New Explorer II, Is 42MM instead of 40, a Big Deal?

[mike]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

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.

Again I have to ask Why is it fashion??

A larger movement with a (supposedly) improved shock absorbing system that is too big for the 40MM case.

This in a watch whose heritage is one of testing the extremes. Seems that would be an improvement.

Is a Speedmaster fashion? It's been 42mm for a long time. Same with the PO and several others.

[travellingbrit]

Originally Posted by mike

Again I have to ask Why is it fashion??

A larger movement with a (supposedly) improved shock absorbing system that is too big for the 40MM case.

This in a watch whose heritage is one of testing the extremes. Seems that would be an improvement.

Is a Speedmaster fashion? It's been 42mm for a long time. Same with the PO and several others.

Its' because Rolex appear to be following the recent trend for ostentatious visibility in gents watches. There are brands that have always been large, Breitling/Panerai...but Rolex was historically conservative in sizing and kept the flashiness for the jewelled models.

Its a fashion and Rolex are trying to capitalise on it - perhaps they are not as confident as in previous times and are trying to appeal to a new audience ?.

[mike]

Originally Posted by travellingbrit

Its' because Rolex appear to be following the recent trend for ostentatious visibility in gents watches. There are brands that have always been large, Breitling/Panerai...but Rolex was historically conservative in sizing and kept the flashiness for the jewelled models.

Its a fashion and Rolex are trying to capitalise on it - perhaps they are not as confident as in previous times and are trying to appeal to a new audience ?.

I understand your thoughts however I think had Rolex used the 3186 in the 42MM case there might be more merit.

Since the 3187 movement is bigger (perhaps because of the shock absorption system) a bigger case is warranted.

Indeed one could argue it gives the EXP II the boost it needs to come out of the shadow of the GMT.

The history of the EXP II has been one of hard use--early Rolex adverts even refered to it as the "Hard Use" Rolex. The enhancements of the new version seem now to give it it's own arena.

Of couse all we can do is speculate untill they arrive in the system. Then the acid tests can begin.

[The GMT Master]

I'm calling on the fashion argument. There is one reason, and one reason alone, that Rolex have decided to make the changes to the Explorer II, and that is to make it stand out from the rest of the range. The 16570 was never a good seller - any AD will tell you that. I think it was because it was far too much in the shadow of the Sub and GMT. Visually pretty similar, same case sizes, same movement as the 16710. The logic was to go for the GMT or Sub over the Explorer II because they were more popular - dare I say it, the Explorer II was seen as a GMT light. No more.

By placing it in a different case size, it immediately makes it stand out. It's exactly the same tactic as for the 214270 - why would anyone buy an Explorer when they could have the 36mm Oyster Perpetual, an essentially identical, if not better, watch for less money? By making it a 39mm watch, it set itself in its own niche, separate from the "dress" OPs, and has given itself an identity again. That's why Rolex have been less conservative with the new Explorer II - new case size, new 24hr hand, new minutes hand. It looks completely different to the GMT at a glance - it's no longer just a different bezel. That is an extremely good thing, and I have high hopes for the 216570 - it makes a statement, and it's for a potential Rolex buyer who doesn't want to blend in, without being too shouty about it. If I'm honest, it may well tempt me more than my beloved GMT IIc, which has been my grail since the day I became a Rolex fan, and it takes a lot to change my opinion.


I can't wait to get my hands on one

Chris

[Lamone]

2mm is nothing.

[travellingbrit]

Originally Posted by mike

I understand your thoughts however I think had Rolex used the 3186 in the 42MM case there might be more merit.

Since the 3187 movement is bigger (perhaps because of the shock absorption system) a bigger case is warranted.

Indeed one could argue it gives the EXP II the boost it needs to come out of the shadow of the GMT.

The history of the EXP II has been one of hard use--early Rolex adverts even refered to it as the "Hard Use" Rolex. The enhancements of the new version seem now to give it it's own arena.

Of couse all we can do is speculate untill they arrive in the system. Then the acid tests can begin.

Yeah....it's all speculation until is appears - can't wait to see how it actually looks/feels.

[dannyp]

Too big for me. I own the 40mm version and it's the largest watch I'd feel comfortable wearing.

Out of curiosity, what enhancements were made to the movement that warranted the increased size? Seems silly to me from an operations perspective to have two different movements that do the exact same thing (hours, minutes, seconds, date, 24-hour) as opposed to having a common movement as they have for years. Though I suppose they had both the GMT and GMT II for some time...

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Too big for me. I own the 40mm version and it's the largest watch I'd feel comfortable wearing.

Out of curiosity, what enhancements were made to the movement that warranted the increased size? Seems silly to me from an operations perspective to have two different movements that do the exact same thing (hours, minutes, seconds, date, 24-hour) as opposed to having a common movement as they have for years. Though I suppose they had both the GMT and GMT II for some time...

They're not saying much, but, if the movement is bigger as reports are saying, I wouldn't be surprised if it involved a larger balance wheel. Larger balance wheels give the watch more stability, and, in theory, more accuracy. I'm sure there will have been other tweaks as well, but I am certain that the size change was to mark it out as different, to give it its own niche. The movement was made to fit the watch, not the other way around, if you catch my drift

[Kapture1]

I don't see what the big deal is about an extra 2mm... Just an extra 2mm to love.

[CoopJr]

Very eagerly awaiting to see the black in the flesh.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by mfer

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.

x2

[LWRN]

Having loved Rolex for many years, without actually owing one, I feel that the new models are quite polarizing, hence the retro curmudgeons and the Modernista. For many the new models have the Too's. The EXP I hands are too short, IMO there fine as I can ascertain the time on them rather easily. The ceramics lugs are too big, to me they are just fine, differentiated it from the former, and don't hinder function. Now, the new EXP II is too big, and you know this how? I believe that many new converts to Rolex will opt for the newer models, because they're more modern, and for me finally justify their price. did anyone think Rolex would go another 50 years without enhancing design? Personally, I'm waiting to see what the new EXP II feels like, as the old did nothing for me, nor did the old sub/gmt, except in pictures, on the wrist they were a big disappointment.

[mjm800]

Originally Posted by LWRN

Personally, I'm waiting to see what the new EXP II feels like, as the old did nothing for me.

I agree and I cannot wait to own the new Exp II. It's different and will certainly stand out in my collection. I have a GMT and I saw no reason to buy and Exp II...until now.

[Speed]

+1!!!

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

They're not saying much, but, if the movement is bigger as reports are saying, I wouldn't be surprised if it involved a larger balance wheel. Larger balance wheels give the watch more stability, and, in theory, more accuracy. I'm sure there will have been other tweaks as well, but I am certain that the size change was to mark it out as different, to give it its own niche. The movement was made to fit the watch, not the other way around, if you catch my drift

That makes sense I suppose, but does anyone else think that the GMT IIc, the pilot's watch, is better suited to having its diameter increased than the Exp. II, the spelunker's watch? I mean think about it: for a pilot, the larger the dial the better (to a degree) because of legibility. To a cave diver, the less it sticks out and can get banged up, the better. Plus, the new GMT was designed for those who want a slightly flashier watch, what with the polished center links, ceramic bezel and green hand, so it would have made sense to make that the larger watch.

Or maybe I'm just mad that they ruined my Explorer... Oh well, as long as something keeps using a 3186 I can be assured that parts for mine will stick around for quite some time.

[Roxas]

I think Rolex is limiting their options. If the 3187 movement requires 42 mm+ case that means if they want to use 3187 movement in any models they would have no option but to use 42 mm+ case.

[Roxas]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

The movement was made to fit the watch, not the other way around

I hope so. I hope Rolex will not make GMT II have this movement.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by mike

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.

Bigger is better and in this case I think the dial will be bigger much like my Milgauss dial (and crown).

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Lamone

2mm is nothing.

The 2mm might seem like nothing but IMO it will represent a big increase in dial diameter considering the thinner bezel of the Explorer.

I am looking forward to adding this one to the team.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by mjm800

I agree and I cannot wait to own the new Exp II. It's different and will certainly stand out in my collection. I have a GMT and I saw no reason to buy and Exp II...until now.

Buy a ticket for the old model....NOW.

[Puffy]

It will look and feel bigger on the wrist, 2mm may sound like nothing but compare a Sub to a Seamaster and you'll notice the difference..

I can't wait to try on the 216570. bet it'll sing like a fat lady!!

[dalip]

The updates on the exp ii outweigh, IMO, those on the new SubC - and the sub feels considerably different to it's 16610 predecessor.

[beninn]

EXP II White is my everyday watch. It's just so subtle, light and comfortable.

I have the both white and black and other sport Rolex models, but this little white watch just wears so well in all conditions. I never worry when I work late in some dangerous factory areas in China where a lot of robbery.

I'm sure the New 42mm is awesome, but I will never trade my old EXP II.

[mickeydainish]

I cant wait to see it in person..... It is like the DSSD for me.... I didnt like it at first.... busy dial and the huge case... but once I popped it on my wrist at the AD (never took it home of course.... the missus was there to add sanity!!) it started to grow on me. I guess the 42mm Expy will be the same for me :-)

[Ceramic]

Wow ! Lots of answers to the cocern that I raised. Some tried to help me overcome my concern but most members are thinking same as me: Most of the members here think that Rolex is not producing nice watches anymore. Unfortunutely this it the summary.

I will wait a little bit and consider Daytona Ceramic if I can take the currency advantage on my side then I will buy a SS Ceramic Daytona.

I only can see the YG one at Rolex website. Will also SS Daytona with ceramic bezel come? Are there any photos ?

Cheers.

[JJ Irani]

Guys, guys........

Actually the increase is 3 mm - because the current model in actual reality is 39 mm and not 40 mm.

So hope you guys are happy with the 3 mm increament!!

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Guys, guys........

Actually the increase is 3 mm - because the current model in actual reality is 39 mm and not 40 mm.

So hope you guys are happy with the 3 mm increament!!

I remember you pointing this out before, though Rolex still lists the watch at 40mm on its website. Where was the source of the 39mm measurement? Did this watch measure 1mm less than the other previous generation Professional models because it was based on a different case, or because the bezel stuck off the edges less?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I remember you pointing this out before, though Rolex still lists the watch at 40mm on its website. Where was the source of the 39mm measurement? Did this watch measure 1mm less than the other previous generation Professional models because it was based on a different case, or because the bezel stuck off the edges less?

A former place where I worked happened to have a Vernier Caliper and I took the measurement of my Exp-II at the time - came up as 39 mm only.

Rolex merely puts it into the 40 mm category for the sake of convenience. The smaller fixed bezel makes the difference.

JJ

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

A former place where I worked happened to have a Vernier Caliper and I took the measurement of my Exp-II at the time - came up as 39 mm only.

Rolex merely puts it into the 40 mm category for the sake of convenience. The smaller fixed bezel makes the difference.

JJ

Makes sense. Part of me wonders whether they even measured it when it came out, forgetting that the bezel would make its overall diameter a bit smaller than the Sub/GMT!! Then, if and when they realized, they figured it would do much more harm than good for marketing/consistency purposes to correct the mistake.

This does explain why the new Exp. I looked so large on my wrist: It's the same diameter as my Exp. II but is much more "dial," hence its larger appearance.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by mike

Again I have to ask Why is it fashion??

A larger movement with a (supposedly) improved shock absorbing system that is too big for the 40MM case.

This in a watch whose heritage is one of testing the extremes. Seems that would be an improvement.

Is a Speedmaster fashion? It's been 42mm for a long time. Same with the PO and several others.

If these are such improvements, then why not apply them to the Sub and GMT IIc as well, thus increasing their size? The GMT could even use the exact same movement as the Exp. II the way it does now. This definitely feels more like an attempt to differentiate the Exp. II and try and help sluggish sales than anything else.