Explorer II 16570 changes with serial numbers

[chicolax2]

Decided that my first serious watch is going to be an Explorer II 16570 in black. Love the new 216570 but it has more wrist presence than I am looking for. What subtle changes did Rolex make over the different year serial numbers? Been trying to find something definitive. Different things I have seen but looking for some guidance on are: that the numbers we're stamped differently?; different movement 3185 vs 3186?; different illumination on the dials?
Are these mostly marketing or are some of these things, or maybe something I am missing going to make a certain year or years much better to own or pay a premium for?

[chicolax2]

bump

[uncufunc]

Changes in movement from 3185 to 3186. change from holes case to no holes. Change to SELs...engraved rehaut

[Tools]

Originally Posted by chicolax2

. . .What subtle changes did Rolex make over the different year serial numbers? Been trying to find something definitive. Different things I have seen but looking for some guidance on are: that the numbers we're stamped differently?; different movement 3185 vs 3186?; different illumination on the dials?
. .

Rolex never made any changes based on serial numbers nor were numbers stamped differently.

The movement change to the 3186 was during the Late Z release. There is always carryover with Rolex and they did not release serials sequentially (as research indicates), so you should check if you are expecting the later movement.

[Vinyasa]

Originally Posted by Tools

Rolex never made any changes based on serial numbers nor were numbers stamped differently.

The movement change to the 3186 was during the Late Z release. There is always carryover with Rolex and they did not release serials sequentially (as research indicates), so you should check if you are expecting the later movement.

I just purchased the 40mm black dial 16570/3186 from a Trusted Seller a couple of weeks ago. M-Serial, with engraved rehaut. I believe the major difference between the 3185 and 3186 movement is the Parachrome hairspring, which 'reportedly' is up to ten times less susceptible to shocks and magnetic fields. I think there's a bit of a mark-up for the 16570/3186 compared to the 3185, but not as much as there appears to be for the GMT Master II models which share the same movement.

BTW, I couldn't be happier with my 16570. It's a very versatile timepiece.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Vinyasa

. . . Parachrome hairspring, which 'reportedly' is up to ten times less susceptible to shocks and magnetic fields. . . .

Yes. Up to 10 times more resistant than a standard hairspring, but Rolex never used a standard hairspring. They used the top-of-the-line, non-magnetic, Nivarox FAR hairsprings.

[Vinyasa]

Originally Posted by Tools

Yes. Up to 10 times more resistant than a standard hairspring, but Rolex never used a standard hairspring. They used the top-of-the-line, non-magnetic, Nivarox FAR hairsprings.

Thanks for the info Larry!

[chicolax2]

Vinyasa, congrats on the beautiful explorer II, thank you everyone for the info.

[Mr DateJust]

The changes were the engraved rehaut, then as Larry says the 3186 (think these came in around time same time as the engraving). Some of the very late one have an AR cyclops and what is called a "thin frame" dial. This is more evident on the White but it basically means the hour marker surrounds are slightly thinner. On the black it's almost impossible to tell. If you go for a black try and get a late one with the AR cyclops might as well have the most modern version. You might even get lucky and find a brand new one. The black dial explorer 2 was not popular and tended to sit.