What I like (and don't like) about my 216570 Explorer II

[gregvisser]

Just about a week ago now, I gained custodianship of a used but good as new 216570 Polar Explorer II. To give it some context, the other watches that currently get wrist time are my Sub C and a Pam 190.

Here's what I like about it:
+ Large, very readible, uncluttered 42 mm face
+ Bold orange hand
+ Great lume - possibly due to the amount
+ Extremely accurate - lets call it less than +0.5 sec per day on average
+ Nicely shaped case with sharp lugs
+ Practical brushed finished
+ Great clasp (size wise)
+ Setting GMT hand and adjusting for timezones is very easy
+ Finish is superb. Hands are perfect, lume is applied evenly all over the watch. Hands line up like they should.

Here is what Rolex could have done better:
- Date is only visible when you look at it dead on. The love-hate cyclops totally obscures it from most angles. Perhaps an answer here is to go larger on the date and drop the cyclops since there is a lot of realestate here, but it would lose some Rolex DNA in the process.
- Radially brushed bezel is a scratch magnet. Maybe a better answer may have been to circumferentially brush like the Pam divers. All my scratches/marks seem to be circumferential. But I suspect it may be harder to refinish when brushed this way.
- Crown is a little bit too small. Another 0.5-1 mm would have been nice for those of us with large fingers. Downside would be that it would stick out more and dig into your wrist.
- Where is the glidelock clasp? I do like the smaller clasp of the Explorer better than the larger clasp of the Sub, but maybe a smaller clasp with glidelock would have been first prize as a compromise. In saying this, I rarely use my Sub glidelock and the Explorer fits me very nicely thank you.

In saying all this, since I've had this watch, the Sub is not getting much wrist time. The Explorer is just as tough, slightly dressier, easy to read and wears just as comfortable. Yes, I listed many so called 'improvements', but depending on your convictions, they are all double edged swords: Sure, lose the cyclops and you can see the date better, but you lose the DNA. Go larger on the crown and you can grasp it better, but it ruins the lines and digs into your wrist. Etc etc.

I would buy this watch again in a heartbeat. Straight up, for me, the Explorer II is a better 'you can only have 1 watch' than the Sub C. This statement is not meant to diminish the Sub C at all. The Sub is pure Rolex and every multi watch collection should have one.

I guess what I am saying is you really want an Explorer II and you need a Sub C.

Greg

Here are the obligatory pics that need to come with every review:

[SPG8]

Thanks for your interesting post. It's always interesting to hear different observations and points of view.

While I have the previous model Polar Explorer II, I think your comments about possible "improvements" are best considered in the context of the Explorer II's own specific segment.

My view (and I should say that I also have a Submariner, Explorer 39mm, Day-Date and Date-Just) is that we need to remember that the Explorer II is not intended to be a diving watch; for Rolex that is the domain of the Submariner and Sea Dweller models.

Yes, I do share your frustration with the bezel being something of a "scratch magnet". But I think any owner prefers its more readily refinished characteristic. And wearing mine right now as I type, from a design perspective it seems more logical that the brushed finish follow the direction of the case/band at 12 and 6 o'clock.

I also share your view that the crown could do with some small increase in size. In this case I would rather have seen it be increased in size in proportion to the case size increase and the broader hands. But, I certainly would not like to see it get near the size of the Submariner crown, because that would upset the more streamlined profile of the Explorer II.

And, yes the cyclops does have its disadvantages like you say, but I also like it. I have even wondered if the factory set mine a few degrees out because as I look over it I occasionally see more of the dial than the date. But I don't see a practical solution and certainly would not like to see it go (the Sea Dweller's exclusion of the cyclops is only due to water pressure strength issues).

What drew me like a magnet to the Explorer II when I first saw one were:
- the more elegant (lower) profile of the case (in line with its 100m waterproof specification) than the Submariner I already owned.

- the less prominent bezel in steel with black markings as a more natural extension of the case and band.

- the simpler bracelet clasp making it more of an every-day wearer rather than being fitted with a diving clasp with wetsuit expander.

While I am certainly not an "explorer", I was a traveller (so 2 time zones was a bonus); I desired something that was more discrete and easier to wear than a diving watch (and my Submariner) and it was designed/engineered to be robust for outdoor recreational activities.

The polar dial version of the Explorer II was and still is the perfect "tool watch" for me because it does everything promised as near perfectly as possible and I can even wear it with a business suit without drawing undesirable attention to it (or me) and avoid catching my shirt sleeve on it as can happen with my Submariner.

Now I am fighting the temptation of "upgrading" to the new version. I like the return to its legacy use of orange and more distinctive "arrow" head on the 24 hr hand. But I am a little concerned about the 42mm case and just hope Rolex is not being too tempted by the "big watch" fads of today.

Cheers.

[8675309]

Thanks for your thoughts on the 216570. My first and only Rolex is the previous Exp II P, and I am also fighting the temptation to upgrade. The reason for not pulling the trigger is most here on TRF state they wish they still had or they would never sell/flip their first Rolex, and I'm also starting to get sentimentally attached to my 16570P. Part of me thinks I should get the new one, and keep the old to see what gets more wrist time, but that would tie up a lot of $$$ that could go towards something else. Decisions, decisions!!! Spending any amount of time around here doesn't help!

[kymwatchlog]

The 216570 is a fantastic watch! I love mine except it got a scar on the bezel :( from wearing. Heart pain but still I love this baby.

When i look at the crown from behind (ie caseback facing me), i noticed the crown does not look to have screwed down all the way, there is this little gap there even though the crown has been screwed down competely. At first i thought it was a service issue but when i visited an AD random and ask to see the 216570, i noticed this "gap" between crown and case as well.

Anyone has this same observation?

[gregvisser]

Originally Posted by kymwatchlog

there is this little gap there even though the crown has been screwed down competely.

I too have the gap. I noticed it as well and compared it with another Polar at the AD. It too has the gap. I've had a swim with mine and it didn't leak. So all good.

Greg

[Psmith]

Nice assessment (& pics!) Greg

As you know, I had a black dial 216570 and it was also very accurate (-0.02/day averaged over a month)

I was ok about the crown. Triplock would have been better, but then the oh-so nice proportions may have been thrown out. Truth is, it does feel a tad weedy on an otherwise pleasingly chunky 42 mm tough, outdoorsy watch

Agree about the clasp - Rolex should have rolled out Glidelock across the sport line. Diver's extensions are just that - the Glidelock on-the-fly adjustment is something else again, and much more useful than the Easylink

About the black dial - it was not quite matte enough for my liking and I found myself missing the more usual glossy black. A truly flat matte finish would be better, along with better-resolved finishes for the hour markers and hands. The mix of satin/matte, gloss and WG finishes does not really gel imho.

If I get another 216570 it will be a white dial. My only real niggle is that the dial printing is a little faint compared with the black dial

[gregvisser]

All good comments Clive - as usual. The polar is more readable (to my eyes anyway) than the noir. I must admit, I haven't had a look at the print issue, so can't say it has bothered me, but I will check that out compared to the Sub.

I still haven't picked the sub back up. In fact, it is sitting on the shelve, wound down, looking pretty lonely at the moment....

Greg

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by gregvisser

All good comments Clive - as usual. The polar is more readable (to my eyes anyway) than the noir. I must admit, I haven't had a look at the print issue, so can't say it has bothered me, but I will check that out compared to the Sub.

I still haven't picked the sub back up. In fact, it is sitting on the shelve, wound down, looking pretty lonely at the moment....

Greg

Thanks Greg. It's only a little niggle. The printing is quite embossed on the black dial. The orange 'Explorer II' text is more subdued on a white background, but this is a very minor thing

Something I've learnt over the years is that there is no such thing as the perfect watch, although some come tantalisingly close

[kymwatchlog]

Originally Posted by gregvisser

I too have the gap. I noticed it as well and compared it with another Polar at the AD. It too has the gap. I've had a swim with mine and it didn't leak. So all good.

Greg

thanks!

[sea-dweller]

Good review and post! Nice Explorer also!

[drhanson]

Great review Greg! I entirely agree with your assessment of the Cyclops, I've found that issue is not limited to the Explorer II but all Rolex models with the Cyclops. I struggle to turn my wrist to its absolute limit to actually read the date. Most people probably won't have as big of a problem as I do though; I've broke both my left elbow and wrist in the past so I have a few degrees less rotation than my right side.

Clive - I noticed the same thing with the orange 'EXPLORER II' on the white dial; mostly when somebody moderately interested in watches struggles to read what model it is from more than a couple of feet away. I don't mind this at all, as the watch somewhat flies under the radar anyway.

[wisguy]

I used to own the previous version and when this came I rushed to upgrade.

As nice as the watch is it never did it completely for me, can't put my finger on it, maybe the proportions are wrong for me.

Sold it after a couple of months.

[financeman]

Nice review of a cool watch.

[honitel]

I would say,the review wasn't biased. And,those are really advantages and disadvantages of the watch!

[gregvisser]

Thanks guys. Appreciate the comments.

Interestingly, I have had it close to 2 months now (I might still have 1 or 2 weeks to go) and the watch is a whole 6 secs off from where I set it when I bought it.

And the Explorer has settled in as my day to day wearer. I wear my Pam out at night and in more formal situations and my Sub is my beater - gym, scuba, fishing, boating, hunting.

Greg

[ncbob]

Thank you for such a great review. I have had my eye on the polar for a while now. I tried one on at the AD. They offer no discount. Where did you purchase your watch? I can pay full price at the AD but I am open to any suggestions for any alternatives.

[1William]

Nice review.

[LingB]

great review..
i also enjoy mine:

[kultschar]

Interesting about the Bezel being a scratch magnet. Mine has been on a few adventures and the watch has had a few knocks but the bezel is still pristine

[adamlea]

Great review & pics. The 216570 in black is my first and my only Rolex. I just think it's a great looking, highly legible, and extremely accurate watch. And I like the homage it pays to a true classic: the 1655.

I like the 42mm case and the maxi dial - what good is a watch if you can't read it? The thicker hands and the lume are good things too - especially when I wake up in the middle of the night or before my alarm goes off and I want to know how much longer I can go back to sleep. As for the GMT function, I don't really need it, but sometimes it comes in handy - besides, it just looks cool. And let's not forget the 3187 under the hood.

The only other thing I'd like to see on the 216570 is a triplock. If you can time fish with your Daytona 1000 ft below the waves, then I want to be able to read a second time zone - not because I need to, but because I can. After all, isn't that what Rolex is all about?

[chloebear]

Great review....I love the subtle pickups in reviews on the forum...for example:
- Crown is a little bit too small. Another 0.5-1 mm would have been nice for those of us with large fingers.
I have pretty small fingers so functionally it's no problem, but aesthetically a larger crown would certainly look better.
Just when I think I've decided I like the black over the white or vise versa, I read a new review that changes my mind. For the life of me I can't decide between the white or black. The white gets a slight nod for having a cool nickname..."The Polar Explorer." Somebody needs to come up with a good nickname for the black one.

[strafer_kid]

Undoubtedly a superbly built watch, the only downside for me was the larger case. I just could not get used to it although it felt very good on the wrist. Clearly ths will not be aproblem for many - it just did not work for me and I flipped mine when the offer of a mint SD came along. Had Rolex turned thas out with the smaller case, it may well have been even more popular and I for one, would have kept it. Presumably they considered this at the very outset and had it covered though!

[Jumpmaster]

I love everything about my EXP II.

[chris975d]

This is a great thread. I too just recently picked up a new 42mm polar Explorer II, after owning a Sub-C as my first Rolex for a few months now. The Sub was purchased due in large part to the same "if you're going to have only one Rolex/your first Rolex needs to be a Sub talk from several friends. Well, after a week or so of wear, the ExpII has become far and away my favorite watch I've owned. It fits (me) so much better than the Sub and is markedly much more legible at a glance for me (the first and foremost bullet point to hit for a watch IMO). Since opening the box on the ExpII, the Sub hasn't been worn a day, and I don't foresee many, if any days it could knock my polar out of the starting position. I'm not a diver, so losing the increased water resistance of the Sub in daily wear isn't an issue. The ExpII is my constant companion...it's either on my wrist, or within 3 feet of me at all times. I love it.

[chris975d]

Originally Posted by chris975d

This is a great thread. I too just recently picked up a new 42mm polar Explorer II, after owning a Sub-C as my first Rolex for a few months now. The Sub was purchased due in large part to the same "if you're going to have only one Rolex/your first Rolex needs to be a Sub talk from several friends. Well, after a week or so of wear, the ExpII has become far and away my favorite watch I've owned. It fits (me) so much better than the Sub and is markedly much more legible at a glance for me (the first and foremost bullet point to hit for a watch IMO). Since opening the box on the ExpII, the Sub hasn't been worn a day, and I don't foresee many, if any days it could knock my polar out of the starting position. I'm not a diver, so losing the increased water resistance of the Sub in daily wear isn't an issue. The ExpII is my constant companion...it's either on my wrist, or within 3 feet of me at all times. I love it.

Photos of my new ExpII:

[GTC]

I think what Rolex has done with the new (≥2011) 42mm is just about perfect. The Exp II in it's latest form is understated, still classic, but brings the style forward enough to shake off any perception that it may of been my father's watch (nothing wrong with looking like my father's watch).

(It has also taken a real beating with no complaints in training during my part-time gig in state law enforcement including sustained direct weapon recoil. And, the black dial works great with suits.)

Here's a couple of tools:

[MrSimba]

Absolutly love mine :)

The only thing that would make it even better would be a glide lock clasp!

Then it would be perfect!!!

[strafer_kid]

Reckon that Rolex could really have pulled something major off here, had they done this with smaller 40mm case. The larger 42mm did not work for me and I suspect quite a few others. Otherwise, I really liked it.

[Hyopark]

Great review. Everytime I read a review on this watch makes me want it even more!

[Nostromopilot]

The ice blue lume + "adventurer orange" and the no-nonsense overall look of this watch make this a sublime instant classic. Let's go exploring!