ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
28 July 2012, 10:47 PM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Mickey®
Location: Atlanta, GA
Watch: Swiss Made
Posts: 5,801
|
|
28 July 2012, 11:09 PM | #32 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Sam
Location: Gotham City
Watch: Wall Street
Posts: 9,954
|
__________________
"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 |
28 July 2012, 11:24 PM | #33 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Mickey®
Location: Atlanta, GA
Watch: Swiss Made
Posts: 5,801
|
|
28 July 2012, 11:47 PM | #34 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
|
Another fantastic duo Sam
__________________
|
28 July 2012, 11:49 PM | #35 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,185
|
Quote:
Fr. John† |
|
28 July 2012, 11:57 PM | #36 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
|
Quote:
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
__________________
|
|
28 July 2012, 11:59 PM | #37 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Real Name: Fred
Location: NYC/NJ Metro Area
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 8,512
|
Quote:
Wow.. good info here! |
|
29 July 2012, 12:01 AM | #38 |
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? |
29 July 2012, 12:16 AM | #39 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,185
|
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† |
29 July 2012, 12:18 AM | #40 |
"TRF" Member
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.
|
29 July 2012, 12:24 AM | #41 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
|
Quote:
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
__________________
|
|
29 July 2012, 01:14 AM | #42 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1,196
|
Now let me think............2mm.
|
29 July 2012, 01:22 AM | #43 |
"TRF" Member
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.
|
29 July 2012, 01:23 AM | #44 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Tom
Location: Chi town
Watch: Daytona AP DD Sub
Posts: 3,717
|
Wait till you get some panerais.
|
29 July 2012, 02:08 AM | #45 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Philippines
Posts: 67
|
|
29 July 2012, 02:12 AM | #46 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Philippines
Posts: 67
|
Quote:
Explorer time zone plus sub bezel equals gmt master II ceramic |
|
29 July 2012, 02:14 AM | #47 |
"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. |
29 July 2012, 02:16 AM | #48 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Sam
Location: Gotham City
Watch: Wall Street
Posts: 9,954
|
Thanks again Clive!
Hahahahah!
__________________
"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 |
29 July 2012, 03:05 AM | #49 |
"TRF" Member
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.
|
29 July 2012, 03:05 AM | #50 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Philippines
Posts: 67
|
|
29 July 2012, 07:59 AM | #51 |
"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 |
29 July 2012, 08:42 AM | #52 |
"TRF" Member
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.
|
29 July 2012, 11:09 AM | #53 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
|
Quote:
Love that photo
__________________
|
|
29 July 2012, 11:48 AM | #54 |
"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!
|
29 July 2012, 12:40 PM | #55 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Mickey®
Location: Atlanta, GA
Watch: Swiss Made
Posts: 5,801
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.