ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
6 July 2010, 05:20 AM | #1 |
"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. |
6 July 2010, 05:55 AM | #2 | |
Fondly Remembered
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
|
Quote:
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!! |
|
6 July 2010, 06:10 AM | #3 |
"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 ?
|
6 July 2010, 06:12 AM | #4 | |
Fondly Remembered
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
|
Quote:
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!! |
|
6 July 2010, 06:16 AM | #5 |
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
2024 SubLV41 Sponsor & Boutique Seller Join Date: Jul 2009
Real Name: Tony Geha
Location: San Diego, CA
Watch: Yacht-Master
Posts: 51,110
|
I knew that NO ONE will answer that better then JJ
__________________
Instagram @JustRolexes 2FA security active |
6 July 2010, 06:17 AM | #6 |
Fondly Remembered
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
|
..........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!! |
6 July 2010, 08:49 AM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Jib
Location: SJ, California
Watch: sun dial
Posts: 8,189
|
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 |
6 July 2010, 09:14 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Real Name: Carlos
Location: UK
Watch: ing YOU!
Posts: 1,121
|
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 |
6 July 2010, 06:17 AM | #9 |
"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?
|
6 July 2010, 06:19 AM | #10 | |
Fondly Remembered
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
|
Quote:
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!! |
|
7 July 2010, 05:07 AM | #11 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 603
|
Quote:
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. |
|
8 July 2010, 06:46 AM | #12 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 603
|
Quote:
Thanks to everyone who contributed. |
|
6 July 2010, 10:59 AM | #13 |
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? |
6 July 2010, 11:01 AM | #14 | |
Fondly Remembered
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
|
Quote:
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!! |
|
7 July 2010, 12:19 AM | #15 |
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.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.