Explorer II 16750 vs 216750 Questions

[Redbox]

Believe me I have read all the posts covering this. I don't have the luxury of trying both of these on. My question deals with the size.

Two of the watch I have are the Tudor Black Bay Red 79550 and the Sub 16610LV.


Everything I find is the 16750 is close to the Sub and the 216750 is close to the Tudor.


I think you can see that I will be getting an Explorer II. The question is which one.


Looking for your thoughts and if you have a comparable mix of watches.

Thanks

[watchwatcher]

I much prefer the six digit bracelet over the five digit. You get a more adjustable bracelet via fewer permanent links and the easy link clasp, for adjustability on the fly.

[cenzo86]

I would suggest taking a journey if necessary to try them both on. I knew I wanted a 40mm Explorer II but thought I would settle for a new 42mm. I knew the second I tried one on that the 216570 was not for me. Even if you local dealer has something wroughly the same size, try it on. I'm not a flipper. When I make a big purchase, it's for life.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Old Expat Beast]

I prefer the 16570. It's smaller and lighter, so doesn't need the extra adjustability of the bracelet. I have a couple of them, both colours.

[kangajack]

The Explorer II wears much smaller than the Tudor. The height of the case/bezel is significantly slimmer, and the bracelet is thinner vs the chunkier Tudor bracelets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[karwath]

I used to have the 16570, and wore it for many years as my day to day watch. I regretted that I sold it a few years back. I recently sold off most of my other watches just to buy the 216570.

I really like the 216570 and prefer it over the 16570.

I like the maxi-dial indices and hands and the orange GMT hand. I really like the improved bracelet and clasp. I also like the slightly larger sized case. The blue lume is nice and I must say the lume lasts all night. In all I would say if you have any doubt about it, go for the larger size.

As far as dial goes, the larger indices on the newer model make the white dial pop and I think it is the better looking of the two. Everyone (including you I assume) has a black dial watch or two. The white dial on the EXP2 is unique.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by karwath

I I also like the slightly larger sized case. The blue lume is nice and I must say the lume lasts all night. In all I would say if you have any doubt about it, go for the larger size.

As far as dial goes, the larger indices on the newer model make the white dial pop and I think it is the better looking of the two. Everyone (including you I assume) has a black dial watch or two. The white dial on the EXP2 is unique.

Same here. There's nothing quite like it. I don't think it wears big but it's different for everyone. I think it's always best to try it on, or something similar.

[DLRIDES]

Originally Posted by kangajack

The Explorer II wears much smaller than the Tudor. The height of the case/bezel is significantly slimmer, and the bracelet is thinner vs the chunkier Tudor bracelets.

This, plus the 216570 has nice profiled lugs.

[bliew]

16570 is comfortable albeit a little tinny...you'll feel a huge "quality" improvement via heft for the 216570 but either are very well made. 216750 is definitely more of a wrist presence watch even though Explorer II's fly under the radar

[larsr]

16570 is my go to watch. Most comfortable of the lot, which among Rolexes includes a Sub LV (Kermit) and a Milgauss GV. And, oh yeah, mines Polar, which is fantastic...

[Onequik135i]

I was in your same boat and chose the 5 digit Polar w 3186 movement (on hold). From my understanding it wears very similar to a 5 digit GMT which is fine by me.

[Brian Page]

I personally prefer the 6 digit. Although it is larger than the 5 digit it really lays flat on my wrist and the improvements on the bracelet are worth it in my opinion.

[007_Omega]

The 6 digit is the better built watch; however, I really prefer the aesthetics of the 5 digit over it so I'd go with that.

I find the newer Explorer IIs to be too big, the hands are almost goofy looking, and I prefer the red GMT hand to the orange. I love the orange on the original Explorer II but on the new ones it doesn't have the same charm.

[dafuture]

The 6 digit bracelet is better for sure, but I just couldn't wrap my head around the proportions of the larger case. Beautiful watch for sure, but I prefer the 40mm. I've been wearing mine non-stop for the last month since I bought it.

[doramas]

I prefer the 16570. Ideal size and more comfortable

[toomuchtalk]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rolexinfl]

16570 on an everest band with the rolex clasp = dream

[Nikrnic]

I prefer and bought a 42 polar. It feels more substantial on the wrist but not to hefty as it sits low. I also much prefer the maxi dial as well as the bracelet

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Daytonaman799]

I prefer the 6 digit. The quality is amazing as is the comfort and legibility.

[mineral]

Originally Posted by Redbox

Believe me I have read all the posts covering this. I don't have the luxury of trying both of these on. My question deals with the size.



Two of the watch I have are the Tudor Black Bay Red 79550 and the Sub 16610LV.





Everything I find is the 16750 is close to the Sub and the 216750 is close to the Tudor.





I think you can see that I will be getting an Explorer II. The question is which one.





Looking for your thoughts and if you have a comparable mix of watches.



Thanks

I’d strong recommend the five digit 16570. They are discontinued and to me the 40mm size and slimmer case just perfect.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G'ed]

Had both Polar 16570 and 216570. Both are awesome but ....


I sold both and go for black dial 216570. This is my FAVORITE Rolex sport model and had own all the lineup at one point. Sub, SD, DSSD, GMT, Daytona, SkyD etc

[bojinns]

wow; I'm loving that 216570 in black!