Why the black dialled Explorer II is better than the white --->

[Joey_V]

Originally Posted by acce1999

At least when it comes to legibility.

This is what Rolex says on their web site under a picture of the white ExII:

"... where the sun is but a hazy, dusky light 24 hours a day ..."

I have been given good opportunities to try out the hazy, dusky light with both my white and black Ex II on the wrist, and I must say that the highly polished white gold hands and indicies of the black version are hard to beat when it comes to legibility. The polished hands reflects the smallest amount of light, whilst the all black hands reflects nothing.



Best,

A

Wait... I didn't know the ExpII black face had white gold hands....?? Is this true?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Joey_V

Wait... I didn't know the ExpII black face had white gold hands....?? Is this true?

Of course, it's true. All Rolex watches have gold hands and markers, be it WG or YG.

JJ

[Warnsboy]

Originally Posted by acce1999

I am afraid that there is a lot that is faulty in that chart. The Explorer II has a diameter of 39.0 mm, and a thickness of 12.0 mm. I've measured it with caliper. Not only that: The Explorer is 35.0 mm (caliper again), the Daytona is 38.55 mm (if I remember correctly) (caliper again), the sub 16610 is not 13.0 mm thick... the 16710 is 12.0 mm thick, not 12.45. There are more errors than correct data in that chart, I'm afraid.

I've done my measurements with two types of calipers.

The cases of the 16710 and 16570 are identical, with one exception: The bezel, so they MUST have the same thickness and length... The bezel on the GMT is 40 mm, as is the bezel on the 16610.

That chart causes confusion. I would guess that it is i compilation done by a magazine from several measurements not done by the same person, and perhaps via poor conversion to the metric system.

Best,

A

Thanks for the info. I had kept the chart for future reference. I also had measured my ExpII with my non-metric caliper set using metric conversion tables and came up smaller. I will have to invest in a new metric set.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Warnsboy

JJ: Respectfuly, I was under the assumption that the ExpII was among the largest Bezel and Dials of the sport models. I saved a chart posted gy Space-Dweller from "The ExplorerII Enigma" thats attached. Is the chart inaccurate?

Attachment 111738
Originally Posted by Space-Dweller

That chart has a lot of inaccuracies. The Exp-II is actually 39 mm because of the fixed, sloping bezel.

JJ

[Matchbox]

Interesting thread, but my personal experience is a bit different ...

I greatly prefer the look of the black dial ExpII.

However I find it more difficult to tell the time on it if I don't have reading glasses on.

The lighter color dials seem to be easier to read bare-eyed.

Anyone else notice this?

[BiG JeEzY]

I don't believe legibility alone would be enough to justify the title of this thread. IMO, it wouldn't make the black dial a better model than the white dial.

I, myself, do prefer the white dial and I can say that its not because I'm biased. I like it because of its cleaner look and how it is somewhat more distinctive than many other professional watches out there because of the dial color.

As for legibility, I think the white dial takes the cake for me. I have a GMT and a white Exp II and I could see the time more clearly in the Exp II. This is especially true when standing about 7-10 feet from the watches and trying to read the time. From that distance, the seconds hand on the GMT looked like it was invisible. All I could see was the lume dot while I could see the entire seconds hand on the Explorer II.

Here's another question I'm curious about. Which dial color makes the cyclops lens "stand out" more from a distance? The black dial or the white dial?

[Spark]

Originally Posted by JBat

I like both versions of the Expy, but the white really sings to me. It's such a refreshing change from the other Rolex sport models, and I love how the black hands play off the white dial. A perfect contrast.

As much as I love both the Black & White Explorer II's just to be awkward I prefer this one
I think the Black indices really pop!
Who cares about legibility when a watch looks as beautiful as this

[Atomant]

man I think I'm going to get a black dial explorer II to keep the white one company. both very nice watches.

[rfknauss]

Got to go with the white face on the Explorer. I think it distinguishes that model from other Rolex sport models.

[raphaelkodrata]

Originally Posted by rfknauss

Got to go with the white face on the Explorer. I think it distinguishes that model from other Rolex sport models.

Hi everyone, I just join the nice forum here, and I saw this interesting thread.
I used to have Explorer II black dial, but now I kind of more fond with the white one...and I thought I could share a few photos of the white dial. Kind of boring a bit with ss oyster bracelet....so I replace it with black alligator strap made by Hirsch.

What do you all think with these, I mean which one is more suited with this watch, the ss oster bracelet or the black alligator strap? Meanwhile, enjoy....thanks

[Singslinger]

I'm guessing that the white dial was first and the black introduced later as a variation, which could be why white seems to be more prominently advertised. Can anyone confirm this? Or were they both introduced simultaneously?

(I'm also guessing the same "white first, black later'' applied to the Daytona as well)

[raphaelkodrata]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

I'm guessing that the white dial was first and the black introduced later as a variation, which could be why white seems to be more prominently advertised. Can anyone confirm this? Or were they both introduced simultaneously?

(I'm also guessing the same "white first, black later'' applied to the Daytona as well)

I think it's also the same situation as what happen to the SS Daytona: white first and black later, which in this case from the AD and after market here, the price for SS Daytona white dial is cheaper than the black one, for the new and used watch. But in the case of Explorer II, the price is the same for both white and black dials.

I have older and the latest Rolex official catalog. The white and black Explorer II are shown on both catalogs, but there's only white SS Daytona on the official catalog and no black SS Daytona.

Also if you take a look at Rolex official website, you can not find any black Explorer II nor you can find any black SS Daytona.....weird eh?

[Boadicea]

Originally Posted by acce1999

I must say that the highly polished white gold hands and indicies of the black version are hard to beat

This is the exact reason I prefer the black face. I like the unpainted wg hands and markers better. To paint them is to rip them of their appeal (although i do understand the practical value). I really wish the 24hr hand was also raw.

I have the same opinion on the GMT2, the only ones I like are the yg models with unpainted 24hr hands.

[Rich2putt]

Originally Posted by rfknauss

Got to go with the white face on the Explorer. I think it distinguishes that model from other Rolex sport models.

X2

[yackety yak]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Well, having owned both colours, I've never really had a problem with reading in normal light.......but in a dark threatre, both are hopeless.

Best watch for readability in a dark movie house (from my current collection) is the TT GMT-IIC. Even the YM is hopeless in poor light.

JJ

JJ I agree White Dial all the way!!!

[wgs]

Originally Posted by acce1999

At least when it comes to legibility.

This is what Rolex says on their web site under a picture of the white ExII:

"... where the sun is but a hazy, dusky light 24 hours a day ..."

I have been given good opportunities to try out the hazy, dusky light with both my white and black Ex II on the wrist, and I must say that the highly polished white gold hands and indicies of the black version are hard to beat when it comes to legibility. The polished hands reflects the smallest amount of light, whilst the all black hands reflects nothing.

Of course the white dial with its black hands is superiour when it comes to legibility in strong (sun and snow) daylight... but the black version is pretty legible as well, and that is the watch I am bringing when going polar exploring during the long dark winter.

So, why is Rolex not advertising the black dial?

Here is what I am talking about, reflected light increases legibility (and obviously a non-reflective coating on the crystal would offer even better legibility):



Best,

A

You take the best Explorer II photos on the forum!

After reading a lot of the responses, I have to say ... I love both dial colors but IMO the second timezone (red) hand is a better contrast on the black dial ... and I believe the orange hand will also be a better contrast on the black dial if the pictures we have seen for the "new" Explorer II in 2011 are real.

With that being said, the white dial Explorer II may be the cleanest looking sport model in the Rolex line-up ... which is why I am still undecided on which dial color to go with.

to the Explorer II, which seems to have the most loyal following on the forum!!!

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by wgs

You take the best Explorer II photos on the forum!

Thanks!