Reply With QuoteHave you considered the earlier 40mm version? Almost the same, with a red GMT hand instead of orange.
Here's mine on my quite round 7.5" wrist:
Only way to be sure is to try one on of course!
I'm currently considering getting a 42mm Rolex Explorer II (used, online), but don't have the luxury of trying on the watch first before buying. I have pretty small wrists, around 6.1". Any Explorer II owners here with wrist shots on their small wrists? Just want to see how it would fit before I buy it. Thanks.
Have you considered the earlier 40mm version? Almost the same, with a red GMT hand instead of orange.
Here's mine on my quite round 7.5" wrist:
Only way to be sure is to try one on of course!
I prefer the size of the 40mm explorer II, although the build quality of the 42mm is more substantial. The 42mm is definitely a sportier watch whereas I think the earlier model can be either sporty or dressy
I'm picking up mine on Wednesday. I'm trading a 45mm Panerai Blackseal for one. I'll post a photo once I've got it. If your near me your welcome to try it on.Originally Posted by Junaid8
I have 6.5" wrists and thought the 42mm just slightly too large. Not ridiculously large, but that's a matter of personal taste too. IIRC its 48mm lug-to-lug, within my usual 50mm limit, but it's a chunky boy and dominates the wrist.
I bookmarked these links at the time which you may find useful:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=296946
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=206281
I tried a white dial 40mm and 42mm on recently, and felt the 42 was a bit big on my (7 inch) wrist. Probably should have tried the black dial on as well, as I think that wouldn't have looked too bad.
The 40mm looked great, and was super comfortable, but I ended up buying a GMT II :-)
In all honesty I think you will find the 42mm too large, but reckon the older 40mm version would probably be fine.
Initially I assumed that it would be too big for me, but after trying on a 44mm Bulova Marine Star I thought I may have a chance. I know there's a smaller 40mm version but I personally don't like that one at all. For me the white jumbo dial on the 42mm version looks amazing. My biggest fear is having the lugs exceed the width of my wrist too far and the watch just sort of floats about.
i have 6.5" wrists and i felt like the 42mm version was slightly too big. Its the lugs that make it more substantial than other 42mm watches. The 40mm version, however, fits just right. My biggest dilemma is deciding which colour face to get.
I have 6.5 inch wrists. Here is my 40mm explorer in place. I personally would consider 42mm too big. Hope that helps you.
John
I have 6.5 wrists, and found the 42mm Exp fine. I've had 3 ! Just can't get my head around the cyclops.
You could buy a cheaper 'tryout' watch with similar physical characteristics? (size, thickness, weight)
maybe a Seiko 5 sports, e.g.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seiko-Mens-A...words=SNZH53K1
or
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seiko-Automa...automatic+42mm
wear it for a few weeks & see how it goes. Can hopefully resell without too much of a loss, or keep for rough wear.
This...I have one and my wrist is circa 6.75". It is slightly too large whereas the Sub C is perfect.
Just get the Cyclops removed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Rolex did it for me with my Submariner.
Of the two I'd definitely be going for the smaller one and even that may be too big for your 6.1 inch wrists - I have 7 inch (quite flat) wrists and I can only just about get away with a 40mm cased SubC. In any event, what you really want to avoid IMO is the lugs going right up to the edge of your wrist and if the lugs actually hang over your wrist you are in danger of it looking daft.
Have you considered the gorgeous 36mm Explorer 1 as an alternative?
I have similar size wrist and went for the older 40mm. No wrist shot on file as I'm wearing my Ingy today.
Here's mine. Traded a 45mm pam yesterday. My wrist is 7" though.
Last edited by Andyp1973; 18th September 2014 at 09:42.
Posting Permissions
