Hands and dial of 16570 vs 214270

[GFLRolex]

Hi there

I'm thinking of getting either an Explorer II (16570) or an Explorer I (214270).

While I love the look of the new 216570 it's just too big for me.

On photos, I have the impression that the legibility of the 214270 is better than the 16570. Since I have no possibility to compare the two watches directly, here's some questions to those who own both:

Is the black of the two dials identical or not? With regard to the 214270 I often read of a dark grey rather than black...

Are the hands of the two models identical or not?

Which one do you prefer?

Thanks a lot,
F.

[Old Expat Beast]

Some people consider the hands of the 214270 to be too short for the dial size. I prefer the 16570 and I have the smaller 114270, which I feel is better proportioned than the 214270. Many would disagree with me though.

[Friar]

For the most part, I find the legibility of white face watches superior to those with black faces in that black hands stand out against the face more clearly than silvered (or WG) hands against black--whether matte or shiny. Amongst my tiny collection, the exception is a black Omega SMPc with its broad skeleton hands--they are quite visible.

[Dittox]

For legibility I would go with a 16570 (preferably white dial), in my opinion the minute and hour hands in the Exp-I are too short. Also, I like having a date window.