Am I the only one who thinks 16570 looks better than 216570??

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by 1William

I prefer the 42 mm version. I like the size, fit and look better. Personal preference. No issues with the five digit but it is just not for me. I like the 42 mm version so much I bought both.

Right there with you, brother.

Originally Posted by 77T

I think you would’ve decried the Expl. II 1665, too...

The original source for today’s prominent 24-hr hand:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Love the 1655, IMO the best looking of all the EXP2 references.

That said, since it's not coming back anytime soon, I see the 216570 as the next best thing.

[ChipotleBanana]

I think the 216570 is like the F650 with 35 inch wheels and a 10 inch lift. It looks obnoxiously oversized for no reason whatsoever. The 16570 is one of my favorite dial configurations of any watch in the last 50 years.

[lmmrf]

I remember being really excited for the unveiling of the 216570 back in the day - I was always a fan of the 5-digit Explorer II and it was one of the last of the sports models to get a 6-digit update. Sadly, the changes Rolex made were pretty extreme and to me they make the watch totally unappealing. Of course, some people prefer it to the old Explorer II, which is fine. It's a matter of personal preference.

Edit: FWIW, to my mind they could fix the watch entirely by doing the following: (1) Size down to 40mm case. (2) Reduce size of hands to something resembling those used on the ceramic Sub or GMT. That's all. I'm fine with the bezel font and the orange GMT hand. I think my described version of the 216570 would have been a more gentle update of the prior version and I'd be excited to buy one.

[jb335]

I much prefer the 16570

Don't even care for the 42mm version

[jaisonline]

100% spot on. The red GMT hand is just icing on the cake.

Originally Posted by BillA

Love, love, love my 16570
I think the 40mm is the perfect size.
Both polar and black dial is very cool.
To me it has a classic/retro look and a modern look, but not over the top.

[sillo]

Definitely not the only one. I like the 16570 much more, but I do like the 216750.

[schuverde]

I've been wearing the black 216570 for 2 years now. I also own a white 16570. If I go back and wear the 40mm watch it seems ridiculously small. And the bracelet fit and feel is nothing like the preferred bracelet of the 216570. I'd love to fall in love again with my 16570, but I'm more apt to add a polar 216570 instead.

[landroverking]

No. I
Prefer the 40mm models.

[ckelly17]

I'm a 216570 guy, but some days I wish it were 40 mm instead of 42...

[Manu77]

I like the 16570 much more, I don't like 216750.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by 77T

I think you would’ve decried the Expl. II 1665, too...

The original source for today’s prominent 24-hr hand:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by pepsiretail

I'm sure you meant the 1655

Whatever you want to call it, that’s a beauty

[chris242]

have both, the 5 digit might be on its way out though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[razzz]

I have skinnier wrists and prefer thin, sub 40mm watches, so I went with the 16570.

I added the Glidelock bracelet as well. I was nervous because I thought the solid links and milled clasp would ruin the svelteness of the watch, which was one of my favorite features. In fact, it balanced out the relatively heavier case and coupled with the adjustability of the Glidelock it sits on my wrist perfectly. I usually forget I'm wearing it.

Definitely an upgrade worth considering.

[collarcity]

I don't have the wrist for the supercase. And that's fine with me.

[mineral]

Originally Posted by collarcity

I don't have the wrist for the supercase. And that's fine with me.

Really look good with that jubilee bracelet combo . Thanks for sharing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RTG]

Originally Posted by Rollied

Especially the black face models, that fat, stubby hour hand just KILLS me!

Lucky for you the old version is still available at a fair price. Great watch but was never a terrific seller.

Personally I love the 42mm. The 215670 is perfect on my wrist. Better size, better look and greatly improved legibility than the 40mm.

[thekman]

Agreed. To me the polar 16570 is the perfect 5 digit Rolex. I do not like the 216570.

[SS Oyster]

Yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[taylor2000]

5 digit. I've had the super jubilee on my 16570 for a month now. Like it, but I'm going back to the oyster. I'd post a picture, but I guess I need 10 posts before I can.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[MCO1]

The black 216570 has been really catching my eye lately. I had a 16570 polar at one time but let it go, i just never totally connected with it. I would like to try one at but good luck with that in this day and age.

[taylor2000]

5 digit for me. I'd post a picture, but I don't meet the minimums over here. Have it on a super jubilee right now, but going back to the oyster this week.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Geelerald]

Wore a DJ for 20 years and then I saw the polar 16570 and had to have it. Tried the 6 digit on and it was too big for my wrist. I love my 5 digit polar. To each his own.

[Fort Rolex]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder with every watch. To my eyes, 216570 and it’s not close but I can totally understand the inverse

[GradyPhilpott]

[Oldfellow]

[Oldfellow]

.

[SearChart]

16570 is perfect

[Oldfellow]

I think it is perfect too.

[jimmytamp]

Cheers....






https://www.instagram.com/fliegerb777/

[Kenny Powers]

Originally Posted by Oldfellow

I think it is perfect too.

Wow. I knew that the 216570 was bigger than the 16570, but I didn't know it was THAT much bigger.