ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

leopardprey · 10 February 2007, 08:43 PM

Probably asked this before, but does anyone have one of each and can confirm the diameter size of each. I was reading on another forum that the GMT is 40.5 mm in diameter and the Explorer II is 39mm in diameter. But of course the official Rolex website/catalogs state both are 40mm in diameter.

What about the thickness, from the top of the case to the bottom bubbleback? (not talking the top of the crystal). Should be the same in that regards?

Thanks.

padi56 · 10 February 2007, 08:52 PM

Well have a look at below thread but the odd 1 to half millimetre will not make a lot of difference.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...=Explorer+size

astcell · 10 February 2007, 11:14 PM

That spreadhseet definitely needs to be updated for the TT GMT II Anniv!

tonelar · 11 February 2007, 03:25 AM

See I've always heard the same thing, but they're really alot closer than you hear people implying...

I mean some of the differences are less than .3 and .1 mm...

JJ Irani · 11 February 2007, 05:11 AM

Having owned both the Exp-IIs, black and white, I've always maintained that the watch is exactly 39 mm - measured very accurately with a Vernier Caliper - and NOT 40 mm like the other Rolex sports watches.

JJ

10 February 2007, 08:43 PM	#1
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	Explorer II vs GMT II size Probably asked this before, but does anyone have one of each and can confirm the diameter size of each. I was reading on another forum that the GMT is 40.5 mm in diameter and the Explorer II is 39mm in diameter. But of course the official Rolex website/catalogs state both are 40mm in diameter. What about the thickness, from the top of the case to the bottom bubbleback? (not talking the top of the crystal). Should be the same in that regards? Thanks.

10 February 2007, 08:52 PM	#2
padi56 "TRF" Life Patron Join Date: Jun 2005 Real Name: Peter Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng Watch: ing you. Posts: 52,766	Well have a look at below thread but the odd 1 to half millimetre will not make a lot of difference. http://www.rolexforums.com/showthrea...=Explorer+size __________________ ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder

11 February 2007, 03:25 AM	#4
tonelar "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: Tony Location: san francisco Watch: Seadweller Posts: 1,368	See I've always heard the same thing, but they're really alot closer than you hear people implying... I mean some of the differences are less than .3 and .1 mm... __________________ It's a rarity that something popular is actually right... Wear 'em with PRIDE, y'all.

11 February 2007, 05:11 AM	#5
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,319	Having owned both the Exp-IIs, black and white, I've always maintained that the watch is exactly 39 mm - measured very accurately with a Vernier Caliper - and NOT 40 mm like the other Rolex sports watches. JJ __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

10 February 2007, 11:14 PM	#3
astcell "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Robert Location: Angelus Oaks, CA Watch: 116713 Posts: 6,828	That spreadhseet definitely needs to be updated for the TT GMT II Anniv!

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