Weight of Exp II vs. GMT II

[AndersB]

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.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by AndersB

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

[AndersB]

Thanks JJ. And the GMT numbers in the table relate to the 16700/16710 model and not the GMT IIc ?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by AndersB

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

[JUSTROLEXES]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

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

[AndersB]

Thanks again. You wouldn't know whether it's based on SELs or non-SELs would you?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by justrolexes

I knew that NO ONE will answer that better then JJ

..........except my butcher, of course!!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by AndersB

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

[sakuraba]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

..........except my butcher, of course!!

He's a legend around these parts.

[Carlos98326194]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

..........except my butcher, of course!!

His butcher probably has a database on all infos of all his Rolex thru all the years

[Speed]

Originally Posted by sakuraba

He's a legend around these parts.

You mean around Animal parts, don't you Jib?

[Alienbaby]

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?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Alienbaby

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

[tomchicago]

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.

[sakuraba]

Originally Posted by Speed

You mean around Animal parts, don't you Jib?

[AndersB]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

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]

Originally Posted by AndersB

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.