Why isn't the GMT hand in the Explorer 2 behind the hour hand?

[WalterE]

I have been reading a lot about the new Explorer II 226570, thanks to this model's increase popularity and attention recently.

There is a design decision, however, that baffles me: Since maximising legibility is THE key design premise for this model, why assemble the GMT "freccione" on top of the regular hour hand?

Since the stem of the freccione is rather wide (compared to the regular GMT hand on the GMT-Master2) and not luminescent, it can easily obscure the regular hour hand, I suppose. Wouldn't it make more sense to assemble it at the bottom of the train, so that the shorter hour hand is always visible on top of the GMT hand? The tip of the orange freccione would always be visible underneath, since it is longer, right?

I realise caliber 3285 on the GMT-Master has the same arrangement of the watch hands, however this is less of an issue on that model due to the different design of the GMT hand.

There must be a reason that escapes me... I turn to you, oh wise WIS, for enlightenment!

Thanks in advance!

[BobtheViking]

Really, if you are using the 'gmt' hand for its intended use, you would use it over the standard hour hand. It wasn't meant to indicate a different time zone but to distinguish am from pm.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[SN13]

Originally Posted by WalterE

There is a design decision, however, that baffles me: Since maximising legibility is THE key design premise for this model, why assemble the GMT "freccione" on top of the regular hour hand?

In order to minimize the thickness of the watch, the Hour hand is shorter than the markers on the dial so it can be close to the face.

The GMT hand is second so it can be above the Hour markers.

The Minute and Seconds above that.

If the GMT were below, the entire stack would have to start ABOVE the hour markers or be short of the hour markers.

In essence it saves about 1mm of overall thickness to do it the way Rolex does vs the ETA 2893 movements with their GMT/H/M/S stack.

Actually the OLD 1675 Rolex used the GMT/H/M/S stack...




But that was with Printed dials and no Applied Markers....

You can see the stack change with the 16750 series





The design baffles you because you have never assembled or designed a watch.....

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by SN13

In order to minimize the thickness of the watch, the Hour hand is shorter than the markers on the dial so it can be close to the face.

The GMT hand is second so it can be above the Hour markers.

The Minute and Seconds above that.

If the GMT were below, the entire stack would have to start ABOVE the hour markers or be short of the hour markers.

In essence it saves about 1mm of overall thickness to do it the way Rolex does vs the ETA 2893 movements with their GMT/H/M/S stack.

Actually the OLD 1675 Rolex used the GMT/H/M/S stack...

But that was with Printed dials and no Applied Markers....

You can see the stack change with the 16750 series

The design baffles you because you have never assembled or designed a watch.....

Good answer!

[WalterE]

Originally Posted by SN13

In order to minimize the thickness of the watch, the Hour hand is shorter than the markers on the dial so it can be close to the face.

The GMT hand is second so it can be above the Hour markers.

The Minute and Seconds above that.

If the GMT were below, the entire stack would have to start ABOVE the hour markers or be short of the hour markers.

In essence it saves about 1mm of overall thickness to do it the way Rolex does vs the ETA 2893 movements with their GMT/H/M/S stack.

Thanks, SN13, for explaining. That makes perfect sense! I had not considered the height of the applied indices with such a long GMT hand.

Originally Posted by SN13

The design baffles you because you have never assembled or designed a watch.....

Ouch! Indeed, my field of expertise is somewhere completely different. It's always a pleasure to learn more about the technical aspects of horology from the many knowledgeable TRF members.

Next time, I'll stick to enquiring about appreciation potential, value retention, advantageous trades, and the likes...

[HogwldFLTR]

To drive OCDs crazy of course!!!

[brandrea]

I love threads like these as it brings to light something I never would’ve noticed and folks chime in with plausible answers

[garyk]

Hmmmm, interesting

[samson66]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I love threads like these as it brings to light something I never would’ve noticed and folks chime in with plausible answers

I was just thinking the same thing. I know someone with direct knowledge will give the exact reason and I will learn something new.

The thread a few years back about the counterweight on the seconds hand perfectly covering the "o" in Rolex still blows my mind to this day.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by samson66

I was just thinking the same thing. I know someone with direct knowledge will give the exact reason and I will learn something new.

The thread a few years back about the counterweight on the seconds hand perfectly covering the "o" in Rolex still blows my mind to this day.

Thanks for the reminder Mike, another great thread indeed.

There are so many subtle nuances to be learned here.

[CalSRQ1]

Originally Posted by bobtheviking

It wasn't meant to indicate a different time zone but to distinguish am from pm. k

Huh?

[BobtheViking]

Originally Posted by CalSRQ1

Huh?

Shamelessly stolen from an article

Introduced as a watch for spelunkers, the Explorer II design is function over form. The darkness in some of these caves makes it impossible to tell whether it is day or night, which is the reason for the 24-hour hand and fixed bezel. While the original Explorer II Ref. 1655 was not at all meant to be a travel watch, the 16570 introduced an independent hour hand that functionally made the watch a dual time zone travel watch.

The original version has a fixed 24 hour bezel (retained) but it also fixed the 'GMT' hand to track the hour hand. So if the hour hand was at 6 and it was PM, the 'GMT' hand would sit at 18.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[SN13]

Originally Posted by WalterE

Ouch! Indeed, my field of expertise is somewhere completely different. It's always a pleasure to learn more about the technical aspects of horology from the many knowledgeable TRF members.

Maybe a little blunt from my end.

[Speedbird-1]

Originally Posted by samson66

The thread a few years back about the counterweight on the seconds hand perfectly covering the "o" in Rolex still blows my mind to this day.

Haha..you got me.
I'd forgotten about this.
I looked down and had to wait almost 57 seconds to check it out!
I think I'm suffering with tertiary OcD.
Just off to check it again (28 second wait!)

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Speedbird-1

Haha..you got me.
I'd forgotten about this.
I looked down and had to wait almost 57 seconds to check it out!
I think I'm suffering with tertiary OcD.
Just off to check it again (28 second wait!)

I know right! It's one of those moments!

[fishingbear]

I love these type TRF threads. Mechanical watches and their constructed design are what brought me to the hobby over 25 years ago.

[WalterE]

Originally Posted by SN13

Maybe a little blunt from my end.

All in good spirit!

Thanks again for the explanation. Truly appreciated, as I am always keen to learn more about the history and technicalities of mechanical watches in general, and Rolex in particular.

I personally enjoy this kind of threads much more than those around what is the correct price to pay for such watches or their future value.

[KBM]

Very interesting. Learned something new today.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by SN13

In order to minimize the thickness of the watch, the Hour hand is shorter than the markers on the dial so it can be close to the face.

The GMT hand is second so it can be above the Hour markers.

The Minute and Seconds above that.

If the GMT were below, the entire stack would have to start ABOVE the hour markers or be short of the hour markers.

In essence it saves about 1mm of overall thickness to do it the way Rolex does vs the ETA 2893 movements with their GMT/H/M/S stack.

Actually the OLD 1675 Rolex used the GMT/H/M/S stack...


But that was with Printed dials and no Applied Markers....

You can see the stack change with the 16750 series


The design baffles you because you have never assembled or designed a watch.....

[A.I.]

Originally Posted by BobtheViking

Shamelessly stolen from an article

Introduced as a watch for spelunkers, the Explorer II design is function over form. The darkness in some of these caves makes it impossible to tell whether it is day or night, which is the reason for the 24-hour hand and fixed bezel. While the original Explorer II Ref. 1655 was not at all meant to be a travel watch, the 16570 introduced an independent hour hand that functionally made the watch a dual time zone travel watch.

The original version has a fixed 24 hour bezel (retained) but it also fixed the 'GMT' hand to track the hour hand. So if the hour hand was at 6 and it was PM, the 'GMT' hand would sit at 18.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Now I know why I have one - I'm off to spelunk.

Thanks.

[SN13]

Originally Posted by samson66

I spent quite a lot of time staring at my 16570...

Here's a Good photo of my old one illustrating the stacking.




Here's a photo of how Monta dealt with the stacking on a standard ETA 2893 movement to avoid adding dial to crystal depth...

[imsayingthough]

Glad to learn.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by SN13

I spent quite a lot of time staring at my 16570...

Here's a Good photo of my old one illustrating the stacking.

Great information. I find this stuff fascinating (honestly).

Looks like my Tudor GMT is set up the same way with the hour hand at the bottom of the stack. No I understand why

[CashGap]

Originally Posted by WalterE

I personally enjoy this kind of threads much more than those around what is the correct price to pay for such watches or their future value.

“Is it safe to wear my Rolex while I trim my nails”

“I got a few drops of olive oil on my Rolex, should I send it to the RSC for pressure test”

“Should I try for a 116595RBOW Rainbow Daytona for list price or a two-tone ladies Datejust at a discount? Which is likely to ______/go up the most as a percentage of value/cause my AD to want to offer me a a Sub Date fastest/look best with my new custom home made clothing line I’m launching next fall?”

Funnier is that those questions would draw passionate responses on both sides!

[SydR]

I never even noticed what way the hands were stacked until this thread.

Interesting to hear the reason given; makes perfect sense.

[214270Explorer]

Thanks for the interesting topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WalterE]

Originally Posted by CashGap

Funnier is that those questions would draw passionate responses on both sides!

[carnage9191]

I noticed the same thing on the Tudor GMT glad I’m not the only crazy one who picked up on this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk