Explorer II (216570) Question/Request

[Vinyasa]

Hi Everyone,

New member and first post on this forum. I want to thank the many contributors and reviewers... this is an invaluable site to explore potential Rolex additions.

I've owned several Rolex Subs over the years so I'm very familiar with the Rolex brand. I've been stalking the site for a few weeks and am will probably be ordering an Explorer II 42mm (White) from my local AD very soon. My question is whether the 42mm would be too large for my 6.5 inch wrist. The local AD didn't have any 42mm available, so I tried on the new SubC (40mm) and SDDS (44mm) for sizing. The 44mm was definitely too bulky for my taste.

Opinions appreciated, as well as pics if your wrist size is comparable. Thanks!

Vinyasa

[Paul_81]

I love mine same wrist size as you

[Mosbrook]

I'm sure you'll get lots of responses arguing that it's too large, but for me it's really not. Conversely, the sub-c and Gmt-c seem to wear larger because they both ride higher and have thicker lugs. The exp II 42 has a lower profile and is more comfortable, especially with shirt sleeves and a suit jacket. But try it on first.

[Knappo 1307]

I think it would be fine.

[jbenjamin1]

You'll be fine. It wears bigger than all the 40mm ceramics that's for sure but at a solid 42mm it has great wrist presence and never gaudy.

[Old Expat Beast]

If I had a 6.5 wrist I definitely would not buy without trying it on. If you can order without paying, then fine, give it a go.

[Ravager135]

My favorite reference at Camp Migis in Maine over the summer. I have a 19cm or 7.5inch wrist.

[Ravager135]

Another shot on my way into work.

[Vinyasa]

Thanks for your responses thus far -- much appreciated! My Omega Speedmaster Professional 'moon watch' is a 42mm and the fit is fine, although I noted that the Explorer II's lug-to-lug specs are a little longer. Think I'll order it. I spoke with the AD manager, and although it will be a special order, they'll take it into inventory if the look/feel isn't acceptable. It that case, I'll probably go with the GMT Master II BLNR or the SeaDweller 4000.

Thanks Again -- Vinyasa

[Ravager135]

The Sea Dweller is thick. It's one of my favorite modern references but be aware it sits high. What can I say about the BLNR. I own one and absolutely love it.

[johnnyjazz]

Don,t think the size of the wrist is as important as the radius or flatness of the wrist, I would think the flatter the better

[watchwatcher]

You'll be fine...I've worn an EXP2 for years with a wrist smaller than yours. Great watch.

[Daytona88]

I also have a 6.5" wrist. Have a Ex II 40mm and wanted a new 42mm. Loved the watch but once I tried it on at the AD, I felt it was just too big for my taste and wrist. I wear french cuff dress shirts and it was difficult to get the watch under the cuff. I previously had a 42.5mm Breguet XXI and the 42mm Ex II wore bigger than that. Ended up with a SS Daytona instead, I really like the 40mm size. It is entirely a personal preference thing IMO.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

If I had a 6.5 wrist I definitely would not buy without trying it on. If you can order without paying, then fine, give it a go.

I agree with Adam, and to expand on it I wouldn't buy a watch of any size without trying it on. Sensitivity to what looks good or not good on a person is a pretty personal thing. Not that I think it would necessarily be too big but at these price points I'd want to see it on my wrist first. Best of luck!

[scarlet knight]

It is personal preference, but I love my polar Exp. 2 42mm. Also like my BLNR, Sub no date and DJ2. Did not like a PAM 005 at 44mm. Found it too big.

[red1108nyc]

I have a 6.5 inch wrist and I think it looks ok~

[mike]

This comes up a lot. I'm with the try it on crowd. The shape of your wrist has as much to do with fit/looks as size.

[2Redbulls]

Personally, I think 42mm is your max. I have a 6.75 inch wrist and 42mm is my preference also. My "issue" with certain Rolex's is that a 40mm case size is ideal for me but the dial's are a little too small for my taste. It's the price you pay for the bezel.

[Mosbrook]

Originally Posted by 2redbulls

personally, i think 42mm is your max. I have a 6.75 inch wrist and 42mm is my preference also. My "issue" with certain rolex's is that a 40mm case size is ideal for me but the dial's are a little too small for my taste. It's the price you pay for the bezel.

+1

[Soulfultofu]

Wrist just under 7 inches. Still undecided whether to get this or the 16570 🤔




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tritium8]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

The Sea Dweller is thick. It's one of my favorite modern references but be aware it sits high. What can I say about the BLNR. I own one and absolutely love it.

Absolutely love everything about the Sea Dweller but like Ravager135 says, it's thick and sits too high on my wrist. As much as I loved it, it just didn't work. Love my polar 216570, though!

[AF_Rob]

With the larger dial and maxi indices and hands make it look large with the black and white contrast. The benefit is that it's thinner than other models of its size (seems so anyways) and wears pretty flat and comfortable on the wrist. The black dial is a nice matte black that looks really nice. it also wears smaller as well. Something to consider.

But as many have said, try one on if you find the opportunity. Throwing down $5K+ without trying it on is playing it a little fast and loose.

[flv112]

This one I tried in an AD. I have a 6.75 inch wrist. Perfect. Should be okay for a 6.5.

[Muzz]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

If I had a 6.5 wrist I definitely would not buy without trying it on. If you can order without paying, then fine, give it a go.

Absolutely 100% agree!! Adam is spot on the money!!