ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Psmith · 25 October 2012, 05:34 PM

Unless you specifically need a smaller/lighter watch I would get the 216570

You get all of the latest updates, and it's not really that big imho. 42 mm is pretty much a standard size these days. I've owned both and prefer the new one by far

Bad Lawyer · 25 October 2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capote

I prefer the 16570.

+1

travisb · 25 October 2012, 06:13 PM

216570.

Everything about it tops the previous gen in my opinion.

tudorlex · 25 October 2012, 07:12 PM

16570. Beautifully understated.

haynjas · 25 October 2012, 10:15 PM

Many thanks for all your advice. Having been wearing the 16570 for a day or two I exchanged it today for the 216570 and there is nothing as pleasing as knowing that you have made the right decision. For all the great attributes of the 15670, the new model feels like a big improvement in all its features. Also, the size is a better balance for the brushed steel bezel finish - i.e. more presence, but not too much.

slim4511 · 25 October 2012, 10:18 PM

They are both great however I prefer the red 24 hour hand and the slimmer hands. That said, I prefer the clasp of the 216570. All things considered, I acquired the 16570 and am very happy with the decision.

ess45 · 25 October 2012, 10:38 PM

I tried both. End up with this.

sojourner · 25 October 2012, 10:56 PM

The new version is beautiful, particularly the 24hr hand, but gawd its too big. As is the trend lately, bigger is apparently better and fat cushion oysters are the rage. Rolex was built on a tradition of being timelessly classic, not trendy...go for the 16570.

haynjas · 25 October 2012, 11:08 PM

Agreed, but even Rolex need to evolve. Bracelets aside, which I think we all agree have been recently improved across all models (not before time), there is a tricky balance to ensure they are classic (i.e. consistent with previous models) but not dated.

Annan · 25 October 2012, 11:58 PM

Congrats! Enjoy your new EXP!!

BCNJ · 26 October 2012, 01:57 AM

Of the two i would go 42mm. The older explorer never did it for me, but the white dialed 42mm version is really growing on me

zeroshiki · 26 October 2012, 02:15 AM

I have the polar 42 and can definitely see the charm of the older 40 polar.., but well, my choice is clear on this.

I also have the black exp42, after having it, to my own surprise, i found out its as every bit as nice as the iconic sub c. Since i have to choose either one to keep. Hence i let go of the 116610ln. Maybe someday i will revisit the sub with the 114060.

Congrats for the OP for the decision made. WeAr it in good health. Cheers

AH0RSEY · 26 October 2012, 02:18 AM

enjoy!!!

Castor · 26 October 2012, 03:20 AM

Mine is a 216570 polar. Love the larger hands that are more easily seen! And it's very bright in low light conditions. I'd go with the 216570 due to the larger hands and the better bracelet. Oddly though, the longer I have the watch the more I would forego the orange hand; though it's beautiful, I find I really don't use it much & the large arrow design can be a little confusing with the hour hand at night.

Either way you've got a pleasant decision ahead of you.

stockae92 · 26 October 2012, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

16570 in white and 216570 in black, IMO.

I kinda have to agree on this

though for me is the 16750 in white ONLY ...

G Francis · 26 October 2012, 06:03 AM

16570 for me. I love the proportion of the watch but I'm not a fan of big watches any more. Nothing over 40mm for me ever again!

25 October 2012, 05:34 PM	#31
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	Unless you specifically need a smaller/lighter watch I would get the 216570 You get all of the latest updates, and it's not really that big imho. 42 mm is pretty much a standard size these days. I've owned both and prefer the new one by far __________________

25 October 2012, 10:15 PM	#35
haynjas "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Real Name: JH Location: London - UK Watch: SSD/GMT2C/LVC/DJ2 Posts: 103	"Pulled the trigger" Many thanks for all your advice. Having been wearing the 16570 for a day or two I exchanged it today for the 216570 and there is nothing as pleasing as knowing that you have made the right decision. For all the great attributes of the 15670, the new model feels like a big improvement in all its features. Also, the size is a better balance for the brushed steel bezel finish - i.e. more presence, but not too much.

25 October 2012, 10:18 PM	#36
slim4511 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Detroit Posts: 484	They are both great however I prefer the red 24 hour hand and the slimmer hands. That said, I prefer the clasp of the 216570. All things considered, I acquired the 16570 and am very happy with the decision. __________________ GMT IIc, Exp II, Speedy Pro If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.

25 October 2012, 10:56 PM	#38
sojourner "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Texas, US Posts: 271	The new version is beautiful, particularly the 24hr hand, but gawd its too big. As is the trend lately, bigger is apparently better and fat cushion oysters are the rage. Rolex was built on a tradition of being timelessly classic, not trendy...go for the 16570. __________________ "As long as there are explorers, Rolex will continue to travel to the ends of the Earth, and back."

26 October 2012, 02:18 AM	#43
AH0RSEY "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: Steve Location: Harrogate Watch: OUT !!!! Posts: 829	enjoy!!! __________________ Current rotation; AP15500ST grey, White Daytona 116500, WG Black/Red Daytona 116509, White and Black EXP 42, GMT2C.... too many previous it makes my head hurt thinking about them.

25 October 2012, 06:13 PM	#33
travisb 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Travis Location: FL / NYC Watch: Yes.. Posts: 33,489	216570. Everything about it tops the previous gen in my opinion.

25 October 2012, 07:12 PM	#34
tudorlex "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Down Under Watch: 16570 Posts: 484	16570. Beautifully understated.

25 October 2012, 10:38 PM	#37
ess45 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fl. Posts: 521	I tried both. End up with this.

25 October 2012, 11:08 PM	#39
haynjas "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Real Name: JH Location: London - UK Watch: SSD/GMT2C/LVC/DJ2 Posts: 103	Agreed, but even Rolex need to evolve. Bracelets aside, which I think we all agree have been recently improved across all models (not before time), there is a tricky balance to ensure they are classic (i.e. consistent with previous models) but not dated.

25 October 2012, 11:58 PM	#40
Annan "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Ron Location: Arizona, USA Watch: 116233 Posts: 3,180	Congrats! Enjoy your new EXP!!

26 October 2012, 01:57 AM	#41
BCNJ "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Real Name: Brendan Location: NJ Watch: Pepsi/LVC/DJII Posts: 446	Of the two i would go 42mm. The older explorer never did it for me, but the white dialed 42mm version is really growing on me

26 October 2012, 02:15 AM	#42
zeroshiki "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Real Name: paul Location: surabaya Posts: 321	I have the polar 42 and can definitely see the charm of the older 40 polar.., but well, my choice is clear on this. I also have the black exp42, after having it, to my own surprise, i found out its as every bit as nice as the iconic sub c. Since i have to choose either one to keep. Hence i let go of the 116610ln. Maybe someday i will revisit the sub with the 114060. Congrats for the OP for the decision made. WeAr it in good health. Cheers

26 October 2012, 03:20 AM	#44
Castor "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Real Name: Trevor Location: Canada Watch: Polar Explorer II Posts: 1,231	Mine is a 216570 polar. Love the larger hands that are more easily seen! And it's very bright in low light conditions. I'd go with the 216570 due to the larger hands and the better bracelet. Oddly though, the longer I have the watch the more I would forego the orange hand; though it's beautiful, I find I really don't use it much & the large arrow design can be a little confusing with the hour hand at night. Either way you've got a pleasant decision ahead of you.

26 October 2012, 06:03 AM	#46
G Francis "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: UK Posts: 148	16570 for me. I love the proportion of the watch but I'm not a fan of big watches any more. Nothing over 40mm for me ever again!

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