The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28 July 2012, 10:47 PM   #31
Mickey®
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Mickey®
Location: Atlanta, GA
Watch: Swiss Made
Posts: 5,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by FremStar View Post
AJMarcus, I also respectfully disagree with you!



The Sub looks good but....
Mickey® is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 July 2012, 11:09 PM   #32
FremStar
"TRF" Member
 
FremStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Sam
Location: Gotham City
Watch: Wall Street
Posts: 9,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey® View Post
The Sub looks good but....
Glad you're back Mike!
__________________
"Wealth is of the heart and mind, not of the pocket!"

"A Watch Is An Emotional Object, And So, It Is The Responsibility Of The Brand To Create Emotion Through It's Products" - Georges Kern

"In the 1950s and 60s, they made the Ref 8171, which is a cult collectible—now that’s the ultimate Rolex you could own with a calendar and a moon phase.” - John Reardon

"Heh, heh, heh..." - Michael Kilyung
FremStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 July 2012, 11:24 PM   #33
Mickey®
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Mickey®
Location: Atlanta, GA
Watch: Swiss Made
Posts: 5,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by FremStar View Post
Glad you're back Mike!
Ugh....
Mickey® is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 July 2012, 11:47 PM   #34
Psmith
"TRF" Member
 
Psmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by FremStar View Post
AJMarcus, I also respectfully disagree with you!




Another fantastic duo Sam
__________________
Psmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 July 2012, 11:49 PM   #35
jmsrolls
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psmith View Post
Well said Adam. I found the 216570 immediately comfortable on my wrist, even more so than the GMT II C
The 216570 is only 0.45 mm taller overall than the GMT II C. The Sub C is 0.63 mm taller overall than the GMT II C
Therefore we can see that the Sub C is in fact 0.18 mm taller overall than the 216570. What we can also see is that we are discussing very small differences in size (less than 1 mm)

@AJMarcus - did you really get rid of an Exp II because you thought it was taller than your Sub C?

Here are the overall thicknesses for each model:

GMT II C: 11.90 mm
Exp II: 12.35 mm
Sub C: 12.53 mm
Small differences translate into comfort differences on the wrist. My 16570 was the most comfortable of my collection and my 216570 carries on that claim.

Fr. John†
jmsrolls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 July 2012, 11:57 PM   #36
Psmith
"TRF" Member
 
Psmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmsrolls View Post
Small differences translate into comfort differences on the wrist. My 16570 was the most comfortable of my collection and my 216570 carries on that claim.

Fr. John†

Quite right - as an ex-16570 owner myself, I found it to be more comfortable than any Sub I have tried (1680 thru to 116610)
I find the 216570 the most comfortable of any sport/pro watch I have tried so far, although the GMT II C runs it pretty close
__________________
Psmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 July 2012, 11:59 PM   #37
red1108nyc
2024 Pledge Member
 
red1108nyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Real Name: Fred
Location: NYC/NJ Metro Area
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 8,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psmith View Post
Well said Adam. I found the 216570 immediately comfortable on my wrist, even more so than the GMT II C
The 216570 is only 0.45 mm taller overall than the GMT II C. The Sub C is 0.63 mm taller overall than the GMT II C
Therefore we can see that the Sub C is in fact 0.18 mm taller overall than the 216570. What we can also see is that we are discussing very small differences in size (less than 1 mm)

@AJMarcus - did you really get rid of an Exp II because you thought it was taller than your Sub C?

Here are the overall thicknesses for each model:

GMT II C: 11.90 mm
Exp II: 12.35 mm
Sub C: 12.53 mm

Wow.. good info here!
red1108nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 12:01 AM   #38
Mickey®
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Mickey®
Location: Atlanta, GA
Watch: Swiss Made
Posts: 5,801
The 16750 wears completely different than the 216750....
Also couldn't Rolex be a little more creative with the new model numbers?
Mickey® is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 12:16 AM   #39
jmsrolls
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey® View Post
The 16750 wears completely different than the 216750....
I don't know how those models wear but I know that my 42mm EXPII is every bit as comfortable as the 40mm (actually 39mm) I owned.

My wrist is a round 7 1/2" and I find watches that "caress" my wrist are the most comfortable. That's what I like about these three 42's:



Fr. John†
jmsrolls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 12:18 AM   #40
AJMarcus
"TRF" Member
 
AJMarcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Real Name: AJ
Location: USA
Watch: Swiss
Posts: 5,238
Don't get me wrong the Exp 42 is an awesome watch. It just was losing out on wrist time compared to my SS Sub C. I think the Glidelock on the Sub is so superior that it just makes getting the perfect fit extremely easy. And whatever the dimensions say it does sit bigger when compared to the Sub C IMO. I have a SS Daytona and picked up a GMT II Pepsi for dual time so I'm really not missing the EXP 42. Just goes to prove there's a great Rolex out there for everyone.
AJMarcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 12:24 AM   #41
Psmith
"TRF" Member
 
Psmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJMarcus View Post
Don't get me wrong the Exp 42 is an awesome watch. It just was losing out on wrist time compared to my SS Sub C. I think the Glidelock on the Sub is so superior that it just makes getting the perfect fit extremely easy. And whatever the dimensions say it does sit bigger when compared to the Sub C IMO. I have a SS Daytona and picked up a GMT II Pepsi for dual time so I'm really not missing the EXP 42. Just goes to prove there's a great Rolex out there for everyone.

Would agree that the Glidelock is a superior piece of kit. Have you seen Sheldon's thread (link below) where he fitted a Glidelock clasp to an Exp II ? A great mod to make

www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=235634
__________________
Psmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 01:14 AM   #42
Like To Watch
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1,196
Now let me think............2mm.
Like To Watch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 01:22 AM   #43
AF_Rob
"TRF" Member
 
AF_Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: Rob
Location: Virginia
Watch: Sub/Polar/OP/BB
Posts: 4,674
To me, the new ExII 42 wears so much bigger than other 42mm watches. Maybe it's because of the chunky hands and markers. I was excited to see it come out, but disappointed to see it on my wrist :( It was a wrist clock on me. for my size, the sub is perfect! Plus, I can use the bezel to get a second timezone. I want an ExII, but will go pre owned to get the previous model that I prefer.
AF_Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 01:23 AM   #44
tkc324
"TRF" Member
 
tkc324's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Tom
Location: Chi town
Watch: Daytona AP DD Sub
Posts: 3,717
Wait till you get some panerais.
tkc324 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 02:08 AM   #45
blunder
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Philippines
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkc324 View Post
Wait till you get some panerais.
Pan does not look like a wall clock. They look like building clocks!!! =) you can see the time from a mile!!!
blunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 02:12 AM   #46
blunder
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Philippines
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJMarcus View Post
Don't get me wrong the Exp 42 is an awesome watch. It just was losing out on wrist time compared to my SS Sub C. I think the Glidelock on the Sub is so superior that it just makes getting the perfect fit extremely easy. And whatever the dimensions say it does sit bigger when compared to the Sub C IMO. I have a SS Daytona and picked up a GMT II Pepsi for dual time so I'm really not missing the EXP 42. Just goes to prove there's a great Rolex out there for everyone.
Right. GMT time zone plus Daytona bezel equals explorer.
Explorer time zone plus sub bezel equals gmt master II ceramic
blunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 02:14 AM   #47
scarlet knight
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Watch: Good ones
Posts: 8,468
To my eye, I prefer the size of my Exp.II 42mm to my GMTIIC 40mm

Is it also possible it looks bigger because it is white and the GMT is black?

I have a PAM 005, too. I can assure you it is BIG, at least for me.
scarlet knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 02:16 AM   #48
FremStar
"TRF" Member
 
FremStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Sam
Location: Gotham City
Watch: Wall Street
Posts: 9,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psmith View Post
Another fantastic duo Sam
Thanks again Clive!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkc324 View Post
Wait till you get some panerais.


Quote:
Originally Posted by blunder View Post
Pan does not look like a wall clock. They look like building clocks!!! =) you can see the time from a mile!!!
Hahahahah!
Attached Images
 
__________________
"Wealth is of the heart and mind, not of the pocket!"

"A Watch Is An Emotional Object, And So, It Is The Responsibility Of The Brand To Create Emotion Through It's Products" - Georges Kern

"In the 1950s and 60s, they made the Ref 8171, which is a cult collectible—now that’s the ultimate Rolex you could own with a calendar and a moon phase.” - John Reardon

"Heh, heh, heh..." - Michael Kilyung
FremStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 03:05 AM   #49
AJMarcus
"TRF" Member
 
AJMarcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Real Name: AJ
Location: USA
Watch: Swiss
Posts: 5,238
I think the Exp II 42 looks bigger than most 42 mm pieces because it has quite a bit of empty space on the dial. Longer hands would have eliminated that perception I think.
AJMarcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 03:05 AM   #50
blunder
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Philippines
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by FremStar View Post


Hahahahah!
Hahaha
blunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 07:59 AM   #51
Sunster
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 169
Not that much bigger. Having said that I think the explorer2 wears more comfortably on the wrist with its flatter profile

__________________
Current line up: Omega Speedmaster, Rolex Sea Dweller 16600, Tudor Black Bay ETA
Sunster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 08:42 AM   #52
mvmbles
"TRF" Member
 
mvmbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Real Name: Nick
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 759
I gave the 216570 a chance for a few months and in the end couldn't warm up to how large the dial looks when worn, even on my 7.5 inch wrist. If the new Explorer II was 40mm, it would be a definite contender for my favorite modern sports Rolex. That said, I do not miss the current iteration since giving it up.
mvmbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 11:09 AM   #53
Psmith
"TRF" Member
 
Psmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunster View Post
Not that much bigger. Having said that I think the explorer2 wears more comfortably on the wrist with its flatter profile


Love that photo
__________________
Psmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 11:48 AM   #54
scarlet knight
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Watch: Good ones
Posts: 8,468
Loving my 42mm Exp II and i have a small wrist!
scarlet knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 July 2012, 12:40 PM   #55
Mickey®
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Mickey®
Location: Atlanta, GA
Watch: Swiss Made
Posts: 5,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlet knight View Post
Loving my 42mm Exp II and i have a small wrist!
Picture!?
Mickey® is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches

OCWatches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.