Explorer 2 dilemma

[bogdanco]

Hi all,

So in the last year I've became attracted by the Explorer 2 and the non ceramic bezel. I have a fairly small wrist size at 6.5 inch but I wear in rotation El Primero 38mm, OP 39mm, Tudor GMT and BB at 41mm.

I thought 42mm is big without trying the 216570 because i didn't crossed it in the AD. Nevertheless back in February in one of my visits to an AD with whom i have no history they noted down i am interested although again I never really thought it will fit me. Also, from pics, I loved red hand more than orange one and also the smaller fonts.

In April bought a 16570 from chrono24 from Germany, which was fantastic on my wrist. However watch was running late, sveral days after I got it it stopped completely and I had to send it back as I didn't wanted to have surprises with a repair on my cost. Wanted to get another 16570, but I shifted my attention and energy to something else and didn't pulled the trigger. Then in May i got a Tudor GMT on a random visit and I thought it is all for some months.

Fast forward, this morning got a call that the AD (again with no history with them) got a 216570 if I want it. Jumped in the car and went to see it, at least If i turn them down I can't do it without ever try the watch. Surprisingly, without having bracelet seized, it doesn't feel much different than the 16570. Also I did loved the orange hands and the bracelet is like masterpiece.
But yes watch is bigger and having my ElPrimero with me was bit giant.

I am adding a modified pic with side by side the 16570 and 216570 on my wrist. My dilemma is if it looks ugly to you.
What do you guys think? Thanks

P.S. beside the call itself, the funny part is friday is my birthday (AD has no clues about) and was joking with my wife about getting a new watch

[Brockenbrough]

I wouldn't rush a decision just because it is available today.
It is certainly not "ugly" but for me a bit big.
The 16570 looks perfect on you.
There is a good chance a new ExII will be released later this year or early next year. Personally I'd wait.
Happy Birthday.

[77T]

I think you’d want it to also be comfortable - not just judge by looks alone.

The older Expl. II is probably the better choice for both reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Greg 59]

Originally Posted by 77T

I think you’d want it to also be comfortable - not just judge by looks alone.

The older Expl. II is probably the better choice for both reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Agree

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Polarexplorerii]

Originally Posted by 77t

i think you’d want it to also be comfortable - not just judge by looks alone.

The older expl. Ii is probably the better choice for both reasons.


Sent from my iphone using tapatalk pro

+1

[Tools]

Classic uncomplicated beauty.

smarty ends.jpg

[bezler]

Originally Posted by Tools

Classic uncomplicated beauty.

Attachment 1147606

Love it!

[Chester01]

I understand that the larger dimensions and maxi dial did increase legibility, but I too have small wrists and would source a solid condition 5 digit explorer II if I were on your situation.

[JR16]

The 6 digit is too big for your wrist - I think you will regret getting it. Would look for a good example of a 16570 from a trusted seller. It’s one of my favorite watches . My wrist is 6.75inch btw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rmlovett1]

Need better pics from a distance. If I were in your shoes, I’d make the judgement based on looking in a mirror, that’ll give you better perspective than close up wrist shots. Opinions from a forum, based on those close up pics, will vary greatly.
I’d personally choose the 216570 black dial.

[Mr DateJust]

I’ve owned both models multiple times. Always sold the newer one and went back to the 40mm. The old one is the best sports watch rolex have ever made IMHO.

[C0d]

Originally Posted by Mr DateJust

I’ve owned both models multiple times. Always sold the newer one and went back to the 40mm. The old one is the best sports watch rolex have ever made IMHO.

[-dustin]

eh...maybe it's just me, but if you can pull off a Tudor GMT, you can pull off a 216570. i might be biased, however, as i think it's a marvelous piece and traded out my 5 digit for my 6 digit ExpII.

[chris242]

i also own both, and will be letting go of my 5 digit soon because it never gets any wrist time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul7]

On you, get the 40mm, I made the same decision with my 6.5" wrists. The larger version looked ridiculous.

[1665fan]

Originally Posted by Paul7

On you, get the 40mm, I made the same decision with my 6.5" wrists. The larger version looked ridiculous.

Agreed

[StillTrying]

Very hard to tell from your photo of the 42mm. Can post photo without cropping so we can see the rest of your arm/hand? We need some context.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DCheeta]

I have a 6.75" wrist. I had the 216570 for a couple of years and it was a great watch, but in the end I could never accept how large it wore on my wrist. Somehow it feels larger than other 42mm watches that I wear with ease.

I'd go for the 16570. In fact, I am currently looking for one, too.

[Tools]

I don't think that the Explorer II is an ugly watch on anybody.

I do like the 16570 though. There are a lot of them around and they will remain a classic for many years to come.

[Paul7]

Rolex should still be offering two sizes of the Explorer II, like they do with the DJ, instead of the one size fits all approach.

[Brian Page]

2 totally different watches in the way they wear. I personally prefer the 6 digit newer 42mm version for how it wears on my wrist. You need to try both of them and decide for yourself

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by Brian Page

2 totally different watches in the way they wear. I personally prefer the 6 digit newer 42mm version for how it wears on my wrist. You need to try both of them and decide for yourself

He did try both in the OP post, IMHO the 40mm looks much better on him.

[904VT]

Room for both in your collection for sure imo

Older is very comfy....new is still comfy and even more legible

[bogdanco]

thanks all, i do feel that 40mm is a better fit, but I did loved how this sat on the wrist also. trying to post some links for the pics

https://ibb.co/0jpjkk4

https://ibb.co/vvRpG3W

https://ibb.co/pWJq7Nx

https://ibb.co/VSYn80m

[mui.richard]

To hell with what we think. If you like the watch and how it wears on you, grab it. If not, leave it.

It's your watch.

My wrist is slightly smaller than yours and I love how my Polar wears on my wrist. Despite it's size it wears very comfortably.

[bezler]

I had the opportunity to try both the 16570 and 216570 polar ExpIIs at the same time. The 16570 felt more comfortable on my 8" wrist, and subjectively, it looked much better. I could have gone either way, but the only thing working in favor of the 216570 was the upgraded movement and the brand new factor.

I pulled the trigger on the 16570, and it's been one of the big winners in my rotation. Day to day, I've found myself reaching for my most comfortable watches. Super comfortable!

[Fleetlord]

It's fine on 6.5"

[Paul7]

What makes the Exp II wear smaller than the same size Sub is the Sub bezel is black so blends into the watch face making the whole thing appear bigger.

[alwinnng]

I had a chance to try on an explorer 2 2years back. I kinda like it's thickness and weight and how it felt on my wrist compared to an op39. Didn't pull the trigger. Ended up couldn't obtain it anymore.

[subtona]

Prefer the 16570 polar (wearing mine now), it is a bit easier to read, especially with the red hand.

If the 42, the orange hand removes the legibility nicely.

On your wrist the 40mm looks better imho.