Tudor Black Bay GMT and the Explorer 2 (216570)

[EdwardC]

How do these 2 compare? I like the Tudor GMT but it's a bit thick. Does anyone have experience with both and able to share? I fee like the 216570 is thinner but the surface is bigger.

[WatchGuy1966]

I had the Tudor GMT but it was just too thick, so I traded for a Leica Camera lens. I think the 216750 is also too big. My wrists are large enough to wear it, but it's my pref not to.
I do have the Tudor 79220r ETA and it's prett thick, but not as much as the in-house movement watches. I also have the 116710LN, but I don't love the Maxi-Case.

To answer your Question, if I could choose only one of the watches you mentioned, I think the 216750 is more "proportionally aesthetically pleasing." But damn that Tudor GMT looks fine staring straight down at it.



If you are ok with second hand, I think the 16750 is perfect.

[nighthawk77]

I own the GMT, but not the Exp2. I did try a friends however and thought it was surprising comfortable compared to the GMT despite what the dimensions might suggest. I've read that despite it's larger diameter, the Exp2's slimmer case height and flatter case back help with wearability.

That said, I don't actually mind the thickness of the GMT. Sure it isn't as easy to wear as say my 214270, but it is perfectly fine, and the chamfered undersides of the case help.

[DDDan]

I actually do have both, and like the two of them. The GMT usually wear for smart casual stuff as it won’t fit under a cuff. It’s a pretty thick boi.

The Explorer II is flatter and marginally more comfortable. I love the GMT though. It’s beautiful to look at. Here’s a photo of the two side by side.

[Binky1]

I sold my GMT in a trade up for my DD along with a few other watches and cash. I found the GMT too thick and just a smidge too big for my 7.25 wrist. The date issue never occurred with me but did stick in my mind a bit. No micro adjustment annoyed me. On the plus side ridiculously accurate, tough and one of the best coloured bezels out there. I kept my Explorer 2 Polar because there is just something about it that’s so perfect, it’s hard to explain. Definitely more comfortable and easy to wear and it’s just so, so...damn cant find the words!

[Sephiroth]

Exp2 is beautiful, but couldn’t justify 2x price for a Rolex that isn’t a BLRO/BLNR. Tudor GMT is an awesome piece.

[Seddyspaghetti]

I prefer x2

[jimly]

In terms of wearability, I find the Explorer 2 better. The thickness of the Tudor GMT bothered me and the date problem is still a problem even for new releases(Oct 2019).

But I find the face of the Tudor better than the Explorer 2.

[timlaw]

i have the BB GMT and a 16570 explorer 2. depends on your wrist size but the 16570 is a stunning piece in black or white dial and a very safe place for your cash for sure.

[derekhayden]

I had both but got rid of my 216570 since it never saw any wrist time after getting the BBGMT. While the BB is quite thick, I like the heft of it. I tried to wear my 216570 and it just felt so light after wearing the BBGMT. I also prefer a rotating bezel on a GMT.

[Lamontsanders]

Had both and kept the GMT. I preferred the look and feel of the BBGMT over the black 216570. It would be a harder choice with the white explorer.

[1William]

I own the Tudor BB GMT and both the black and white dial Explorer II 42 mm. No issues with size or wear as they are both perfect to me. If the Daytona-C was 42 mm like the Explorer II, instead of 38.5 mm, I would sell it all and maybe only have a one watch collection. {A bit of an exaggeration} but you get the point. The Tudor GMT is a fun watch and has a cool retro look. I wear it mostly on the OEM leather strap buy it looks great on the NATO and the bracelet.

[EdwardC]

Thanks everyone. I like the rotating bezel too as I can use that for the 2nd time zone instead of changing the GMT hand. For half of the price sounds like I should stay with the BBGMT

[Polarexplorerii]

Originally Posted by Seddyspaghetti

I prefer x2

same here