Why no love for the explorer 2 42mm

[Muxi]

It does not sing to me, personally.

[klenboy]

I personally like this watch. It's a rugged casual (or Hell formal too) daily wearer. I'll wait for a new movement then I'll most likely get one.

[brigadoonb]

It's okay. The edges on the watch dont work for me.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by seanneok11

Just curious why there’s no love for that watch.

Really?

Based on what?

[NorcalBlue]

Originally Posted by Zippy+

Exactly, women wearing 40mm ceramics on their 5 inch wrists look fine to me

Yeah, I don't get it. I got a 6 3/4 flat wrist and love rocking the bigger 42mm Polar. My favorite watch by far. Had a couple comment on it in the bar the other night. "We really like your watch - who makes it?" "It's a Rolex Exp. 2" "Oh, we've never seen a Rolex like that one"

Not that I care, but pretty cool exchange. I love that watch.

[NorcalBlue]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

what's not to love?

killer combo meal deal!

[JP.]

I'm a 5-digit guy through and through and I loved my 16570.

But 42mm white Explorer II 216570 is the ONLY 6-digit I would ever consider. My only complaint about 16570 was that it wore too small. That extra bulk was definitely needed, imho.

It's such a beautiful watch and definitely the nicest 6-digit.

[Rolexsd4000]

Love mine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJ-PGMTII]

Originally Posted by hbombkid

Personally it’s low on my list. I just don’t like the bezel. You but a black ceramic bezel on it now we are talking!

Or put the orange explorer II second hand on the gmt II. 😀

[Steveb31]

The Polar is my daily wearer and I love it!. My AD said he is getting a lot more interest in the last 18 months. Stellar watch

[tadbart]

I want to like it. I really do. The lume and the wider hands are great. The size is great. It would be a perfect GMT, but for that garishly hideous orange GMT hand.

The 5 digit, though lacking in lume, big hands, and overall size, does not have that pumpkin spice GMT thing going on.

If I could fit a 5 digit GMT hand on a 6 digit watch, it'd be perfection.

[Oaker1]

I like it, and if it was 40mm then I would purchase, if available. Tried a 42mm Polar on, and just wore a bit too large for me. I think they look great though, in a rugged way.

[Verdi]

It is a niche model.

The general public doesn't know it. It has always been like this.

[scarlet knight]

Love mine!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[interneal]

I’ve had a polar 16570 and polar 216570 and I much prefer the modern version. Readability, lume, updated oyster bracelet, lots of reasons to dig the 42mm. In the end, it seems lots of folks are simply scared off by the size.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spartacus]

I really like the Explorer II 42mm. Might be my next one.

[sambb]

the orange hand is too distracting for me

[ras47]

When is the last time the Explorer II was updated? It was 2011 when they changed the size to 42mm, right? Nine years without a major change means there isn't a lot of hype for this model. That doesn't mean it's not popular. But folks are not talking about it because they've had nine years to get it out of their systems.

I'd have one right now as my daily driver if I wasn't hoping for a cerachrome bezel. I keep predicting it for BaselWorld and Rolex keeps ignoring my whinging pleas.

[vcap826]

Guess I should make my first post on this forum as it pertains to me. The 216570 has monopolized my wrist time with no sign of slowing.

[68deluxe]

Originally Posted by GMT Freak

They are ridiculously oversized. The 16570 was the perfect fit.

I tried one on back to back with the previous (smaller) model. The new one is too big for me.

[jvb.nc]

Originally Posted by GMT Freak

They are ridiculously oversized. The 16570 was the perfect fit.

opinions are like bathrooms.

ridiculously oversized?



it’s mildly larger than the 16750. two millimeters. TWO MILLIMETERS. and yes the case, etc, blah.

ridiculously oversized would be like 54mm.

[rmlovett1]

Love it! My next acquisition. I understand the SS bezel is tradition, and I think that’s what makes its Explorer dna...but..certainly wouldn’t mind if it had ceramic, if done right.

[thekman]

It's way too big. I wear the 43mm Sea Dweller yet the 42mm Explorer looked like a monster on my wrist. The 40mm Polar however is probably one of my favorite Rolex models ever.

[CyclePath1]

I was deciding between the new and the older explorer 2 but went with the older 16570 because the smaller 40 mm fits better on my 6.75" wrist.

Sent from my Lenovo YT-X703F using Tapatalk

[scombs263]

The 42 mm 216570 (polar) is definitely on my list. I had a black one and sold it for another project. It fit great and is a great watch to add to any collection.

[Frits1980]

Originally Posted by jvb.nc

opinions are like bathrooms.

ridiculously oversized?



it’s mildly larger than the 16750. two millimeters. TWO MILLIMETERS. and yes the case, etc, blah.

ridiculously oversized would be like 54mm.

Its not only the case. Its the dial and thin bezel which makes it wear big. I have both white/black. Love the model but the size is just not working for me anymore on my 7+ wrists. Big watches realy start to look stupid on average size wrists.

I think Rolex made it 42 because big was the fashion during that time. Exp2 never was a big seller so so not much to lose for trying. Wouldnt surprise me if they go back to 40 next update.

[jvb.nc]

Originally Posted by Frits1980

Its not only the case. Its the dial and thin bezel which makes it wear big. I have both white/black. Love the model but the size is just not working for me anymore on my 7+ wrists. Big watches realy start to look stupid on average size wrists.

I think Rolex made it 42 because big was the fashion during that time. Exp2 never was a big seller so so not much to lose for trying. Wouldnt surprise me if they go back to 40 next update.

funny, my wrists are smaller than yours and i love my ex2 and my SD43 and my panerai 44 and my Linde Werdelin 46.

it’s so strange to me how different folks can see things completely differently.

the 42 is more legible than the 40. bigger plots, larger handset, more dial real estate. it certainly does wear larger than a 40mm anything, but i don’t find it absurdly big.

note: i don’t think either of us or anyone else here is “wrong.” i think it’s just odd that folks find it humongous, and here i am with a 6 5/8” wrist loving big watches.

i blame my eyes. i’m blind as a bat without contacts or glasses. maybe my lenses distort size?

[jimmytamp]

Because I love my 16570 Polar




Cheers...


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

[septantrionalis]

This is one watch that has grown on me. At first, I couldn't ever see myself purchasing this watch. In the past year my tastes have changed. I actually wouldn't mind owning this watch.

[CountryRoads]

it looks like a cartoon. I love the 16570 though.