There are those in the watch community who will say they aren’t drawn to the Rolex Explorer 1016. However, they are such an infinitesimal minority they are an all but negligible contingent. All the same, they do exist, so it might not be completely factual to say that everyone lusts after a 1016, but the statement resonates enough to be true in the way that matters.

Unfortunately, those with visions of 1016s dancing in their heads are seldom able to realize the dream of owning one. The majority of us are left to find something that will stand in, to fill the void. That’s where Timefactors’ Smiths Everest PRS-25 comes in.

Should you wish to get a quick hit of those things I like and things I might change about this watch, please scroll to the bottom of this article to review my high-level insights.

Prior to discussing the Smiths Everest, I feel it may be prudent to discuss the difference, in my interpretation, between an homage, a non-homage alternative and a derivative. There’s merit to each category described below.

Homage

An homage is a timepiece that features similar elements to those of notable or classic watches. The design strategy of homage watches does not intend to be a wholly identical duplication. However, in accomplishing their own look as a whole, they will appropriate specific qualities from watches of yore – making them not completely original in concept (but frankly, what is?). As the “homage” moniker suggests, the choice to include certain established elements pays tribute to horological DNA.

Non-Homage Alternative

Frankly, this category of watch has its head up its own ass a bit. I don’t really believe that anything can be purely original or alien. There’s always an element of copying, even if it’s inadvertent or subconscious. However, the goal for this type of timepiece is to remain within a familiar design language without mirroring a particular feature already established by and attributed to another recognizable and celebrated watch. Non-homage alternatives are meant to make you feel like you are occupying the same space where giants reside, while still allowing you to get the sense you have something unique and different on your wrist.

Derivative

Of the three categories discussed here, this might sound the most foreboding. The word “derivative” can emit an idea of something distasteful or “lesser than”, but that’s not the feeling I’d like it to stimulate for our purposes. I merely intend this moniker to mean “derived from”. That is to say, almost entirely and unapologetically derived from a pre-existing design. It’s not paying tribute and it’s not attempting to be its own thing. However, it also does not claim to be a copy. That’s quite a line to walk. Can it be done responsibly? I don’t have the answer to that. What I do know is I’m happy derivatives exist. They make the aesthetics of nearly unattainable, almost mythical timepieces accessible to the everyman. Yes, there are many in the watch community who cannot abide their shameless duplication – but, those opinions tend to come from the camp who can afford the real deal, so the purpose of affordable derivatives is lost on them.

Throughout this article, I will be operating under the belief that Timefactors’ Smiths Everest is a derivative of the Rolex Explorer 1016.

The Backstory

As mentioned above, I dream of the 1016. Rolex broke the mould when they released the Explorer. Its design style is (in my opinion) an absolutely perfect balance of minimalism, elegance and ruggedness. It’s demure enough to go unnoticed and sufficiently robust that (in its day) you’d have no fear to take it wherever you happen to venture. The 36mm oyster case would be at home under a white dress cuff, with the sound of cocktail glasses clinking all around or nestled beneath the strap of a cold-weather glove, caked with ice and snow.

It has been said by many but has not become overstated – the Rolex 1016 is an “all-arounder”. With the downward pointing triangle at twelve (directing your eye to the Rolex coronet) and the beautifully styled three, six and nine numerals that mark the dial, I’m driven to suggest that it’s an object of irrefutable objective perfection. How could it be that someone is immune to its contagion? I refuse to believe such a watch lover or admirer of design exists. It flies under the radar with the uninitiated but makes those in the know swoon.

But I digress – alas, the only time a dreamy 1016 will grace my wrist is literally in my dreams. I’m not one to underestimate what I can achieve, nor do I encourage the idea that anyone should limit what is possible for them to accomplish. However, I am also realistic. I’m a father and a husband before I’m a watch enthusiast. As much as I’d love a 1016 Explorer, for me, it isn’t responsible to own such an expensive thing.

What’s more, no matter how mint of an example you are able to find of the 1016, it will never be minty enough to do the things it once did. After all, it’s a vintage watch and as such, it’s far beyond its years where it kept the promises of its retailer. Wind, rain and bodies of water are no friend to the 1016. If you’re fortunate enough to own one, it’s a dinner party watch. A vintage Explorer is like a grizzled and wise old mountaineer, sitting in his rocking chair by the fire – looking out the window at the blizzard as he tells of long past adventures to those who will listen. In my mind, an Explorer has to be able to explore.

So, with that said, how am I to quench this deep thirst? Like the long treks of expeditionary groups that conquer summits and uncover great antiquities, I began my arduous search for the watch that would imitate greatness.

The Expedition

To wet my appetite, a Rolex Explorer 1016 homage or non-homage alternative just would not do. During my search, I had absolutely no interest in the options that slightly resembled or were spiritual successors to the 1016. The watch I wanted to find needed to be an unabashed derivative. It needed to look and feel like the real McCoy. What’s more, it needed to be affordable. Reason being – I’m still holding on to hope that one day, in the not too distant future, Rolex will reissue a 36mm Explorer 1 or Tudor will re-release a faithful duplication of the 1967 Oyster Prince Ranger (or add a 3-6-9 to the dial of the Heritage Black Bay 36). A guy can dream and even if I may never own a 1016, I still need a grail to strive after (even if it doesn’t yet exist).

So, has to look and feel like a 1016 and can’t cost an arm and leg – got it. I scoured and searched and finally, I happened upon the Smiths Everest. From the few screenshots available, it certainly looked to check the box with regard to looks. Obviously, it doesn’t look exactly like a 1016. It’s missing some intangible lustre (most likely because it isn’t as refined in its construction - but that goes without saying). However, it can’t be denied that the Everest is definitely a derivative of the vintage Explorer. So, I was satisfied in the looks department. As for cost, as watches go, it’s definitely affordable. The only question left was, how does it feel to wear?

The Summit Push

With two out of three boxes checked, I decided to pull the trigger. When it arrived a couple of weeks later, I was certainly pleased with first impressions. It definitely didn’t feel as robust as any of my luxury watches but I didn’t expect it to. That said, I was and still am impressed with how solid it feels for the price rendered. I have, and plan to continue putting this watch through its paces without any concern of it breaking or bending under the torture. I’m completely confident that it will be able to take whatever I dish out.

Which is another thing I wanted out of my field watch at this point in my life. Reality is, even if there were an Explorer for me at the present time, I probably wouldn’t want to step up to it yet as it’s too expensive a piece to put through the rigors of a young father. I wouldn’t pass a moment’s concern in taking any field watch into its natural wild and harsh arena – cliff faces, heavy brush and rushing waters. However, what would concern me is the grabbing, scratching and bashing hands of my baby son. As cute as he is, he would have no mercy. And, I have no doubt that an Explorer would take his abuse – but I wouldn’t, in my right mind, want to put such a piece through that type of torture. That’s why the hardiness of the Everest, combined with its price point, is appealing for what it is. Not to downplay the cost, as it is still quite a bit of money. But relative to the rest of the watches in my collection, it is certainly an affordable addition. I don’t want to be wearing watches that I have to be conscious of when playing with my son. If he wants, I want him to be able to palm, punch and prod what I’m wearing without causing me any concern. The Everest is up to that task.

The Features

The dial is a dead-ringer – except for the branding of course (which Timefactors should consider replacing with the vintage Smiths logo). The indices, seconds track markings and 12 o’clock triangle are close enough to be convincing. The iconic 3-6-9 numerals are stylized identical to the 1016’s. Maybe the only shortcoming of the dial is its finish. Not that it isn’t gorgeous in its own right, but for the sake of Explorer authenticity, it could have been more matte. After all, the Everest – like the Explorer – is a field watch. Its face should not be reflective. However, with regard to the dial, that’s splitting hairs. At the end of the day, when you look down at the dial, you’ll definitely get Explorer vibes. So, mission accomplished in that respect.

The crystal is semi-domed sapphire. Nothing to write home about but nothing seriously wrong with it either. Personally, I would’ve liked to see a more dramatically domed acrylic crystal – but I know that’s an unpopular opinion. The reason I’d prefer acrylic instead of sapphire for this watch is because it is a vintage inspired watch, so its design should speak to that in every way. An acrylic crystal would allow for a more pronounced curvature and would rid the face of the infamous milky ring that is indicative of sapphire. The advantage you will benefit from with sapphire is it is far more resistant to scratching and scuffing. However, I’m going to voice another unpopular opinion and admit that I enjoy the way acrylic ages and wears – subtle hairline scratches look like wrinkles after time and make a watch your own.

As for the case, this element is one of the strongest assets of the watch. Its 36mm diameter is proper for a vintage Explorer stand-in and its shape is spot on – with the lugs horned upward from the case (43.5mm lug-to-lug measurement). The sides of the case offer a slightly convex curve from watch face to case back, giving a smooth flow to the case – making it comfortable on the wrist. The lugs have drilled holes, making bracelet / strap changes a breeze. However, I wouldn’t dare take the Everest off of its bracelet. Whenever I see a 1016 on a leather strap it feels like blasphemy. The last element of the case that I will touch on - and probably the most important part in creating an Explorer derivative - is the polished, unmarked bezel. The Everest doesn’t disappoint here – great execution.

Now, the bracelet… This is a mixed bag and is the Everest’s Achilles’ heel. From an aesthetics perspective, they’ve done an alright job of mimicking the oyster bracelet. The centre links could be a bit longer and it could taper a bit more as it makes its way down to the clasp but all in all, it looks fine. It also feels pretty good – decently comfortable. It does tend to pull on hairs from time to time, and I am not a hairy guy at all. So, if you have hairy forearms, this could be an issue for you. Up until this point, everything is getting a passing mark – but now we have to talk about the clasp. First, the positive – it features a rudimentary slide-locking micro-adjustment system. It’s nothing fancy but it works well. I’ve used it quite a bit when my wrist swells during sweaty hikes. It allows my wrist to get some air and keeps the watch comfortable instead of becoming a strangling appendage on my forearm. Now, the negative – there is a price to pay for the slide-lock functionality, and it’s an annoying one. Since the clasp houses the micro-adjustment mechanisms, it’s much bulkier than I’d prefer it to be. It’s got noticeable heft when the watch is on your wrist. I’ve heard some people mention they feel the balance of the watch is thrown off by the weight of the clasp. This has not been my experience. However, I am bothered by how it breaks up the flow of the bracelet as it travels around your wrist. While it is true that you are not typically looking at the clasp when you gaze at your watch, it protrudes so much that you can see it when looking at your dial from certain angles. What’s more, the clasp’s beefiness has a practical impact – it has a tendency to catch or snag on things as you navigate your surroundings. Without question, the clasp is the single greatest “swing and miss” of the Everest (however, I have heard rumblings this issue may be rectified with the release of a new and improved bracelet at some point in the not too distant future).

In the adventure department, the Everest is ready to explore. As mentioned above, if you own a 1016, you probably should baby it. I know I would. However, with the Everest, you needn’t spend a moment wondering whether you can go there or do that. Its case is constructed of 316L stainless steel, has a screw-down crown and is equipped with 100 metres of water resistance. This watch is ready to be beaten about. I’ve pushed it through heavy forest brush and thicket, plunged it into lakes and oceans, and pressed and dragged it against stone while scaling drumlins – it’s been a great companion for all. The Everest is capable of taking you through your adventure and allowing you to plan for more.

What I’m Obsessed With:

The dimensions. 36mm is such a beautiful size. No matter the size of your wrist, I think everyone should consider owning at least one watch that is 36mm. It’s a sweet spot. It seems to sit well on the wrist looking down on it as the wearer and looks smart to someone staring at it from afar.
3-6-9. Timefactors nailed the font design. It drives me nuts that Rolex replaced this style of font with the more modern looking numerals.
How much money is left in my wallet while still getting that Explorer feeling. The Everest is affordable and while you’ll sacrifice in quality of construction (compared to luxury watches) you won’t be made to compromise when it comes to 1016 resemblance.
The slightly curved sides of the case. It contributes to the comfort of the Everest and allows the case to hug your wrist nicely.
Being empowered to adjust the fit with the slide-lock system. While the micro-adjustment creates a clunkier clasp, my wrist appreciates the ability to expand the bracelet’s fit on humid days.

What I Would Change:

Without question – the clasp. Its bulk breaks up the flow of the design and it can get in your way from time to time. There has to be a way to maintain the ability to micro-adjust while making the clasp more svelte. This is my largest gripe of the Everest.
Swap the sapphire for acrylic crystal. I’d like to get rid of that milky ring that sapphire creates and have a more pronounced dome to the crystal (for beautiful distortion of those gorgeous numerals).
Make the dial less reflective. The more matte the face of this watch, the better.
Either change the “Everest” text on the dial to white from dark grey, or do away with the text entirely. Most times, it looks more like a smudge than intentionally embossed script.
Get rid of the modern Smiths branding on the dial and replace it with the vintage logo – it just looks better.

Conclusion

As a whole, the Everest comes together as a convincing Explorer derivative. It’s got the looks and can easily tag along on your weekend excursions. It makes you think 1016 without obliterating your bank account – and that’s fine by me.

If you want a vintage Explorer derivative and don’t want to spend luxury prices, the Smiths Everest might just be the very best option available on the market at the time of writing this review.

If you’re willing to spend a larger amount, you can splurge for Tudor’s Heritage Black Bay 36. If you choose this option, you’ll certainly get a far more robust and refined timepiece than the Everest (and the Tudor has the potential to become a keeper in your collection), but I would argue that - from a looks-only perspective - there isn’t a watch currently available for purchase that bests this Smiths when it comes to mimicking the vintage Explorer aesthetic.