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

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by dannyp

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.

Of course it is. The Sub and GMT have absolutely slaughtered the Explorer II in terms of sales for the past 20 years, Rolex, by making it stand out from the rest of the range, is giving it a fighting chance

[JetRanger]

Originally Posted by Ceramic

...will 42mm diameter case Exlorer II be noticable bigger than 40mm ones? Or will it be nearly impossible to notice the bigger size comparing to 40mm ones?

Remember back to high school Geometry: The Area of a circle goes up by the square of its radius, so a relatively modest increase in the linear dimension of the diameter of a circle results in a noticeably larger increase in its surface area (Area of Circle = Pi x r SQ'ed). What your human eye notices is the AREA of the watch face, more so than the increase in its linear dimension.

Therefore, YES, the new Explorer looks WAY huger than the old model!

Young folks these days are wearing bigger and bigger jewelry, a trend that I think is really awesome! I'm glad to see that Rolex is responding in kind, in an attempt to keep up with the latest trends/styles of the day. Rolex remains very conservative in their current watch designs, yet they are being extremely smart to pay close attention to what the under 30 folks value, which in today's jewelry world is SIZE DOES matter!

[paddy_crow]

The Sub and GMT have absolutely slaughtered the Explorer II in terms of sales for the past 20 years

One of the reasons I was attracted to the Exp II.

[fogarata]

This could be the size difference, assuming the center link has the same width in both models:


By fogarata

[yachty 1]

They just updated the gmt 2 so i highly doubt they will change for 20 years....lol But the gmt 2c wears bigger then any rolex I have owned..It feels so much bigger then my yacht master

[Saxon007]

I have had a 42mm watch and tried on quite a few others.

I won't be buying one.

[DCgator]

Originally Posted by tomchicago

42 is very big for a rolex. Will have to try this one in person. I am concerned it will not be wearable to the office without looking punkish.

I own a Deepsea, which is 43mm, and it's not that big at all. I think the new EXPII in 42mm is good and would set it apart from the GMTc imo. And having that clean white dial makes it all the more desirable. I am buying one in the next two years. :D

[Ducky]

I think the new Exp II is a BBW*! Pretty soon there will be WTB posts titled "ISO BBW..."


*BBW = Big Beautiful Watch...yes, pun intended

[nodatalog]

Originally Posted by JetRanger

which in today's jewelry world is SIZE DOES matter!

not only in the jewelry world ;)

[capote]

I tried on 42 mm PO and it wore very large IMO, but like some has pointed out it could vary from watch to watch.

Off topic:I think its kinda neat that Rolex has changed the bezel font for every update of the EXP2. I really like the 16550 one. Has this been the case for the GMT (not including the ceramic one for obvious reasons)?

[cosmo809]

from a link posted on another site (that got deleted)...........
http://eye-eye-isuzu.com/weblog/watc...l-2011-part-3/

I realize that photography plays a big role in distortion, but from what I see, despite really liking the release images and wanting it, I am going to pass.

Cheers.

Am fast becoming what many members refer to here as a "Lug Hole Loyalist".

[Roxas]

Originally Posted by dannyp

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.

I don't think so. I think they do that only for convenience and/or marketing purpose. There are many models that the size doesn't correct like Daytona, GMT IIc, Yacht-Master and Deepsea.

[tomchicago]

it's a BIIIIIG watch, no way around it. gotta try it on for yourself, but probably outside the realm of business dress.

[TheWatchFiend]

Originally Posted by George Ab

As discussed, there are other factors: minor movement enhancement, new style bracelet,a and case size.

For me this is not about size....... although size matters. It is about proportion! The modern sport model Rolex has embraced the supercase with the fat lugs. The case does not look proportioned to my eye; therefore, as much as I have tried I have not kept any of the new styled Rolex - Rolex GMT IIc and Sub-c. Now with the new Exp II the fat lugs looked proportioned with the larger diameter case. To my eye it no longer looks like I have a brick on my wrist.... it looks like a watch.

I agree. If you're going to increase the lugs, you probably need to increase the diameter to match the proportions. From looking at pictures of this watch, it looks more well proportioned than the Sub C with it's "squarish case appearance." I have small wrists and can pull off most 42mm watches that I have tried on. I have one watch that is 43mm, and for me, it's a big watch, but still is wearable. I'm really liking the looks of this new Explorer. I'm going to need to try one on and reconsider my next watch purchase.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Ducky

I think the new Exp II is a BBW*! Pretty soon there will be WTB posts titled "ISO BBW..."


*BBW = Big Beautiful Watch...yes, pun intended

Then maybe after a few beers the new Exp. II will look good enough to take home with me .

[dsio]

Really don't think 42mm is big or a problem at all, as has been mentioned many times in this thread, nobody puts on a Speedmaster and says "wow that's huge". The shock absorbing system and larger case make sense, especially if they want to bring it out of the GMT's shadow and classify it as more of an "out there" extreme sports / activity watch.

It sets a distrinction:

If you wear a suit, buy the GMT
If you wear a harness, buy the EXP2

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Then maybe after a few beers the new Exp. II will look good enough to take home with me .

Everyone should have a few before heading down to their AD to look at the BBW!

[htc8p]

the 3187 movement is baloney. nothing to be excited about. its just to make a bigger watch.

but a 42mm watch is ok everybody makes them. its just that rolex has never given in to such fads. but wont it dilute rolex's hard as a rock stand?

if you cant beat em join em

[dsio]

Originally Posted by htc8p

the 3187 movement is baloney. nothing to be excited about. its just to make a bigger watch.

but a 42mm watch is ok everybody makes them. its just that rolex has never given in to such fads. but wont it dilute rolex's hard as a rock stand?

if you cant beat em join em

If its a fad, its a fad that's been around for half a century.

[vsighi]

...42mm it will be big for guys under 6' tall. I see some of the Sub pictures on you guys that it look big...Your built will say everything...I own a Sub and a DSSD and I think for me a 42mm will be perfect...

[dsio]

Originally Posted by vsighi

...42mm it will be big for guys under 6' tall. I see some of the Sub pictures on you guys that it look big...Your built will say everything...I own a Sub and a DSSD and I think for me a 42mm will be perfect...

Charlise Theron rocks a DSSD. If she can make 43mm look good, I'm sure we can all make 42mm look passable ;)

[fc3s2k]

this is a tough one. I learn my lesson with the SUB C, didn't like it till I saw it in the flesh. So I will wait to see it or feel it then make a decision.

[Cru Jones]

SS bezel (i.e., different color than dial) + non-supercase lugs will probably make the watch look about the same as the matching shiny black bezel/black dial + fat supercase lugs of the subC & gmtIIc. in other words, the extra 2mm will probably just result in the new explorer II having the same visual "presence" of the subC and gmtIIc.

[superdog]

evolve or die really. rolex is way smart to increase the size. the older guys that want the smaller watches already have theirs. they need to sell to the new crop. that said, if it was fashion they would be making their watches 45+mm. this is a smart move and the only reason i am now buying rolex watches. i just bought the new sub and i am saving up so that i can buy this explorer the moment i get my hands on it.

i always loved the style of rolex, but they were just too small. now they are just about perfect as far as i can tell. when and if i can, i will get the new gmt too.

[Mickey®]

It's all about your wrist size...
As someone else said the thickness is what I am waiting to see in person...
40mm is a classic size IMO.

[Mickey®]

Originally Posted by fc3s2k

this is a tough one. I learn my lesson with the SUB C, didn't like it till I saw it in the flesh. So I will wait to see it or feel it then make a decision.

+1.
I loved the SubC in photos but on the wrist...No Flow...

[labossfan]

i own it.

its big and badass.

[slcbbrown]

Originally Posted by Ceramic

Hi guys,

I liked the look of the new Exlorer II from official Rolex website, only point that put me off was the diameter.

Why they use bigger deal with a white dial watch I really do not understand.

So, will 42mm diameter case Exlorer II be noticable bigger than 40mm ones? Or will it be nearly impossible to notice the bigger size comparing to 40mm ones?

Best thing is to wait and visit the AD for a try and see how it goes, but I like to see your ideas as it will be a long wait to see new Explorer II around.

Cheers.

As far as I know, Rolex didn't do anything to the 42mm Exp to make it better, other than the size. I'm a big fan of the EXP II at the old size.

To me, larger watches are strictly a fashion thing (not a bad thing), unless the watchmaker uses the extra size to make the watch tougher, more complicated, etc. In this case, Rolex has basically stuck the same movement in a larger case, and I don't think any "problems" were solved. If you want a bigger watch, get the 42mm. Otherwise, 39-40mm is great.

[capote]

42 mm = fashion, 39 mm = a very nice proportial case

[esm]

Originally Posted by slcbbrown

As far as I know, Rolex didn't do anything to the 42mm Exp to make it better, other than the size. I'm a big fan of the EXP II at the old size.

To me, larger watches are strictly a fashion thing (not a bad thing), unless the watchmaker uses the extra size to make the watch tougher, more complicated, etc. In this case, Rolex has basically stuck the same movement in a larger case, and I don't think any "problems" were solved. If you want a bigger watch, get the 42mm. Otherwise, 39-40mm is great.

There is a new movement in the 216570... No?!?