216750 on a “smaller” wrist

[sportsfan0704]

I’ve been wearing a 114060 which is roughly 48 lug to lug and a touch over 50mm with the end links. I think it wears well, just chunky as the supercases do. I’ve been looking to get a polar explorer and found a good deal that works for me on a 216570. I tried it on in a store but hard to get a feel as it was unsized and I’ve been wearing smaller dress watches more frequently.

Any wrist shots on smaller wrists? For reference, my wrist is 6.75 inches. Is this considered a small wrist?

[Kevin of Larchmont]

The 226570 works better on a 6.75” wrist and is more comfortable than the 216570; I’ve owned them both at the same time. As for how they look on a small-ish wrist the Polar looks bigger than the black but they both look fine to me. Sorry, I didn’t take comparison pictures.

[sportsfan0704]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

The 226570 works better on a 6.75” wrist and is more comfortable than the 216570; I’ve owned them both at the same time. As for how they look on a small-ish wrist the Polar looks bigger than the black but they both look fine to me. Sorry, I didn’t take comparison pictures.

Did you feel like it was really pushing the outter limits of fit or just fine? Obviously everything is subjective. But I’ve been used to wearing smaller dress time pieces in the 33-36mm range so I know a bigger watch beyond the 40mm sub is going to be an adjustment. I’m just trying to get away from my own bias in that respect

[nighthawk77]

226570 here - if you can comfortably wear the sub the explorer should be fine. My wrist 6.75 too;







If you don’t mind changing straps, then I think the Exp 2 is the only modern Rolex which looks ok on fabric:



The only thing which I do notice is the step up to 22mm bracelet. It’s obvious when I first change from Sub/GMT to polar, but after a while feels normal again…

[OG1982]

The 216570 is a great watch, but I couldn't make it work on my 7.25 inch wrist. It was noticeably larger than the new 41mm Sub.

Great watch, if they made it in a 40mm I would have one for sure.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by sportsfan0704

Did you feel like it was really pushing the outter limits of fit or just fine? Obviously everything is subjective. But I’ve been used to wearing smaller dress time pieces in the 33-36mm range so I know a bigger watch beyond the 40mm sub is going to be an adjustment. I’m just trying to get away from my own bias in that respect

I didn’t feel like it pushed any limits at all. Granted, it’s not a small watch but I also wear a Deepsea and multiple Panerai. Counterintuitivly I have discovered that I prefer larger watches on my 6.75” wrist because they stay planted and don’t rotate to the extent that a smaller watch does. And they’re fun man, bigger watches are just more fun.

[brandrea]

It should wear just fine, especially since you can pull of the ceramic Sub

[watchwatcher]

Same size wrist here. Been wearing one since 2012, and, IMO, it wears like it was made for it.

[sportsfan0704]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

I didn’t feel like it pushed any limits at all. Granted, it’s not a small watch but I also wear a Deepsea and multiple Panerai. Counterintuitivly I have discovered that I prefer larger watches on my 6.75” wrist because they stay planted and don’t rotate to the extent that a smaller watch does. And they’re fun man, bigger watches are just more fun.

Appreciate the insight! It’s true they don’t move as much. It’s also a true tool watch and I think it would complement the rest of my collection well.

[sportsfan0704]

Here is the fit of the subc on my wrist for reference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roddypeepa]

The explorer ii 42 is a watch that if you need more than a link or two taking out is probably too big. My wrist is 19 cm approx (7 and a half inches) with no links taken out.

I know someone with a few links out and it bulges at the lugs somewhat. Here’s mine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr. Superlative]

I wear my Exp II as well as my Sub on my 6.75 inch wrist. Fits absolutely fine, sits flush. Spend a bit more time trying it on, sure you'll find it OK.

[KatGirl]

It might appear a bit large, but so what! You could wear it. I would not, though I like it. I5 would be to9 large for me.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[yter37]

Your wrist size of 6.75 inches is within the average range for men's wrists, though it's on the smaller side. Many people with similar wrist sizes find that watches with lug-to-lug lengths of 48mm to 50mm wear well, but ultimately it depends on personal preference and the specific watch design.

[Brit78]

A 6.75-inch wrist is on the smaller side but can still rock the 216570. It might feel bigger initially, but if you’re comfortable with the 114060, you should adapt well. Check out some wrist shots online for a better visual comparison. Enjoy your new Polar Explorer!

[Annan]

My wrist is 6.75 and I thought the 216570 felt and looked fine. I've owned one polar and one black. The black dial looked slightly smaller in my opinion and was my preference.

[the dark knight]

I owned a Polar and black 216570 back in the day, 6.5 inch wrists. Having said that I am also 220 lbs, so probably not a small person, just small wrists. So I thought overall they looked good on me. But I also tend to think wrist size alone is a fairly meaningless measurement when evaluating a watch, wrist shape and overall size of the wearer is probably more meaningful.

Honestly when considering the 6 digit trio of Sub, Exp II, and GMT, I thought the Exp II wore the best because of it's super flat caseback.

[SudiYunus]

Originally Posted by og1982

the 216570 is a great watch, but i couldn't make it work on my 7.25 inch wrist. It was noticeably larger than the new 41mm sub.

Great watch, if they made it in a 40mm i would have one for sure.

+1

[Brit78]

A 6.75-inch wrist is more on the medium side, but wrist shape and personal preference play a big role in how a watch feels and looks. The 216570 is definitely larger, but it's all about how comfortable you feel wearing it.

[Harry-57]

My wrist is 6.5".



So far as your wrist goes, if you think it looks too big, it's too big. If you think in doesn't, it isn't. The 42mm Explorer II is a really nice watch and something a bit different nowadays.

[dduranceau]

I own the polar 216570 and have the opportunity to “upgrade” to the 226570 at virtually no out of pocket cost. For those that have owned both would you consider making the trade?

[Mr. Superlative]

Originally Posted by dduranceau

I own the polar 216570 and have the opportunity to “upgrade” to the 226570 at virtually no out of pocket cost. For those that have owned both would you consider making the trade?

Personally, I don’t think the marginal differences justify the swap. I would not classify that swap as an “upgrade”, but that’s purely a personal opinion.

[trailblazer68]

Correct me if I am wrong, it seems the dial size on the sub and exp2 is different as well, with the latter being slightly larger. And that has a very strong visual impact, making the exp2 looks out of place with a smaller wrist, well that was a deal breaker for me even though I like the either of the exp2.
Hope they go back to 40mm

[Krash]

Originally Posted by sportsfan0704

Here is the fit of the subc on my wrist for reference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Best watch ever made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

I recently tried on the 226570 and felt it actually wore the same or maybe even a touch smaller than my 124060. I know it’s not comparing the 114060 but I own both Subs and feel they wear the same

I have a side by side photo somewhere and I’ll post if I can find it.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by trailblazer68

Correct me if I am wrong, it seems the dial size on the sub and exp2 is different as well, with the latter being slightly larger. And that has a very strong visual impact, making the exp2 looks out of place with a smaller wrist, well that was a deal breaker for me even though I like the either of the exp2.
Hope they go back to 40mm

The EXP 2 dial is about 2mm larger.

I sort of felt the opposite… the larger bezel and monochromatic look of the Sub dial and bezel sort of blend together wearing slightly larger to my eye.

[travisb]

Old pic of my 216570. Same size wrist as you. I think it wears great and still consider adding a Polar back to my collection.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by dduranceau

I own the polar 216570 and have the opportunity to “upgrade” to the 226570 at virtually no out of pocket cost. For those that have owned both would you consider making the trade?

I have made that trade and highly recommend it.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by travisb

Old pic of my 216570. Same size wrist as you. I think it wears great and still consider adding a Polar back to my collection.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh man … that looks made for you my friend

Here’s a side by side for comparison OP. Not the best photo




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StanCho]

6.3" flat wrist: