. After all, the 1016 is the watch the James Bond and his creator Ian Flemming wore, so it’s hard not to love it.
1016
featured image courtesy European Watch Company
by 
Teeritz
Great article! However, while I would agree to an extent that Fleming equipped Bond with an Explorer, the fact that he never mentions the name “Explorer” in any of the novels leaves me with room for doubt.
Fleming went to great lengths with product placement in his books and it seems odd that he never stated Bond’s watch as being an Explorer, especially since the name is plastered across the dial.
This has been the topic of much heated debate over the years on various watch forums and, despite what some folks have determined, and the fact that Fleming himself owned one, I don’t think a definitive answer exists.
And yes, the 1016 is the one to go for.
Shane Griffin
I agree it wasn’t explicitly stated, but the logic is pretty strong in favor of the Explorer. Del Deaton has done a lot of research on the topic, and his evidence is solid for what’s out there.
Teeritz
Mr. Deaton did indeed do much research for his initial magazine article which appeared in “Watchtime” magazine in early 2009. However, a member of the watchuseek forums had written a long, well-researched and exhaustive post a few months prior, arriving at the same conclusion. Could all be coincidental, but it led to much speculation, and things got ugly for a while.