ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

nikhsub1 · 27 September 2013, 09:55 AM

I've had both... the polar 42 is da bomb

luvsub · 27 September 2013, 10:02 AM

42mm

Jim300186 · 27 September 2013, 10:06 AM

The newer bracelet and clasp is better but I went for the 40mm when faced with both in the dealer prefer the red 24 hr hand and in my opinion it just looks better.

dalip · 27 September 2013, 10:29 AM

42 for me ...

FeelingTheBlues · 27 September 2013, 10:30 AM

I prefer the 40mm version.

Savio · 27 September 2013, 02:24 PM

I vote for 42 . Love the maxi dial , orange hand and bolder number

feckman · 28 September 2013, 02:12 AM

I just recently got into Rolexes and picked up a 40mm GMT Master IIc and a 42mm polar Explorer II. For me, they are a perfect compliment to each other. The 40mm GMT wears "bigger" because the black ceramic bezel seems to extend the dial and make the watch look larger. The 42mm polar EXPII wears just about perfectly for a white-faced watch.

I also tried on a polar 40mm Explorer and found it underwhelming when compared to the other two. Unfortunately, I did not have access to compare a black dial 40mm at the same time.

TimeOnMyHands · 29 September 2013, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan4305

I like the oysters on your grill better. :)

I really like the new 42" , but that is partly due to the newer movement.

Well I love oysters as well, freshly shucked, topped with fresh black bean, thinly sliced green onion and some garlic chili - slowly roasted..

Rags · 29 September 2013, 08:46 AM

The 40mm would be my choice..I have one 42mm watch but I prefer 40mm .

lsettle · 29 September 2013, 09:23 AM

Every time I wear my black 40mm, I fall in love.

Lawrence

casa · 29 September 2013, 11:43 AM

I also asked myself this question; I tried on a white 42mm and found it looked rather large on my 6.5in wrist. The black 42 actually looked better in terms of size and fit but as I wanted a white faced watch I opted for the 40mm and have been very happy with my choice. It fits better under long sleeves and although it is white faced I default to it for dressier occasions rather than to my sub, but it looks just as good with jeans and a sweater too.

Beef · 29 September 2013, 11:54 AM

Depends on your wrist size. The greatest disappointment to me with the new Exp II was the 42mm size. I rarely wear mine. I wear my 1655 much more, although I like the face on the 42mm better, the 1655 and 16570s wear much more comfortably.

slim4511 · 29 September 2013, 01:04 PM

40mm Polar for me in BIG way.

soaking.fused · 29 September 2013, 01:20 PM

I like both models. Have owned the 40 and tried the 42 several times. I like the new Polar 42 a great bit.

Chaching · 29 September 2013, 01:29 PM

42mm for me!

Explorer 22.jpg

nikanarani · 29 September 2013, 02:58 PM

You have to try both on. And one will speak back to you.

Singslinger · 29 September 2013, 05:29 PM

42 for sure. Sold my 40mm and bought the 42mm version. So much happier.

Archduke · 29 September 2013, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stockae92

If this is your first Exp II, then go with 40mm.

The new 42mm is "do-able", but the 40mm is really the perfect size.

This - with the black dial!

submariner123 · 29 September 2013, 10:10 PM

42mm for me. Want a white one badly.

Cc1966 · 29 September 2013, 10:31 PM

The 40mm Explorer II is a joy to wear. Try them on, you will feel the difference.

jsg · 29 September 2013, 10:40 PM

I tried both. 42 mm is a nice watch ,"bolder" but just too big. So I opted for the 40 mm, its such a classic , perfectly proportioned and very comfortable to wear.

subtona · 29 September 2013, 11:02 PM

40 just made it the perfect travel size & under the radar
(although the other day i got called out on it in a seedy park, by a native bad guy... I was wearing it on a zulu & had it turned inside on my wrist)...

If your looking for more of a dress watch/bolder, notice me watch (in a good way) the 42mm is your choice,

once upon a time, i could have been a 1 watch guy w the 42mm.

GEO_79 · 30 September 2013, 12:14 AM

My wrist is skinny and I still believe that the 40mm exp ii is to small. I bought the 42mm exp polar. 42mm is the right size IMO

Roller07 · 30 September 2013, 12:19 AM

40mm for me. I like the second time zone red hand and 42mm is just not to my liking. It's too big.

mvmbles · 30 September 2013, 04:12 AM

I prefer the aesthetics of the 42mm, but the case and dial size of the 40.

AK797 · 30 September 2013, 04:14 AM

42mm but in black dial, as the white wears bigger like a 43mm.

strafer_kid · 30 September 2013, 04:16 AM

New 42mm is a beauty but it goes wear bigger compared to my other Rolex sports.

subtona · 30 September 2013, 11:03 AM

Todays strap change

bradiowausa · 30 September 2013, 11:55 AM

40 mm would be my preference

BBQ BOY · 30 September 2013, 12:07 PM

I like the 42mm the most, but just wish it wore like a true 42mm, not like a 44mm.

27 September 2013, 10:29 AM	#64
dalip "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Dalip Location: Mumbai and Perth Watch: Rolex PAM Omega Posts: 18,656	42 for me ... __________________ ------------------------------------------------------------ *"The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." George Bernard Shaw*

27 September 2013, 10:30 AM	#65
FeelingTheBlues "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: Carl Location: Always moving Watch: If you wish... Posts: 22,039	I prefer the 40mm version. __________________ Mon corps c'est un pays en guerre sur l'point d'finir, Le général de l'armée de terre s'attend au pire, J'ai faim, j'ai frette, je suis trop faible pour me lever debout, On va hisser le drapeau blanc un point c'est tout. - André Fortin

29 September 2013, 08:46 AM	#69
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,183	The 40mm would be my choice..I have one 42mm watch but I prefer 40mm . __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

29 September 2013, 01:04 PM	#73
slim4511 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Detroit Posts: 484	40mm Polar for me in BIG way. __________________ GMT IIc, Exp II, Speedy Pro If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.

29 September 2013, 10:31 PM	#80
Cc1966 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Real Name: Christopher Location: Georgia, USA Watch: ing the Sea... Posts: 6,713	The 40mm Explorer II is a joy to wear. Try them on, you will feel the difference. __________________ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way." Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 "*Curmudgeons* " Favorites: 1665 SD, Sub Date, DSSD, Exp II, Sub LV, GMTIIc

27 September 2013, 09:55 AM	#61
nikhsub1 Server Advisor Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: LA & NY Watch: 16610LV Posts: 1,117	I've had both... the polar 42 is da bomb

27 September 2013, 10:02 AM	#62
luvsub 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: SF, south bay Posts: 5,179	42mm

27 September 2013, 10:06 AM	#63
Jim300186 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Real Name: Jamie Location: Alloa, Scotland Watch: SS Daytona Posts: 219	The newer bracelet and clasp is better but I went for the 40mm when faced with both in the dealer prefer the red 24 hr hand and in my opinion it just looks better.

27 September 2013, 02:24 PM	#66
Savio Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Indonesia Posts: 42	I vote for 42 . Love the maxi dial , orange hand and bolder number

28 September 2013, 02:12 AM	#67
feckman "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Upstate, NY Posts: 5	I just recently got into Rolexes and picked up a 40mm GMT Master IIc and a 42mm polar Explorer II. For me, they are a perfect compliment to each other. The 40mm GMT wears "bigger" because the black ceramic bezel seems to extend the dial and make the watch look larger. The 42mm polar EXPII wears just about perfectly for a white-faced watch. I also tried on a polar 40mm Explorer and found it underwhelming when compared to the other two. Unfortunately, I did not have access to compare a black dial 40mm at the same time.

29 September 2013, 09:23 AM	#70
lsettle "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Lawrence Location: Canada Watch: 16570/14060/3570.5 Posts: 653	Every time I wear my black 40mm, I fall in love. Lawrence

29 September 2013, 11:43 AM	#71
casa "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: Carlos Location: Manila Watch: 116610ln Posts: 94	I also asked myself this question; I tried on a white 42mm and found it looked rather large on my 6.5in wrist. The black 42 actually looked better in terms of size and fit but as I wanted a white faced watch I opted for the 40mm and have been very happy with my choice. It fits better under long sleeves and although it is white faced I default to it for dressier occasions rather than to my sub, but it looks just as good with jeans and a sweater too.

29 September 2013, 01:20 PM	#74
soaking.fused "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Ohio Watch: GMT Posts: 54	I like both models. Have owned the 40 and tried the 42 several times. I like the new Polar 42 a great bit.

29 September 2013, 01:29 PM	#75
Chaching "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: None of ya #@! Location: Somewhere Watch: Many! 116718 GOLD Posts: 2,137	42mm for me! Explorer 22.jpg

29 September 2013, 02:58 PM	#76
nikanarani "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Bombay Watch: is on my wrist Posts: 315	You have to try both on. And one will speak back to you.

29 September 2013, 05:29 PM	#77
Singslinger "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: singapore Posts: 6,424	42 for sure. Sold my 40mm and bought the 42mm version. So much happier.

29 September 2013, 10:10 PM	#79
submariner123 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Real Name: Thomas Location: England Watch: 116610LN Posts: 643	42mm for me. Want a white one badly.

29 September 2013, 10:40 PM	#81
jsg "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: J. Location: North east USA Watch: Rolex, PAM, Omega Posts: 581	I tried both. 42 mm is a nice watch ,"bolder" but just too big. So I opted for the 40 mm, its such a classic , perfectly proportioned and very comfortable to wear.

30 September 2013, 12:14 AM	#83
GEO_79 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Real Name: Georgian Location: Constanta_Romania Watch: 216570 Polar Posts: 904	My wrist is skinny and I still believe that the 40mm exp ii is to small. I bought the 42mm exp polar. 42mm is the right size IMO

30 September 2013, 12:19 AM	#84
Roller07 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: GMT -5 Watch: HulkPepsiCoke Posts: 2,364	40mm for me. I like the second time zone red hand and 42mm is just not to my liking. It's too big.

30 September 2013, 04:12 AM	#85
mvmbles "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Nick Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 759	I prefer the aesthetics of the 42mm, but the case and dial size of the 40.

30 September 2013, 04:14 AM	#86
AK797 Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Neil Location: UK Watch: ing ships roll in Posts: 59,278	42mm but in black dial, as the white wears bigger like a 43mm.

30 September 2013, 04:16 AM	#87
strafer_kid "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Kenny Location: northern ireland Watch: SDs, Subs & GMTs Posts: 5,127	New 42mm is a beauty but it goes wear bigger compared to my other Rolex sports.

30 September 2013, 11:55 AM	#89
bradiowausa "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Brad Location: Iowa Watch: Air-King Posts: 625	40 mm would be my preference

30 September 2013, 12:07 PM	#90
BBQ BOY "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: South Carolina Posts: 512	I like the 42mm the most, but just wish it wore like a true 42mm, not like a 44mm.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)