The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11 April 2011, 08:50 PM   #1
Ceramic
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: David
Location: Australia
Watch: 116610LN
Posts: 273
New Explorer II, Is 42MM instead of 40, a Big Deal?

Hi guys,

I liked the look of the new Exlorer II from official Rolex website, only point that put me off was the diameter.

Why they use bigger deal with a white dial watch I really do not understand.

So, will 42mm diameter case Exlorer II be noticable bigger than 40mm ones? Or will it be nearly impossible to notice the bigger size comparing to 40mm ones?

Best thing is to wait and visit the AD for a try and see how it goes, but I like to see your ideas as it will be a long wait to see new Explorer II around.

Cheers.
Ceramic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 09:17 PM   #2
CWL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HK & Vancouver
Watch: ExpIⅈSub;DJ
Posts: 31
40mm and 42mm do make a difference. i prefer a 40mm because of my Asian size wrist.
CWL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 09:19 PM   #3
tomchicago
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago
Watch: 16710BLRO, 214270.
Posts: 2,717
42 is very big for a rolex. Will have to try this one in person. I am concerned it will not be wearable to the office without looking punkish.
tomchicago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 09:28 PM   #4
CWL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HK & Vancouver
Watch: ExpIⅈSub;DJ
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomchicago View Post
42 is very big for a rolex. Will have to try this one in person. I am concerned it will not be wearable to the office without looking punkish.
i share your concern. Also i have concern over its thickness.
CWL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 09:33 PM   #5
Roxas
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
Watch: 14060M
Posts: 516
I prefer 40 mm. I'm not comfortable to wear a watch larger than 40 mm.
Roxas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 10:01 PM   #6
JJG
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 163
When the Milgauss 116400 came out, I had been dormant in my Rolex hobby for a few years and didn't even know it existed. One day on impulse, I stopped by my old AD and he brought out a GV from the back. Here is the catch... I didn't even realize by looking at it and handling it that it was 40mm. The AD said nothing about the new diameter. I just took for granted that it was another 36mm watch When I got home and searched the web for info, I was amazed to learn it was 40mm.

In short - if you hadn't known before hand that the new Exp2 was 42mm, you might not notice the diameter difference at first glance. (But those fat hands are another story )
JJG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 10:47 PM   #7
mike
"TRF" Member
 
mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,683
It's been reported--over and over--the reason for the increase in size is the larger 3187 movement.

We still HAVE to believe Rolex did it just to make them bigger.
mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 10:55 PM   #8
MrCowboy99
"TRF" Member
 
MrCowboy99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Real Name: Mac
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike View Post
It's been reported--over and over--the reason for the increase in size is the larger 3187 movement.

We still HAVE to believe Rolex did it just to make them bigger.
If they made it larger for the 3187 and the GMTIIC has a 3186 like the old Explorer, does that mean the new GMTIIc will get to 42mm soon?
__________________
I do not offer or provide any Rolex investment advice or opinion regarding the nature, potential, value, suitability or profitability of any particular watch, collections of watches, transaction or investment watch collecting strategy, and you shall be fully responsible for any watch decisions you make, and such decisions will be based solely on your evaluation of your financial circumstances, watch objectives, risk tolerance, and what looks good in yoru opinion on your wrist.
MrCowboy99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:03 PM   #9
Ceramic
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: David
Location: Australia
Watch: 116610LN
Posts: 273
Sorry, I did not follow the movement update reason.

If they can not make new movement in same size, so why are they changing the movement unnecessarily? I really do not understand.

Actually I like DeepSea but it is also too big. If they made the Deepsea with 40mm diameter, I bet it would be most selling Rolex since it s release.

I will wait this Explorer II and see. Thanks for all of your help even in this short time.

Old series look really old, new series too big, it is really very hard to buy something from Rolex.

Hope that Rolex read these threads and make an effort to produce smaller and nicer watches with more varieties.
Ceramic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:21 PM   #10
mike
"TRF" Member
 
mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,683
Reported by James Dowling for Bazel during his meetings with Rolex.

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...5587519&rid=15
mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:33 PM   #11
train-time
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Plankton
Location: US
Watch: less
Posts: 4,154
Absolutely it does make a difference to me. I have owned dozens of watches of all sizes and have sold off all the bigger sizes. I won't buy a Panerai because of their size; same for most Breitling models. I have settled on 40mm as being the perfect size for me. The first thing I do when I am browsing through a watch magazine looking at new models is to look to see what the size the watch is to determine my interest.

I had planned on picking up an ExpII down the road and was planning on getting the new model with the new bracelet and clasp, but as soon as I saw it was going to be 42mm, I redirected my attention on the current model. It's just my preference.
train-time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:34 PM   #12
travellingbrit
"TRF" Member
 
travellingbrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Real Name: Simon
Location: England (Manc)
Watch: Explorer 11, BF
Posts: 268
Personaly I quite like the look of the new II ....but 42 mil just goes a couple of mil too far for my taste. If it's also thicker/heavier then it will detract from the practicalities of day to day wear.....

Will have to try one on though...
travellingbrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:36 PM   #13
mfer
"TRF" Member
 
mfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Real Name: Mik
Location: USA
Posts: 13,724
You really need to try on a watch to determine if it is big or not ON YOU.

The 40mm expy II wore smaller than any other 40mm Rolex sport model (at least for me). Perhaps the 42mm will make it more equal in size to the rest of the line. It is all about how the watch fits on your wrist and how the lugs go around your wrist.

I have worn 42mm watches that look stupid big on me and I've worn 45mm watches that fit like a glove. You just have to try them on.
__________________
member#3242
mfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:36 PM   #14
rolexertion
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Montreal, PQ
Posts: 722
Yes, Big Deal. One can only wish the Sub and the Exp. I were 42mm. I have a 42mm Omega, and it's the ideal size.
rolexertion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:44 PM   #15
Speed
"TRF" Member
 
Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 19,706
My Speedy Pro is 42 mm. I think it fits well.

I'm sure we will see more side by side shots soon. Looking fwd to seeing the Expy II next to the GMTCII!
Speed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:44 PM   #16
swish77
2024 Pledge Member
 
swish77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: CT/NYC
Watch: ing the time!
Posts: 6,987
Judge the watch, not just the size. Some 36mm watches look like they're 40mm, some 40mm look like they're 38mm. It often depends on the dial design, bezel, case, feel, etc .... Can't wait to see this new one in person. I was excited to see the new Explorer I and it's new 39mm size, but I ended up being disappointed because I don't think it works with the 3,6,9 design. Reminded me of a wall clock at the bigger size. But the new Explorer II has a lot more going on, including the date and the big orange GMT hand, so I suspect the bigger size won't be that noticeable. We'll see.
swish77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:47 PM   #17
rolexertion
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Montreal, PQ
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceramic View Post
Actually I like DeepSea but it is also too big. If they made the Deepsea with 40mm diameter, I bet it would be most selling Rolex since it s release.
The DS is 18mm high, due to the 'need' for crush-resistance at its rated depth. It would look even more ungainly at 40mm. The older SD had a diameter of 40mm, and it looked great, but it was only 14mm thick.
rolexertion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:47 PM   #18
apeogre
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: No Clue
Posts: 586
Can't wait to try on the new 42 mm.
apeogre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 April 2011, 11:49 PM   #19
petespendthrift
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 185
Likewise 40mm is my maximum. Rolex seem to be straying away from practicality and are becoming slaves to fashion.

A shame as the old Exp2 has always been the thinking man's Rolex - now no more. Once the novelty of the new one wears off, Rolex may find that if the fashion buyers don't continue to like it then there will be hardly anyone left to buy it.

Rolex did not gain their reputation by following the fashions so why start now? Worse, why pursue the big watch fashion just when a growing number of people are finally beginning to get tired of it.
petespendthrift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 12:06 AM   #20
jas55
"TRF" Member
 
jas55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Real Name: Lach
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 759
I think it will make a big difference to the previous model. It's now a different watch.
__________________

Explorer 2-Polar
Omega Seamaster Quartz
jas55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 01:25 AM   #21
Aspirin
"TRF" Member
 
Aspirin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: at home
Posts: 1,330
40mm Explorer II with it thickness is too enough for my bony 6' wrist, 42mm Explorer II is stunning, excepted the orange 24 hand, and also the super bracelet and the clasp are too larger for me.
Aspirin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 01:27 AM   #22
Dr. Robert
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Dr. Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Bob
Location: U.S.A.
Watch: 1655
Posts: 64,060
I wonder what the case length(measured lug to lug) will be?????
If it's over 48mm, too long for me.
__________________
Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
Dr. Robert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 02:03 AM   #23
paddy_crow
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 592
I will be interested to see how much the new Exp II weighs.
paddy_crow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 02:04 AM   #24
Dr. Robert
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Dr. Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Bob
Location: U.S.A.
Watch: 1655
Posts: 64,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy_crow View Post
I will be interested to see how much the new Exp II weighs.
Will it be as thick as new sub???? Maybe it'll weigh in like the new SS sub....116610??????
__________________
Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons
Dr. Robert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 02:13 AM   #25
Chipmunk
"TRF" Member
 
Chipmunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Alvin
Location: So Cal
Watch: ROLEXES
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Robert View Post
Will it be as thick as new sub???? Maybe it'll weigh in like the new SS sub....116610??????
or maybe it depends on who's wearing it....hahaha
__________________
"A thing of beauty is a joy forever"............John Keats

Chipmunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 02:23 AM   #26
usbzoso
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Real Name: Stan
Location: Dallas
Watch: 16610/16600/16800
Posts: 1,231
i love my 40mm explorer II most comfortable watch ever ... every other 42mm watch i have ever owned has been sold because i simply could not get used to the bigger watch ... 42mm Explorer II is not for me
usbzoso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 02:40 AM   #27
George Ab
"TRF" Member
 
George Ab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: George
Location: Seattle
Watch: One of Them
Posts: 6,924
As discussed, there are other factors: minor movement enhancement, new style bracelet,a and case size.

For me this is not about size....... although size matters. It is about proportion! The modern sport model Rolex has embraced the supercase with the fat lugs. The case does not look proportioned to my eye; therefore, as much as I have tried I have not kept any of the new styled Rolex - Rolex GMT IIc and Sub-c. Now with the new Exp II the fat lugs looked proportioned with the larger diameter case. To my eye it no longer looks like I have a brick on my wrist.... it looks like a watch.
__________________

George Ab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 02:45 AM   #28
Rebel
"TRF" Member
 
Rebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Dr Mark R Nail
Location: New Albany
Watch: Tudor Sub 75090
Posts: 8,241
just too big for my little wrist.
__________________
-------------------------------
Member of the Nylon Nation
Rebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 04:51 AM   #29
KarlFr
"TRF" Member
 
KarlFr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scandinavia
Watch: ♛
Posts: 1,330
Need to try it on, a 42mm planet ocean is fine with me but a Milgauss in 42mm would be unwearable (Note that I've sold my PO and own a Milgauss)
KarlFr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 April 2011, 04:59 AM   #30
mjm800
"TRF" Member
 
mjm800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,950
I love it and I cannot wait to get it. It's going to be magnificent!
__________________
http://www.rolexforums.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=39890&dateline=128330  1854
mjm800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

Asset Appeal

Wrist Aficionado

DavidSW Watches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.