Explorer II: 216570 vs. 16570

[sickened1]

They're both great watches. I just prefer the smaller 40mm one... but that's just me.

[mps354]

I much prefer the 16570...better proportions IMO.

[Jlsd]

I hated the Explorer II. Last year its traten growing on me and I bought my first 16570 with a polar face (cal 3185). I loved it but kept looking at the 216570 so a few months later flipped or for the newer and larger 216570 with a polar face as well (cal 3187). However, just a few weeks later I flipped an Explorer 1 for another 16570 this time with a black face (cal 3186).

I can now assure that I went from hate to love in 10 months, and the more I wear them, the more I like them.

16570 is my weekday choice as it wears great with suit and jeans. 216570 is for the weekends with shorts and T shirt!

[wdin]

Originally Posted by CDNWatchNut

I actually feel the opposite, preferring the 16570 Polar. Both have their appeal to different tastes!

im with you on this

[Jlsd]

This is the 216570

[Jlsd]

And again a 16570

[omitohud]

Originally Posted by Jason71

I just can't do the 42mm size. I really like the look of the newer model, but nothing over 40mm for me anymore.

Hey i wore the same outfit over the halloween. 👍

Im sure the result will b much different over at vintage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cenzor]

This ! :-)

[MP5]

Originally Posted by steve.r

I wish some of you would get off your horse about the larger hands on the 216570 being "comical" what's the joke then if you keep saying this? Do you find my loss of eye focusing power to be comical too?

Why can't you just appreciate that different people prefer different looks. No need to make such comments. If you don't like it, better not say anything.

Comic sans, some people like clowns

[adamlea]

The 216570. In black. Extremely legible. Innovative & superior movement. A nod to the 1655. Probably one of only two true tool watches in the current Rolex line-up - the other being the Explorer I. The thicker hands augment the 42mm maxi dial well - narrow hands wouldn't work on the larger dial. Understated. I'm not one of 10 guys in the room wearing one. Suffice it to say, I like mine.

[capote]

I prefer all 5 digits to their 6 digits counterparts.

[Old Expat Beast]

.

[Explorador]

I find the proportions of the 16570 more classy.

[DocJekl]

My first Explorer II was a 1993 "S" serial Polar 16570, but I thought I liked the new Polar 216570 better, so I traded for the new model two weeks ago and instantly missed the old model.

So I bought the 16570 back the next day, but I couldn't bring myself to return the 216570, even though they could order a GMT Master II BLNR for me within a week. I already have a mint 14 year old GMT Master II Coke Bezel, so a new GMT II can wait while I save up for the next one.

It's strange how I like the idea of owning the newest Explorer II, GMT II, and Submariner, but yet I can't bring myself to sell off my older ones to do it. So, I'll likely keep them and start building my new collection in parallel to the old. Exp II first, then GMT II, then maybe another Submariner (and give my 1983 Sub to my son for graduation). I'm not that interested in the other models.

I might still sell the 16570 or 16800 here someday, and use the $$ towards the GMT II BLNR, but those two have been rotated with my orange bezel Planet Ocean as my daily watch for months now. They've become a part of who I am, and they feel comfortable to me.

I also feel like less of a show-off when I wear my 20 and 30 year old Rolexes vs a new one. A new Rolex says that I've only had good taste for the 1-2 years since it was released, while an old one says I don't care what the posers think.

[Psmith]

I've had both - 216570 for me, by a mile

[1William]

I prefer the 216570. The size, face and hands do it for me.

[broulstone]

Smaller for me too.

[subtona]

Both great in either black or white.

Although I love the orange hand,
I chose the 40mm polar version.


As the OP mentioned the fat hands of the modern version, that is actually the 1st thing I would tweak if it were possible.

[Im Lauf der Zeit]

Great to see strong feelings on both sides of this discussion--whichever you like, the oft-neglected Explorer 2's are getting the attention they deserve.

[floater156]

I own the 216570 black and love it. I find it interesting that most people who post chose the polar.

[Gerardus]

I like both, but prefer the 40mm old model.

[jbsmith]

Never considered an ExpII, until the 42mm polar with orange hand was released. It was love at first sight. I'm not a fan of the red hand, smaller size, and bracelet/clasp of older model.

[jamesbondOO7]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Prefer the 16570. The shiny black hands on the polar 216570 look plastic to me, and whole watch is too clunky. (IMO).

[macRam]

Originally Posted by Tri-Tip

Am I the only one who loves the Explorer II with the Polar Face, but only the new 216570? I think it's something about the fat hands that do it.

The 16570 does absolutely nothing for me.

Curious how others feel.

No, I feel the same way.

[judson]

I wore my black 16570 today to work and enjoyed it immensely. I can see how those who can pull off a bigger watch would like the 216570, but for me, I prefer what I have.

[mrd]

I love my 216570 black dial but can see how the polar face is attractive too. hmm, maybe I should get a polar face for my next Rolex to go with my black dial.

[Al1969]

I also had the 16570 polar. Flipped it towards another watch and then picked this up.

[SL BRABUS]

This.....^^^.....

Good luck with your choice......

[JayAK]

I prefer the 216570 in black.

[Explorador]

Originally Posted by SL BRABUS

This.....^^^.....

Good luck with your choice......

Nice pic!!