ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

superdog · 8 January 2012, 08:30 AM

i currently have the 116610 LN CUB C.

i am very seriously debating getting the old style polar explorer II. i love the size of the sub c and way back in the day i thought my old mans polar was too small.

that said, i used to really prefer much bigger watches. i flipped a few omegas at 42mm because they felt too small.

at this point, i much prefer the "smaller" sub C. BUT i really would like to buy this polar exp ii. it is in great shape and the price is good.

can any of you guys let me know your impression of the size difference.

thanks,

petesjag · 8 January 2012, 08:36 AM

Don't know because I don't own an explorer, but I used to be into big watches. I have now realized that when I'm older the big 42mm will look just out of place on me. I used to own sizes up to 46mm. I have sold them all and now enjoy the subc lv as my biggest..

SLS · 8 January 2012, 08:39 AM

FWIW, the old Exp II's wear smaller and are actually a tad below 40mm.
Scott

BCNJ · 8 January 2012, 09:35 AM

Hey Dog, i too used to buy only big watches and, although I always loved the Rolex designs, felt they were too small for my wrist (i'm 6'2 200 lbs with a 7.5 inch wrist). It bothers me to see guys wearing monstrous watches like UBoats or T3 AP ROO's when their wrist can't support the size, but to each his own. These days I've sold off all my bigger watches (PAM 187, 287 Breitling Navitimers etc) and have my Bentley Motors on the block as of today. My biggest now is a 44mm PAM 88 to go with a new GMT II purchase and the hankering for a Hulk. I don't think the "big watch" trend is dying, I just think that great design trumps trends.

Mickey® · 8 January 2012, 09:40 AM

It wears smaller than the Sub but the White dial makes it look bigger in my opinion...
The most comfortable watch ever.

Next to a PO 42mm

I think this one shows its about the same size...the bezel makes it look smaller maybe??

Andad · 8 January 2012, 10:09 AM

IMO you have answered your own question.
The Explorer II would be too small for you and it looks even smaller with the twinlock.
Buy the new 42mm Explorer.

superdog · 8 January 2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directioneng

IMO you have answered your own question.
The Explorer II would be too small for you and it looks even smaller with the twinlock.
Buy the new 42mm Explorer.

i followed your advice. i am now wearing the new exp ii 42mm. and love it.

Andad · 8 January 2012, 12:03 PM

Good work Stanlee.

Don't forget the pix.

8 January 2012, 08:30 AM	#1
superdog 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Real Name: Seth Location: nj Watch: Omega Posts: 24,834	size comparison i currently have the 116610 LN CUB C. i am very seriously debating getting the old style polar explorer II. i love the size of the sub c and way back in the day i thought my old mans polar was too small. that said, i used to really prefer much bigger watches. i flipped a few omegas at 42mm because they felt too small. at this point, i much prefer the "smaller" sub C. BUT i really would like to buy this polar exp ii. it is in great shape and the price is good. can any of you guys let me know your impression of the size difference. thanks, __________________ If happiness is a state of mind, why look anywhere else for it? IG: gsmotorclub IG: thesawcollection (Both mostly just car stuff)

8 January 2012, 08:39 AM	#3
SLS "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Scott Location: GMT -7 Watch: GMT's & Sub's Posts: 10,401	FWIW, the old Exp II's wear smaller and are actually a tad below 40mm. Scott __________________ "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of lower price is forgotten." -Benjamin Franklin Member No. 922

8 January 2012, 10:09 AM	#6
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,533	IMO you have answered your own question. The Explorer II would be too small for you and it looks even smaller with the twinlock. Buy the new 42mm Explorer. __________________ E

8 January 2012, 12:03 PM	#8
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,533	Good work Stanlee. Don't forget the pix. __________________ E

8 January 2012, 08:36 AM	#2
petesjag "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: netherlands Posts: 2,177	Don't know because I don't own an explorer, but I used to be into big watches. I have now realized that when I'm older the big 42mm will look just out of place on me. I used to own sizes up to 46mm. I have sold them all and now enjoy the subc lv as my biggest..

8 January 2012, 09:35 AM	#4
BCNJ "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Real Name: Brendan Location: NJ Watch: Pepsi/LVC/DJII Posts: 446	Hey Dog, i too used to buy only big watches and, although I always loved the Rolex designs, felt they were too small for my wrist (i'm 6'2 200 lbs with a 7.5 inch wrist). It bothers me to see guys wearing monstrous watches like UBoats or T3 AP ROO's when their wrist can't support the size, but to each his own. These days I've sold off all my bigger watches (PAM 187, 287 Breitling Navitimers etc) and have my Bentley Motors on the block as of today. My biggest now is a 44mm PAM 88 to go with a new GMT II purchase and the hankering for a Hulk. I don't think the "big watch" trend is dying, I just think that great design trumps trends.

8 January 2012, 09:40 AM	#5
Mickey® Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Mickey® Location: Atlanta, GA Watch: Swiss Made Posts: 5,801	It wears smaller than the Sub but the White dial makes it look bigger in my opinion... The most comfortable watch ever. Next to a PO 42mm I think this one shows its about the same size...the bezel makes it look smaller maybe??

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