42mm Explorer II on small wrists 6.5" or less?

[Eric88]

I've been considering this watch since learning about it. I have small wrists at 6.5" or smaller and I've found that some watches overwhelm me. I have not been able to find the new Explorer II locally, so curious if any forum members with small wrists are wearing one? Any feedback on wrist presence, weight, comfort? Pictures always appreciated. Thanks!

[InTime]

shouldnt be a problem unless the width of your wrist is smaller than say 1.9 inches.

when you look at it from 13 inches ( checking your watch for time ) it should look pretty normal and you get used to it.

pretty subjective. george clooney was lugging around a 45.5 and over 70% of the people said it look ok. if you are young you can pull off a 42mm easy.

[MikeJaye]

Personally I found it just a little too big for my 6.5inch wrists, that's why I sold mine after a couple of weeks. See pic below:

[InTime]

what did u end up getting?

[OysterDavid]

As a sufferer of chronic small wrist syndrome, I've always felt that the test is to see where the lug ends end up on my wrist. If the lug ends overhang and the bracelet angles on down, that's it for me and my 6.5" wrist. The true width of the watch isn't as important to me as those lug ends.

But having worn a 38mm sport watch for awhile, I also admit that once on my wrist, the eye adjusts to acceptance and often, my perception of what's too large changes after wearing the piece for a time.

[JasoninDenver]

I have yet to try one on but if it is anything like the Sub C, it probably won't work for me as well with my 6.25" wrist.

My Seamaster comes just to the edge of my wrists but it wears very flat so it seems to work.

[Eric88]

Originally Posted by InTime

shouldnt be a problem unless the width of your wrist is smaller than say 1.9 inches.

when you look at it from 13 inches ( checking your watch for time ) it should look pretty normal and you get used to it.

pretty subjective. george clooney was lugging around a 45.5 and over 70% of the people said it look ok. if you are young you can pull off a 42mm easy.

Thanks, I might give it a try to make myself feel younger. If years were mm, I'd be just shy of the new Explorer II.

[Fiery]

6.3 inch, flat wrist here. I admit, I haven't yet tried on the Exp II 42mm, but I owned and sold a few big watches already (like Omega Planet Ocean 42mm, Breitling B-1 44mm) due to their size and heft. When wearing my Sub-C, and trying on other 40mm Rolex watches I always feel that's the biggest size watch I can and want to wear. I'm 100% sure the Exp II 42mm would be too big for me.

[Spikedlee]

Originally Posted by MikeJaye

Personally I found it just a little too big for my 6.5inch wrists, that's why I sold mine after a couple of weeks. See pic below:

Wow I actually think it fits your wrist perfectly!

[f16570]

Looks fine, what is the worry. Loads of people are wearing oversize watches.

[boogiebot]

Originally Posted by Spikedlee

Wow I actually think it fits your wrist perfectly!

me too. MikeJaye it looked good. sorry it didnt work for you.

i think i know what you are saying though the watch is all dial. from lug to lug i think it measures 49mm?

[InTime]

Originally Posted by Eric88

Thanks, I might give it a try to make myself feel younger. If years were mm, I'd be just shy of the new Explorer II.

ahhh yes, look young, maybe thats how clooney gets those attractive ladies...


the 42mm on mike looks perfect to me, but its subjective and is like wine, takes time to appreciate it i suppose.

dont think i can wear anything under 42mm anymore of course i dont mind wearing nice timeless classics that are under 42 once in a while for special occasions.

[Engi]

IMO the new 42mm ExpII is way too large for a 6.5" wrist or smaller.

I tried one on (I've a 6.5" wrist) and it seemd like having a pizza on my arm ...

Ciao

Engi

[jmsrolls]

Eric,

My wrist is 7 1/2 inches but round. A round wrist means that thick watches do not work for me and any watch over 38mm can wear very large.

As you know, I loved my 40mm (actually 39mm) EXPII but the black wore small. I find that white dialed watches always wear larger and for that reason, I had reservations about going with the white 42mm version but went with it anyway:



IMO it does wear large but quite comfortably. Like the smaller 40mm, I love the way the case rests on my wrist and the new bracelet/clasp combo is superb. It's great to have an EXPII back on my wrist.

My suggestion to you would be try the black and if you can make the bracelet fit, go for it.

(And yes, the crown is screwed out in the photo.)

Fr. John+

[henrylee]

^ Looks great on your wrist.

[MortgageGuy]

It is all personal preference. I am fine with 44mm and I have about a 6.5 inch wrist... Go with what you like but I do not see a problem

[htc8p]

i have 6.5 inch wrist. but i have flat rectangular wrists. i can wear a 44mm pam nicely. but i think this is possible because the lugs are square. exp2 42mm will be smaller but the lugs are more protruded. if the face of the watch takes over your entire wrist surface thats not good. i have tried on the PO XL and the IWC big pilot and made me throw up a little. very difficult for us skinny people. but 40mm is the best size really.

[Rags]

IMO I think the 42mm EXP II will be too big for a 6 1/2 wrist. I have a 7 1/4 wrist & sometimes I think my 42mm seiko diver looks too big on me maybe it's just the high bezel that makes it look bigger than it actually is.

[MikeJaye]

Originally Posted by boogiebot

me too. MikeJaye it looked good. sorry it didnt work for you.

i think i know what you are saying though the watch is all dial. from lug to lug i think it measures 49mm?

I dunno, in my eyes its just a tiny bit too big. Probably has more to do with the large dial as the DSSD I used to own seemed to fit quite well (apart from the height of it).

I also own a Sub LVc, Milaguss GV & 39mm Exp II so I suppose I'm just used to the smaller sports models.

[roger0770]

honestly, i think the 42mm looks good with a 7 and 7+ inch sized wrist. though it's only 42mm, but the overall presence is a lot larger because its bracelet. a watch looks smaller if it's on straps.

[Chipmunk]

Exp42 on my 6.75" wrist.

[Dr. Robert]

It's the case length for me.
What is the case length of the new explorer 2(measured lug to lug)????
48mm is max for my somewhere around 6.75" watch wearing wrist.

[Swegin]

I think a lot of it has to do with what another poster mentioned, which is whether your wrist is round or flat.
In my case my wrist is just shy of 7" but flat and i think the new E2 fits and wears absolutely great.
It is really a stunning piece.
Cheers

[Chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

It's the case length for me.
What is the case length of the new explorer 2(measured lug to lug)????
48mm is max for my somewhere around 6.75" watch wearing wrist.

Didn't get a chance to measure it. The dial appears to be too large for my taste though.

[JJL]

Originally Posted by MikeJaye

Personally I found it just a little too big for my 6.5inch wrists, that's why I sold mine after a couple of weeks. See pic below:

Shrug, I think that looks great on you.

[(DMB)]

6.5 inches? Stick to 38mm and below.

[boogiebot]

Originally Posted by MikeJaye

I dunno, in my eyes its just a tiny bit too big. Probably has more to do with the large dial as the DSSD I used to own seemed to fit quite well (apart from the height of it).

I also own a Sub LVc, Milaguss GV & 39mm Exp II so I suppose I'm just used to the smaller sports models.

all great pieces. the sizing thing can play major tricks on all of us. I really like the exp 2 but i think that my subc fits me better.

thanks for sharing your experience though.

[Watchdog]

IMO buy the watch you love without fear of being too big for your wrist. Most people aren't looking at the watch, so you might as well please yourself.

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by kingkongkelley

IMO buy the watch you love without fear of being too big for your wrist. Most people aren't looking at the watch, so you might as well please yourself.

Good advice!

Originally Posted by (DMB)

6.5 inches? Stick to 38mm and below.

I do not agree. It very much depends on the shape of your wrist, and the lug-to-lug length. I agree with Dr. Robert.

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

It's the case length for me.
What is the case length of the new explorer 2(measured lug to lug)????
48mm is max for my somewhere around 6.75" watch wearing wrist.

Same for me, so I am comfortable with the older style 40mm Rolexes, that measures some 47 to 48 mm lug to lug.

Originally Posted by Eric88

I've been considering this watch since learning about it. I have small wrists at 6.5" or smaller and I've found that some watches overwhelm me. I have not been able to find the new Explorer II locally, so curious if any forum members with small wrists are wearing one? Any feedback on wrist presence, weight, comfort? Pictures always appreciated. Thanks!

For me, with a fairly flat 6.5 inch wrist - in my opinon - the 216570 is too big. I've tried it out several times. I have actually been going "backwards" lately, enjoying my smaller 36 mm models more and more.

Best,

A

[ASW1]

Originally Posted by JJL

Shrug, I think that looks great on you.

For a big watch ;-)

Personally I think the 42mm is too big (I'm 6.8" or so). For a 6.5 IMO the 'old' ExpII is bang on.

Personally I don't like the latest ExpII - when compared to the old one. I'm generally a fan of the newer 'beefier' Rolexes compared to their forefathers, but not in the case of the Exp - the hands, indices etc are too bold/big - lack finesse - IMO.

Just goes to show how some like 'em big. I like 'em just right