ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

bluerolex · 25 December 2014, 01:19 PM

The new explorer II is listed as a 42mm. Which is 2mm bigger than the sub. Is it really that much bigger than the old one? Anyone has a comparison.

Jason71 · 25 December 2014, 01:22 PM

2mm doesn't seem like much, but it really is a big difference IMHO. I don't feel like I can comfortably wear the 216570, so I bought a used 16570.

Old Expat Beast · 25 December 2014, 01:26 PM

Yes the difference is really noticeable, from the hands to the dial to the case.

Rags · 25 December 2014, 01:31 PM

Oh yeah you can really notice the difference especially in the hands.

Laszlo · 25 December 2014, 01:34 PM

It's big... but appropriate for the design and style.

DCheeta · 25 December 2014, 01:42 PM

It's a big 42mm. I'm not sure why, but it wears larger than my other 42mm watches. I finally had to admit to myself that it was too large for my girlie little wrist. But like Laszlo said, it's appropriately done.

cangelosijeff · 25 December 2014, 01:55 PM

It also wears very different than the previous model. The heft is noticeable.

CDNWatchNut · 25 December 2014, 01:57 PM

:Ditto on the above. When it first came out, I dropped by an AD with my 16570 polar to compare, thinking maybe I'd make the change. The difference in feel on the wrist was much more pronounced than 2mm would suggest. Still have my 16570

GradyPhilpott · 25 December 2014, 02:18 PM

A millimeter sounds so small, I guess maybe because in the States the metric system is still a touch and go affair.

The fact is that, for me, at least, two millimeters is the difference in a watch I will wear and a watch that I wouldn't take if it was given to me.

busytimmy · 25 December 2014, 02:30 PM

As an ex-owner, I can say the 216570 wears very large for a 42mm watch. Much larger than it's predecessor and larger than a SubC for sure.

Annan · 25 December 2014, 02:31 PM

I flipped a 16570 for the 216570. It is indeed noticeably bigger and certainly wears bigger, ultimately too big IMO for my 6.5" wrist. A year later I flipped it for a GMTII. 40mm seems to be the magic number for me.

HogwldFLTR · 25 December 2014, 02:40 PM

Quite contend with my 16570 for my 6.5 inch wrist. My 114060 almost feels too large; I certainly don't need larger.

wdin · 25 December 2014, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluerolex

The new explorer II is listed as a 42mm. Which is 2mm bigger than the sub. Is it really that much bigger than the old one? Anyone has a comparison.

in pictures, maybe.

in the flesh, it REALLY is a stark difference.

the 42mm may suit those with bigger wrists (above 7").
the 40mm would suit those smaller.
that said, some would prefer one over the other (this is called preference/style).

the dials, hands are maxi. so yes, it really pops!

I tried one on and immediately said no. I prefer the older case and size.

I don't have pics for you (could try google).

I do have some links of high resolution vids....

40mm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9X_3tvJ2uY
42mm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=329uCcVzGv8

Happy holidays everyone!

Mick P · 25 December 2014, 08:06 PM

Chaps

I have to admit that the 42mm Polar Explorer 2 is a gorgeous looking watch but it is a bit large compared to the older style model.

The only thing that worries me about the 42mm version is that fashions come and go and it could be possible that in say 10 years time, a 42mm watch will look positively out of date.

I would play safe and stay with the 40mm version because it has stood the test of time.

Regards

Mick

amygdala · 25 December 2014, 08:26 PM

As for me who basically wears a PAM for the longest time. I feel it wears real well and comfortably.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr DateJust · 25 December 2014, 10:20 PM

I wish Rolex would do a 40mm version of the new model but keep the proportions under control avoiding fat lugs etc. it would be easy to do and would be a massive hit for them based on the amount of threads I see about the 42mm being too large. They could even keep both sizes in production.

Psmith · 25 December 2014, 10:41 PM

I disagree that it is a 'big' 42mm - to me it is simply a 42mm sporty watch. A standard sport watch size for many years now. I owned the old model which always felt a bit too small to me. In fact it is < 40mm.
The 216570 sits pretty flat on the wrist (compared to a Sub), but as ever the only way to check is to try it for yourself.

ap1 · 25 December 2014, 11:48 PM

Had the 216570 polar, too large for my wrist and wore larger I felt. Then went for 16570 and it was the most comfortable rolex I've owned. Problem is, I just don't like the clasp compared to my modern pieces. So I'm left w/o and explorer 2. Although I love the look.

25 December 2014, 01:19 PM	#1
bluerolex "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: CA Posts: 115	Is the current exploror II really that much bigger then the only one. The new explorer II is listed as a 42mm. Which is 2mm bigger than the sub. Is it really that much bigger than the old one? Anyone has a comparison.

25 December 2014, 01:22 PM	#2
Jason71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Jason Location: USA Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers Posts: 7,973	2mm doesn't seem like much, but it really is a big difference IMHO. I don't feel like I can comfortably wear the 216570, so I bought a used 16570. __________________ Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY

25 December 2014, 01:31 PM	#4
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,196	Oh yeah you can really notice the difference especially in the hands. __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

25 December 2014, 01:34 PM	#5
Laszlo 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Watch: Date & No Date Posts: 10,868	It's big... but appropriate for the design and style. __________________ "You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die." Paul Henreid as Victor Laszlo in Casablanca

25 December 2014, 02:18 PM	#9
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK047 Posts: 34,460	A millimeter sounds so small, I guess maybe because in the States the metric system is still a touch and go affair. The fact is that, for me, at least, two millimeters is the difference in a watch I will wear and a watch that I wouldn't take if it was given to me. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

25 December 2014, 01:26 PM	#3
Old Expat Beast TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Adam Location: Far East Watch: Golden Tuna Posts: 28,826	Yes the difference is really noticeable, from the hands to the dial to the case.

25 December 2014, 01:42 PM	#6
DCheeta "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Real Name: Dave Location: NYC Posts: 7,181	It's a big 42mm. I'm not sure why, but it wears larger than my other 42mm watches. I finally had to admit to myself that it was too large for my girlie little wrist. But like Laszlo said, it's appropriately done.

25 December 2014, 01:55 PM	#7
cangelosijeff "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Real Name: Jeff Location: USA Watch: LV Posts: 395	It also wears very different than the previous model. The heft is noticeable.

25 December 2014, 01:57 PM	#8
CDNWatchNut "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Real Name: Juan Location: Sherwood Park, Ab Watch: 114060 Posts: 1,509	:Ditto on the above. When it first came out, I dropped by an AD with my 16570 polar to compare, thinking maybe I'd make the change. The difference in feel on the wrist was much more pronounced than 2mm would suggest. Still have my 16570

25 December 2014, 02:30 PM	#10
busytimmy "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Sydney, Australia Watch: ing the detectives Posts: 3,745	As an ex-owner, I can say the 216570 wears very large for a 42mm watch. Much larger than it's predecessor and larger than a SubC for sure.

25 December 2014, 02:31 PM	#11
Annan "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Ron Location: Arizona, USA Watch: 116233 Posts: 3,180	I flipped a 16570 for the 216570. It is indeed noticeably bigger and certainly wears bigger, ultimately too big IMO for my 6.5" wrist. A year later I flipped it for a GMTII. 40mm seems to be the magic number for me. Attached Images __________________ *so many Rolexes.....so little time*

25 December 2014, 02:40 PM	#12
HogwldFLTR 2024 ROLEX SUBMARINER 41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Real Name: Lee Location: 42.48.45N70.48.48 Watch: Too many to list! Posts: 33,697	Quite contend with my 16570 for my 6.5 inch wrist. My 114060 almost feels too large; I certainly don't need larger. __________________ Troglodyte in residence! https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=808599

25 December 2014, 08:06 PM	#14
Mick P Banned Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: UK / Spain Watch: 39mm Explorer Posts: 1,990	Chaps I have to admit that the 42mm Polar Explorer 2 is a gorgeous looking watch but it is a bit large compared to the older style model. The only thing that worries me about the 42mm version is that fashions come and go and it could be possible that in say 10 years time, a 42mm watch will look positively out of date. I would play safe and stay with the 40mm version because it has stood the test of time. Regards Mick

25 December 2014, 08:26 PM	#15
amygdala "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Aldrin Location: Manila Watch: PAM000,183,212,IWC Posts: 266	As for me who basically wears a PAM for the longest time. I feel it wears real well and comfortably. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

25 December 2014, 10:20 PM	#16
Mr DateJust "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Glasgow, UK Watch: 16570 Posts: 909	I wish Rolex would do a 40mm version of the new model but keep the proportions under control avoiding fat lugs etc. it would be easy to do and would be a massive hit for them based on the amount of threads I see about the 42mm being too large. They could even keep both sizes in production.

25 December 2014, 10:41 PM	#17
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	I disagree that it is a 'big' 42mm - to me it is simply a 42mm sporty watch. A standard sport watch size for many years now. I owned the old model which always felt a bit too small to me. In fact it is < 40mm. The 216570 sits pretty flat on the wrist (compared to a Sub), but as ever the only way to check is to try it for yourself. __________________

25 December 2014, 11:48 PM	#18
ap1 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: usa Posts: 19,537	Had the 216570 polar, too large for my wrist and wore larger I felt. Then went for 16570 and it was the most comfortable rolex I've owned. Problem is, I just don't like the clasp compared to my modern pieces. So I'm left w/o and explorer 2. Although I love the look.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)