Rolex Explorer ll 16570 - 3186 versus 3185 movement

[744ER]

Just to confuse matters more, I remember a dealer telling me that the engraved rehaut 16570 was 904L steel while my earlier one was 316L. I’m not sure exactly when the changeover happened, or if this is accurate info - no doubt someone here can advise.

He had a clear preference for the earlier 316L ones and thought I was better off keeping mine, regardless of the movement. However both steels have their plus points, and their fans and detractors. The dealer thought that the earlier ones picked up less scratches, though he could have meant that they were easier to refinish. However the later steel is more corrosion resistant (only really an issue if sea water finds its way into the case back threads, so more crucial for an actively used sub than an EII). It also has higher nickel content, which can be an issue for a minority who are allergic to it. The finish also looks slightly different. I’m not going to pick sides as it’s opening a Pandora’s box, and people get quite passionate about these things - probably because they are sure the one they happen to own is clearly the best! But if the dealer is correct about this, it may be another factor to consider.

Dealer is incorrect. It's been 904L for a long time. The "rugby ball" logo in the caseback is the hallmark of 904L.

[Itsguy]

Dealer is incorrect.

Why am I not surprised? ;-)

[Valkyrie]

Bezel protector still on watch on this image

Really good photos, although I'm not sure why you'd want a bezel protector in the photo.


Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app

[BillN]

Really good photos, although I'm not sure why you'd want a bezel protector in the photo.


Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app

I did not realise that I had left the clear plastic bezel protector in place when I took the image, until afterwards

[TimeThoughts]

Bill, That booklet is very interesting. Can I ask when that watch was purchased ?

I have a very very late model 16570; engraved rehaut and randomized SN.

I bought it new about 6 years ago and at that time it was in the window of an ADs actually placed next to a 216570. A 'NOS' purchase if you will.

I negotiated a good discount on it and I was told it had the 3186 transitional movement but it dosen't have that exact booklet.

[BillN]

Bill, That booklet is very interesting. Can I ask when that watch was purchased ?

I have a very very late model 16570; engraved rehaut and randomized SN.

I bought it new about 6 years ago and at that time it was in the window of an ADs actually placed next to a 216570. A 'NOS' purchase if you will.

I negotiated a good discount on it and I was told it had the 3186 transitional movement but it dosen't have that exact booklet.

purchase date (on plastic card) is 18 Dec 2010

[dkpw]

It is strange how the watch-fancier's mind works - well mine at least.

For years, I've thought that the previous iterations of the Explorer II were the ugly ducklings of the Rolex sport range, and I suspect I would not have been alone. Reading this thread and the links, has certainly increased my appreciation of them dramatically, especially the polar version. So much so that I saw a Pepsi GMT and thought; "That's not as nice as a polar EXP II." A Pepsi GMT has of course been a long term want.

So rare are they that, I can remember precisely the only time I've seen one being worn. It was on the barman's wrist at the Kylesqu Hotel in the wild, far north of the Highlands. That was about ten years ago and I've not seen one since.

It's definitely an undeservedly, under appreciated watch.

P.S. That hotel is a great place to stay/eat if you're ever up that way.