2012 Explorer II

[cid]

I had the pleasure of handling the new Exp. II yesterday. Black dial. Very nice watch. That said, I was somewhat surprised by the weight of the watch overall and specifically the feel of the bracelet. I am the recent owner of a DJII which has a solid bracelet. A friend of mine has the GMTIIC, which also has a heavy bracelet. The Exp. II's bracelet felt very light and almost hollow. Again, I'm not questioning the quality of the watch because I know it's built to last. I was just wondering why Rolex decided to go with the lighter weight bracelet? I assume it's not 904L (not that it really makes a difference)?

[Tools]

Are you sure that you had on the new Explorer II 216570..

I tried on a couple of those just the other day.. The bracelet is larger than the one on the GMT IIc with 21mm endlinks and uses almost the same billit clasp. It is all 904L steel and solid links..

[Polemic]

Are you sure it is 216570?

[cid]

Positive. Was at an AD. The clasp is the new design. No question to weight of the bracelet was lighter than my DJII. I asked the sales person why the difference and he said he noticed that too. He pulled the GMTIIC out of the case and compared the weight. His theory was that Rolex wanted the lighter feel due to EXP. II being a sport watch.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by cid

I had the pleasure of handling the new Exp. II yesterday. Black dial. Very nice watch. That said, I was somewhat surprised by the weight of the watch overall and specifically the feel of the bracelet. I am the recent owner of a DJII which has a solid bracelet. A friend of mine has the GMTIIC, which also has a heavy bracelet. The Exp. II's bracelet felt very light and almost hollow. Again, I'm not questioning the quality of the watch because I know it's built to last. I was just wondering why Rolex decided to go with the lighter weight bracelet? I assume it's not 904L (not that it really makes a difference)?

All Rolex watches since around 1987-89 are made from 904L SS there is nothing magical about 904L over 316L the industry norm.Fact 904L is slightly softer than 316L and will scratch a little more easy.904L is no harder or heavier that 316L or 309L main difference say over 316L.It has slightly more Molybdenum(Mo)approx 2%, approx 1-2% more Crome(Cr) 1% more copper(Cu) and approx 10% more nickel and thats it.And when you think of the thousands or perhaps millions of Rolex watches in this world today with 309L, 316L made bracelets and still going strong.Today being heavier means nothing about its going to last longer, its just perceived by many that heavy is always better which is not always the case in the robustness department.

[cid]

Originally Posted by Tools

Are you sure that you had on the new Explorer II 216570..

I tried on a couple of those just the other day.. The bracelet is larger than the one on the GMT IIc with 21mm endlinks and uses almost the same billit clasp. It is all 904L steel and solid links..

I did notice the size difference. Nice touch. I also notice the jump in retail price ($7,600 approx.) LOL.

[mvmbles]

Originally Posted by Tools

Are you sure that you had on the new Explorer II 216570..

I tried on a couple of those just the other day.. The bracelet is larger than the one on the GMT IIc with 21mm endlinks and uses almost the same billit clasp. It is all 904L steel and solid links..

Whew...that's what I wanted to hear! I haven't had a chance to try it on yet, but I can't stop thinking about the white dial 216570 and it will definitely be one of the next two pieces I acquire. Thought I might have to go back to the drawing board for a second there!

[superdog]

Gmt 2c is not a sports watch? Coulda fooled me.

[cid]

Originally Posted by mvmbles

Whew...that's what I wanted to hear! I haven't had a chance to try it on yet, but I can't stop thinking about the white dial 216570 and it will definitely be one of the next two pieces I acquire. Thought I might have to go back to the drawing board for a second there!

Don't let my post make you question your decision. IMO you can't got wrong with the new Exp. II. It's a very nice watch. If I was in the market for another Rolex, I'd probably go with that watch.

[mvmbles]

It's just that personally, the idea of a larger yet lighter stainless steel bracelet on a modern Rolex detracts from the appeal of the watch to me.

[cid]

Originally Posted by mvmbles

It's just that personally, the idea of a larger yet lighter stainless steel bracelet on a modern Rolex detracts from the appeal of the watch to me.

I suggest you try one on for yourself. It may not be noticeable to you. The watch felt very nice on my wrist. BTW, I think it's a 41mm, not sure. Could be 40mm but it sure looked big.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by mvmbles

It's just that personally, the idea of a larger yet lighter stainless steel bracelet on a modern Rolex detracts from the appeal of the watch to me.

As mentioned, you need to try it yourself..

I have tried on both the GMT IIc and the Explorer II42 and came away with the exact opposite impression..

The Explorer II is 42mm.. It is a bigger case, bigger movement, larger dial face, larger bracelet, and wears very nice.. Pictures don't do it justice..

Here are all the relevant facts except for the weight... somebody needs to weigh one with all the links for us..

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=168671

[esm]

Originally Posted by cid

Positive. Was at an AD. The clasp is the new design. No question to weight of the bracelet was lighter than my DJII. I asked the sales person why the difference and he said he noticed that too. He pulled the GMTIIC out of the case and compared the weight. His theory was that Rolex wanted the lighter feel due to EXP. II being a sport watch.

Did you or the AD salesperson actually took the oyster bracelets off the 116710LN, 216570 and 116334 and weigh them separately to "notice" the weight difference?
Any idea on the actual weight of each bracelet then?

[cid]

Originally Posted by esm

Did you or the AD salesperson actually took the oyster bracelets off the 116710LN, 216570 and 116334 and weigh them separately to "notice" the weight difference?
Any idea on the actual weight of each bracelet then?

No we didn't take the bracelets off. The bracelet felt like the bracelets off the older (pre 2011) sub/exploer ii. In fact, when I first picked up the watch and felt the bracelet the first thing I thought off was my LV bracelet. I flipped the watch over to inspect the clasp to make sure it wasn't the stamped flip lock clasp. Nope.

[esm]

It could be the added weight of the bezel and bezel on the 116710LN giving you that feeling.....

[mvmbles]

So I took a walk to the AD today and you are absolutely correct. I tried on the 42mm white dial Explorer II and while I'm still smitten with the aesthetics of the watch, myself, my friend, and the salesman all agreed that the Explorer II with complete bracelet weighed less than my Sub C with two links removed.

I'm torn up about this. I was really looking forward to adding this piece to the collection, but I don't think I can get over how light it is compared to the sub. I haven't completely ruled out the new Explorer but it's definitely not a priority anymore.

[TimingIsEverything]

Originally Posted by mvmbles

So I took a walk to the AD today and you are absolutely correct. I tried on the 42mm white dial Explorer II and while I'm still smitten with the aesthetics of the watch, myself, my friend, and the salesman all agreed that the Explorer II with complete bracelet weighed less than my Sub C with two links removed.

I'm torn up about this. I was really looking forward to adding this piece to the collection, but I don't think I can get over how light it is compared to the sub. I haven't completely ruled out the new Explorer but it's definitely not a priority anymore.

Wow that's very strange, I thought the bracelet would have weighed about the same as the GMT/Sub bracelet.

If the links aren't hollow, then maybe its mass isn't has solid?

[Adam K.]

The only way to do a meaningful comparison, would be to remove a 116610 Sub bracelet from a Sub head (or whatever model you like), and do the same with the 42mm Explorer II...then weigh one detached bracelet against another.

Weighing the complete watches tells you nothing of specific value; Hell, if we're talking about the Submariner, the difference could account for the caseback which is notably thicker than the back on the Explorer II to account for its enhanced resistance to higher water pressure.


Not trying to be gruff here, but there's just not enough specific information to draw any meaningful conclusions. By the way, having owned both a 116-series DJ and the GMT-IIC--as well as now the 42mm Explorer II--I can assure anyone curious that the new generation solid link bracelets are all constructed exactly the same and have similar weight and feel. Only difference is the finish distinctions between brushed and brushed/polished.

[Hoppyjr]

Its likely only a perception issue. I certainly wouldn't avoid a wat h because it isn't heavy enough. I own and enjoy my white dial Exp II 42 very, very much - its a beautiful watch.

posted using Tapatalk

[Welshwatchman]

All we need now is someone who owns a 216570, 116710 (or 116610) and a digital kitchen scale.

Let's do it and see what the numbers tell us.

[FNFZ4]

it cant be the 216570. I tried it on at jewelers on time in newport beach and its certainly heavier than my GMTIIC

[TimingIsEverything]

Originally Posted by FNFZ4

it cant be the 216570. I tried it on at jewelers on time in newport beach and its certainly heavier than my GMTIIC

Well the OP is talking about the bracelet only.