Explorer II 216570 Black Dial - "Floating Hands" Question

[BJHofkin]

As a number of folks here have noted, there is a different amount—i.e., a different length—of black at the base of the minute, hour, and 24-hour hands on the black dial 216570. Some are bothered by this; some aren't.

I haven't decided whether I'm bothered.

What might help me is knowing WHY Rolex designed the hands the way they did. It seems like such an easily avoidable mistake that it must not have been a mistake at all; there must be some legitimate aesthetic explanation, right?

Any thoughts on this question?

[ccwatchman1961]

I'd also be interested to know this. There has to be a reason.

[Tools]

Yes.... and why in the world do they use a bar at the 6 and 9 positions and a triangle at the 12... and that triangle is up-side down for some crazy reason..

I think that these things just bother everybody; don't they...

[BJHofkin]

Originally Posted by Tools

Yes.... and why in the world do they use a bar at the 6 and 9 positions and a triangle at the 12... and that triangle is up-side down for some crazy reason..

I think that these things just bother everybody; don't they...

[iclick]

Originally Posted by Tools

...and why in the world do they use a bar at the 6 and 9 positions and a triangle at the 12... and that triangle is up-side down for some crazy reason..

Tradition?

[Duey]

I can't figure out why the black on the hands are high gloss and the dial is flat black. Not much of a floating look IMHO.

[KINGROLESAR]

From a purely artistic standpoint it creates an aesthetically pleasing imbalance or API.

[BJHofkin]

Originally Posted by KINGROLESAR

From a purely artistic standpoint it creates an aesthetically pleasing imbalance or API.

Interesting—that had occurred to me (though without the technical terminology); I'd be interested to hear if others find the imbalance pleasing as well.

[Flintstone]

….and pizza is round, transported in a square box and cut in triangles….go figure.

[mike]

Originally Posted by Flintstone

….and pizza is round, transported in a square box and cut in triangles….go figure.

I've had trouble with that as well.

[superdog]

I like it.

[Psmith]

The black base is longer for each hand, in proportion to its overall length:
Hour hand: shortest
Minute hand: next longest
24 hr hand: longest

Works for me as a design approach

The dial is not a flat, matte black but rather a satin finish (as described by Rolex). In certain light conditions it appears brownish. Matching the black base of the hands to the dial would enhance the 'phantom' effect, but then everything about this watch seems to prioritise readability in all conditions. If this approach reduces the 'floating' effect, then so be it

[Cru Jones]

That's a new one. I've only read about people complaining about the clash of the glossy black hands against the matte dial.

[Rashid.bk]

...and what's up with that one oddball lume baton at nine o'clock on the DJ2.

[BJHofkin]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

...and what's up with that one oddball lume baton at nine o'clock on the DJ2.

Seems like you're being sarcastic.

Look, guys, I know I don't have a ton of posts to my name, but I've done a lot of searching/reading on this topic and don't feel like I'm asking a) a stupid question or b) a question that's already been settled.

If my specific question HAS already been discussed a lot here—that is, what is the positive reason Rolex might have put differing amounts of black on each of the three hands—then, by all means, please point me to the relevant threads.

Otherwise, I don't see the point of making fun of a newer member trying to discuss a watch he's interested in. Everyone starts somewhere.

If I'm interpreting mocking/sarcasm where there isn't any, then please disregard this post.

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by BJHofkin

Seems like you're being sarcastic.

Look, guys, I know I don't have a ton of posts to my name, but I've done a lot of searching/reading on this topic and don't feel like I'm asking a) a stupid question or b) a question that's already been settled.

If my specific question HAS already been discussed a lot here—that is, what is the positive reason Rolex might have put differing amounts of black on each of the three hands—then, by all means, please point me to the relevant threads.

Otherwise, I don't see the point of making fun of a newer member trying to discuss a watch he's interested in. Everyone starts somewhere.

If I'm interpreting mocking/sarcasm where there isn't any, then please disregard this post.

Your question cannot be answered.

It's simply the design choice that Rolex went with. If there is a specific "reason" we won't know.

I think the post earlier describing how it's proportional to the length of the hands is most likely "correct".

[mattcantwin]

They did it so I would buy the white dial.

[adamlea]

I doubt it's a haphazard design. It probably has something to do with visual aesthetics and the order in which the 3 hands are stacked on the dial. Either way, I think it looks great.

[Nidal]

Originally Posted by mattcantwin

They did it so I would buy the white dial.

This is a stunning NATO strap color

[Ravager135]

I think this is actually a good question. The answer might be arbitrary as in "Rolex just felt like it," but it's still kind of valid. I never understood why there was a mismatch between the dial and paint on the hands and why they all have varying lengths of black. It does seem a little disjointed. For a brand that obsesses over every change this seems like an odd choice. In almost every review of the new Explorer everyone commented on how the hands are too small at 39mm. This again can be an arbitrary decision by Rolex (they don't bother me one bit) but no one scoffs at that critique.

To be fair, in addition to wanting a white dial, the lack of true floating hands and the varying paint length affected my decision to get the black dial model. I think it does matter because truthfully the black dial is the true successor to the original Explorer II.

[BJHofkin]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

I think this is actually a good question. The answer might be arbitrary as in "Rolex just felt like it," but it's still kind of valid. I never understood why there was a mismatch between the dial and paint on the hands and why they all have varying lengths of black. It does seem a little disjointed. For a brand that obsesses over every change this seems like an odd choice. In almost every review of the new Explorer everyone commented on how the hands are too small at 39mm. This again can be an arbitrary decision by Rolex (they don't bother me one bit) but no one scoffs at that critique.

To be fair, in addition to wanting a white dial, the lack of true floating hands and the varying paint length affected my decision to get the black dial model. I think it does matter because truthfully the black dial is the true successor to the original Explorer II.

Exactly—and thanks for recognizing the validity of the question.

My thoughts on my own question, fwiw:

In some types of lighting, the white gold in the hands actually looks very dark—making it seem like the black extends further up the hour and minute hands to the point that they even appear to have the same amount of black as the orange GMT hand (although the small bit of lume beneath the Mercedes on the hour hand would seem to get in the way here). See this picture, for instance:



Does that make sense?

[viper9669]

I was curious at first too, then I got used to it, maybe they might have some minor changes down the road, it happened with the 116613 LB, they switched to a sunburst blue dial.

[psv]

The hands on the Exp42 black are a deal killer for me, I'm going with the polar one. The desired floating/ghost effect doesn't work in real life, and there is too much metal surrounding the lume, which makes the hand look stubby. It is a pitty, because I love the matte dial and the orange hand.

[HRV]

To be honest I haven't heard there was a problem and I like it just fine the way it is

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by BJHofkin

Seems like you're being sarcastic.

There is a little sarcasm in there but I'm serious regarding the DJ2. You're original post was regarding design, so my point is that there are quite a few out there. You will never know "why" a company designed something the way they did, especially Rolex.
Could've been focus groups, votes, aesthetics, to irk people, variety between models.....etc..
Patrick made a good point regarding the amount of metal on the bigger hands, the phantom hands might of cut down on that appearance....the way I see it, Rolex just made it easy for me to choose the Polar with this watch.

I think the twinlock on the Exp 2 is inappropriate also. It looks small in comparison to the rest of the 42mm watch, and I don't care about water resistance. I'm talking about aesthetics and functionality(a bigger crown is easier to manipulate).

In the end "why" will never be answered really, I bet there's something hidden in Rolex's horribly organized website regarding the Exp 2's designs or in it's release literature, but good luck navigating through that labyrinth of photoshop crap. And that's not sarcasm.

[BJHofkin]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

There is a little sarcasm in there but I'm serious regarding the DJ2. You're original post was regarding design, so my point is that there are quite a few out there. You will never know "why" a company designed something the way they did, especially Rolex.
Could've been focus groups, votes, aesthetics, to irk people, variety between models.....etc..
Patrick made a good point regarding the amount of metal on the bigger hands, the phantom hands might of cut down on that appearance....the way I see it, Rolex just made it easy for me to choose the Polar with this watch.

I think the twinlock on the Exp 2 is inappropriate also. It looks small in comparison to the rest of the 42mm watch, and I don't care about water resistance. I'm talking about aesthetics and functionality(a bigger crown is easier to manipulate).

In the end "why" will never be answered really, I bet there's something hidden in Rolex's horribly organized website regarding the Exp 2's designs or in it's release literature, but good luck navigating through that labyrinth of photoshop crap. And that's not sarcasm.

Fair enough.

Just to be clear, I'm not expecting anyone here to know FOR A FACT why Rolex designed the hands the way they did (with uneven amounts of black).

I'm merely asking for theories.

My premise is that Rolex must have had an explicit reason for the design of the hands; perhaps folks here can speculate as to what it was. In fact I find some of the ideas already expressed in this thread to be persuasive.

Now, will understanding the design decision better put me at peace with it? Perhaps, and perhaps not, but I LOVE everything else about the watch and am strongly considering picking it up as my first Rolex.

[FremStar]

Originally Posted by BJHofkin

Fair enough.

Just to be clear, I'm not expecting anyone here to know FOR A FACT why Rolex designed the hands the way they did (with uneven amounts of black).

I'm merely asking for theories.

My premise is that Rolex must have had an explicit reason for the design of the hands; perhaps folks here can speculate as to what it was. In fact I find some of the ideas already expressed in this thread to be persuasive.

Now, will understanding the design decision better put me at peace with it? Perhaps, and perhaps not, but I LOVE everything else about the watch and am strongly considering picking it up as my first Rolex.

Study these pictures... I'm at work at this moment and have been reading your comments... I will be back later on tonight to read your response...

[BJHofkin]

Originally Posted by FremStar

Study these pictures... I'm at work at this moment and have been reading your comments... I will be back later on tonight to read your response...

Was hoping you'd show up in this thread (given your passion for this particular watch)!

Seems like you understand the question exactly—on the 1655, the "floating hands" are executed flawlessly with an equal amount of black on the stem of each hand (not to mention matte paint to match the matte dial, but that's not my concern here).

Clearly Rolex had the 1655 in mind, so why did they deviate from that design with respect to the amount of black paint on each hand? There must be some positive reason, right? Obviously no one here will KNOW, but we can all SPECULATE and THEORIZE.

Why do I care so much? Because I'm enamored with the watch but am having a hell of a time deciding between black and polar dials!

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by BJHofkin

Was hoping you'd show up in this thread (given your passion for this particular watch)!

Seems like you understand the question exactly—on the 1655, the "floating hands" are executed flawlessly with an equal amount of black on the stem of each hand (not to mention matte paint to match the matte dial, but that's not my concern here).

Clearly Rolex had the 1655 in mind, so why did they deviate from that design with respect to the amount of black paint on each hand? There must be some positive reason, right? Obviously no one here will KNOW, but we can all SPECULATE and THEORIZE.

Why do I care so much? Because I'm enamored with the watch but am having a hell of a time deciding between black and polar dials!

It seems like you won't come to accept the black hands for what they are, so, my advice/theory/speculation is that the white dial is better for you (and if not the white dial, then a different watch).

[Brenngun]

Originally Posted by psv

The hands on the Exp42 black are a deal killer for me, I'm going with the polar one. The desired floating/ghost effect doesn't work in real life, and there is too much metal surrounding the lume, which makes the hand look stubby. It is a pitty, because I love the matte dial and the orange hand.

Totally agree. Also the reason I went with the Polar. Trust me Patrick you're going to come to love it. The white on black contrast and full length hands / lume definitely work on this one.

Originally Posted by FremStar

Study these pictures... I'm at work at this moment and have been reading your comments... I will be back later on tonight to read your response...

Sam you're incorrigible. Any chance to show off that beauty. I always stare at that one everytime you post a pic.

Originally Posted by BJHofkin

Clearly Rolex had the 1655 in mind, so why did they deviate from that design with respect to the amount of black paint on each hand? There must be some positive reason, right?

OP, I think some of the earlier comments reflect more of a frustration by members that we just don't know and Rolex never really discusses the reasons for their decisions more than a purposeful attempt at sarcasm or chastising your question. Actually Rolex has very seldom if ever released a "tribute" type watch (Tudor excluded) so it makes more sense that they would purposely avoid duplicating a previous design feature.