The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 6 July 2010, 05:20 AM   #1
AndersB
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 603
Weight of Exp II vs. GMT II

Hi all
It seems there's a rather significant weight difference between the the Exp II (16570) and the previous stainless steel GMT II (16710) - and this regardelss of end-links (SEL or non-SEL). Anyone who knows what it's due to? Only thing I can think of is the bezel really.
AndersB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 05:55 AM   #2
JJ Irani
Fondly Remembered
 
JJ Irani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndersB View Post
Hi all
It seems there's a rather significant weight difference between the the Exp II (16570) and the previous stainless steel GMT II (16710) - and this regardelss of end-links (SEL or non-SEL). Anyone who knows what it's due to? Only thing I can think of is the bezel really.
Hi Anders,

You'll be shocked and surprised to learn that the difference between the 2 watches is only ONE gram!!

Exp-II = 126 grams

GMT-II = 127 grams

Of course, both watches weighed with all original OYSTER bracelet links intact.

JJ

__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!!

I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!
JJ Irani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 06:10 AM   #3
AndersB
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 603
Thanks JJ. And the GMT numbers in the table relate to the 16700/16710 model and not the GMT IIc ?
AndersB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 06:12 AM   #4
JJ Irani
Fondly Remembered
 
JJ Irani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndersB View Post
Thanks JJ. And the GMT numbers in the table relate to the 16700/16710 model and not the GMT IIc ?
That's right, Anders..............this is an older chart, way before the new Ceramic version came out from Geneva!!

JJ
__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!!

I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!
JJ Irani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 06:16 AM   #5
JUSTROLEXES
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
2024 SubLV41 Sponsor & Boutique Seller
 
JUSTROLEXES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Real Name: Tony Geha
Location: San Diego, CA
Watch: Yacht-Master
Posts: 51,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ Irani View Post
That's right, Anders..............this is an older chart, way before the new Ceramic version came out from Geneva!!

JJ
I knew that NO ONE will answer that better then JJ
__________________
Instagram @JustRolexes
2FA security active
JUSTROLEXES is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 06:17 AM   #6
JJ Irani
Fondly Remembered
 
JJ Irani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by justrolexes View Post
I knew that NO ONE will answer that better then JJ
..........except my butcher, of course!!
__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!!

I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!
JJ Irani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 08:49 AM   #7
sakuraba
"TRF" Member
 
sakuraba's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Jib
Location: SJ, California
Watch: sun dial
Posts: 8,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ Irani View Post
..........except my butcher, of course!!
He's a legend around these parts.
__________________
F 14000 AirKing black
F 16710 GMT Pepsi
F 16570 Explorer II white
T 16600 SD
D 16610 LV

"fine quality is remembered long after the pain of spending money" -Steve Mulholland
sakuraba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 09:14 AM   #8
Carlos98326194
"TRF" Member
 
Carlos98326194's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Real Name: Carlos
Location: UK
Watch: ing YOU!
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ Irani View Post
..........except my butcher, of course!!
His butcher probably has a database on all infos of all his Rolex thru all the years
__________________
16610 116400GV 116520W 00112 116710LN 16610LV 00292 116520B
Carlos98326194 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 06:17 AM   #9
AndersB
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 603
Thanks again. You wouldn't know whether it's based on SELs or non-SELs would you?
AndersB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 06:19 AM   #10
JJ Irani
Fondly Remembered
 
JJ Irani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndersB View Post
Thanks again. You wouldn't know whether it's based on SELs or non-SELs would you?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.............good question, Anders. I think the above are all based on SELs.............although I don't think it would make too much of a difference.

The only difference you will notice is in the SS Sub-date 16610..........

With SEL bracelet = 135 grams

With older non-SEL bracelet = 130 grams.

JJ
__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!!

I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!
JJ Irani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 July 2010, 05:07 AM   #11
AndersB
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ Irani View Post
The only difference you will notice is in the SS Sub-date 16610..........

With SEL bracelet = 135 grams

With older non-SEL bracelet = 130 grams.
Pardon my ignorance but are there any other differences than the actual end-links in those two bracelets? I.e. could the weight difference be because of anything else than the end-links?

Reason I keep asking and asking about this is that I've mesured my GMT II at 124 grams (old version, non-SELs) and I'm trying to esablish whether the difference compared to the weight reported above (127 grams) could be due to the end-links.
AndersB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8 July 2010, 06:46 AM   #12
AndersB
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndersB View Post
Reason I keep asking and asking about this is that I've mesured my GMT II at 124 grams (old version, non-SELs) and I'm trying to esablish whether the difference compared to the weight reported above (127 grams) could be due to the end-links.
Just took the non-SEL bracelet off actually and weighted the watch together with a SEL bracelet (same ref. # of course) and yes - the weight's now 127 grams.

Thanks to everyone who contributed.
AndersB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 10:59 AM   #13
Alienbaby
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 36
Unrelated to those specific watches, but still a subject I'm curious about:

Is too much weight a bad thing? Do some people actually frown upon bearing the weight of the heaviest Rolex?
Alienbaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 July 2010, 11:01 AM   #14
JJ Irani
Fondly Remembered
 
JJ Irani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alienbaby View Post
Unrelated to those specific watches, but still a subject I'm curious about:

Is too much weight a bad thing? Do some people actually frown upon bearing the weight of the heaviest Rolex?
Too much weight is not a bad thing, but can become quite an uncomfortable thing at the end of a hard and tiring day.

I prefer the lighter models.

JJ
__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!!

I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!
JJ Irani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7 July 2010, 12:19 AM   #15
tomchicago
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago
Watch: 16710BLRO, 214270.
Posts: 2,717
i have both these watches. surprised to hear the actual difference in weight. what matters, though, is how they wear. the key to the eii's legendary comfort is it's low profile due to the bezel sloping downward from the crystal to the edges of the case, as opposed to staying "popped out" like other bezels. makes it super comfortable. while both wear like comfortable rolexes, I find the eII is nearly invisible on my wrist.
tomchicago is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches

OCWatches

Asset Appeal

Wrist Aficionado


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.