Reply With QuoteI agree. Having owned both, the 6 digit is just clumsy looking thing. 5 digits are class
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Took a look at the LHR Rolex display in T2 the other day and spotted a 126570 for the first time in the flesh. Goodness what a mess Rolex have made of the polar explorer. I was travelling my 5-digit version which is perfectly sized and proportioned for my 6.75” wrist.
I like the bigger subs, but the explorer 2 is too big in my view.
I agree. Having owned both, the 6 digit is just clumsy looking thing. 5 digits are class
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I totally agree, the six digit is pure bulk and ungainly, however it does have its devotees.Originally Posted by PawG
In the words of Little Britain, 'I don't like it'
The 16570 Polar Explorer was so elegant, regret selling mine! :(
Last edited by GMTMaster; 10th April 2023 at 08:43.
I’m very fond of my 5 digit Exp II. I do find it’s successors proportions and maxi-plus hands a bit clumsy.
D
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Totally agree about the bulk of the more modern Explorer 2. I was looking for an Explorer a few years back. Asked at Munich airport and they were keen to try to sell me an Explorer 2 that was in stock. I tried it on but really found it way too big.
It’s a strange one that it’s 42mm yet seems so much bigger than that. I’ll happily wear my Pam 609 which doesn’t feel oversized
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Funnily enough, I went into one of the ADs in Westside a few years ago to try one on, and happened to be wearing my McQueen at the time. The manager nearly fainted having spotted it the moment I walked in, and admitted that the dimensions of the modern ExpII looked ridiculous in comparison.
I tried one on back to back with a supercase sub when it first came out and stuff was in shop windows, felt comically large on me.
I love how it looks in photographs though, as a 39-40 it would be spot on
Agreed, the 16570 'Polar' is ideally proportioned.
Going to be on the hunt for one soon. Saw a 16570 about 15 years ago in a shop window and its been on my mind ever since. I have tried the larger one and I know its superior on paper, but for me it just...misses. The 16570 is the pinnacle of the design IMO.
Unless anyone has the inside track and knows if Rolex will give the Explorer 2 the Explorer 1 treatment next year?
As ‘ridiculous’ as some people find the new EXPIIs, I love them - they suit my wrist better than the earlier 16570 (a watch that was my first ever truly expensive watch and first ever Rolex) - so much so I’ve bought both versions of the more recent 42mm EXPIIs, as for me they are just right.
Almost forgot to add that they do away with the far too small crown syndrome that afflicted the 16570 and 16710, and made setting the time etc. on them feel insubstantial compared to the Rolex Triplock dive watches to me.
It's just a matter of time...
Couldn't agree more.
I also think the hands and plots are far too skinny on the 16570.
Each to there own.
Love mine.
I have only owned the newer 42mm model, I find in bang on, in every possible way. (although I was tempted to trade it for a 14060m)
Have owned my black 42mm ExpII for about 8yrs. Fits me like a glove.. it may be 42mm, but the case sides are slim.
That watch will never leave me.
(Someone screen shot this, and use it against me if you see it on SC).
The 42mm is proportioned like a christopher ward, it's a characature of its predecessor.
Sent from my SM-S908B using Tapatalk
Reading some of the replies to this makes me wonder if people realise that all wrists are different.
‘Blah, blah perfectly proportioned to my xx inch wrist,) so therefore the predecessor/successor is too big/small.
Both sizes fit my 7 inch wrist and both have their merits and bad points.
Neither are a mess in my humble opinion.
I think that’s a fair comment, but for those of us with 7.5+ wrists larger watches just seem to fit well.
I loved my earlier model EXPII. I had my choice of any steel Rolex at the time and it’s the model I choose. I simply prefer the newer models. That said, I couldn’t stand the floating hands on the initial 42mm black dial update, so bought a white/polar dial version of that model, but was very pleased to pick up/adda black dial in the current 42mm with updated lugs, movement and hands earlier in the year.
Today I’m wearing a recently acquired blue dial Black Bay 58, and if I’m honest it looks just a little small, and from some internet pics - it looks smaller on my wrist than a number of shots of the BB 54.
Thankfully watches come in lots of different sizes and looks, and there are more than enough to choose from to find something almost anyone would like.
It's just a matter of time...
OP I think you mean 216570.
Another happy 42mm owner here. I was offered one at a good price recently and I initially dismissed it due to the size and the fact that pics make it look a but meh. However, they had a used one at my local AD and my word it looks significantly better in real life and when I tried it on it felt fine size wise on my 18cm wrists. The slim case helps massively plus I have the black dial which helps it wear smaller (I'm not 100% sure I could pull off the white dial).
I love the maxi hands and dial and all that amazing chromalite lume. I love the phantom hands that nod to the 1655. I love the fact that the 3187 movement is only found in that reference and that the base plate is enlarged to fit the case size. I love the vivid orange 24hr hand and dial text. I love the solid and substantial bracelet as per most 6 digit references.
I get that people are quick to dismiss the 42mm Exp2 due to its size and I did the same but if you have 18cm wrists or bigger you might be pleasantly surprised. They are still available at sensible money too compared to equipment subs and GMTs.
It is too large for my wrist, but when it was launched a decade or so ago, it was simply following the upsizing trend at the time. No problem with that, no doubt it suits the larger ‘wristed’ well. However, even if I could wear a such a large proportioned case, I could never live with the clown hands. I think they just look ridiculous.
Long live the larger version, it helps to prop up values for owners of the more wearable 16570! Easy enough to obtain the older version if that’s your preference, so no problem really, and good for the larger wristed to have a choice.
Everyone is always banging on about the photogenic polar explorer, but the black dial is potentially more wearable and looks great in real life, so is underrated IMO. Still can’t get my head round the market valuing the Explorer and Explorer II about the same, the II just seems in a different league, pretty as the time only Explorer is.
Years ago, when the dealers had stock you could handle I tried a black dial 216570 as I'd always admired the 1655. I couldn't put a finger on it, but something about it just wasn't quite right and I didn't buy. Fast forward a few years and I mention this during a chat with my AD and he kindly shows me a polar 226570 that is awaiting collection by its new owner. The subtle changes between the 216570 and 226570 have, to my eyes, made a big improvement and I ordered a polar dial version there and then.
Since its arrival it has (surprisingly I may add) become a firm favourite - so much so that I'm considering adding a black dial version (removing the phantom hands has improved this no end).
My experience highlights the difficulty in recent times of not being able to handle watches in the dealers (sadly internet photos taken with phone cameras don't always help). In addition to the financials, with current availability issues you also make a commitment in terms of waiting time.
Thankfully exhibition models seem to be more prevalent now in the dealers so I would finish by recommending anyone who may have previously dismissed the 216570 to try the 226570 - you may be pleasantly surprised (and if you're not, there's always a 16570)
I've had both the 216570 and the 16570, both polars.
There are pros and cons to each.
The modern bracelets are far superior, the lume is fantastic and I like the different 24hr hand colour on the modern variant.
That said, it is too heavy, too thick and slightly too wide for my taste.
I don't think I'll ever sell my 16570
Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk
Variety is the spice I suppose… my own view is that the modern six digit references offer a more complete package. I get the argument that the older references are more elegant - to an extent, they are. They’re ever so slightly daintier and lighter - many people will prefer that for obvious reasons. But for what is meant to be a tool watch (as much as a Rolex can be), the bolder and more utilitarian design of the newer reference, to my eyes, better suits it. Speaking of eyes - with my failing eyesight, the boldness of the newer watches make them more legible for me.
Then we come to the bracelet. The older bracelets were… fine. But the newer bracelets are leagues ahead. They look, feel and operate better by any objective standard.
While the older models are more elegant, as much as an Explorer II can be elegant… but I would suggest that if elegance is the goal, this is not the right watch in any reference.
Yes I think I have the original reference wrong.
I've overcome the bracelet issue with a 97200 glidelock. It's now perfection.
I’m a huge fan of it, larger plots etc just really appeal to me. Unfortunately when I tried one on back in the days they were unloved it just looked massive on my 6.75” wrist. A real shame.
I openly prefer the 16570, but I went in and tried the larger current variant and I must say I was surprised by how comfortable it was. Compares to my Black Bay Pro, it was equally (if not a little more) comfortable because of the reduction in case height. The 16570 must be sublimne...
I've put myself on the list, I expect to hear back in a couple years!
I absolutely love mine but I do have larger flat wrists and Popeye forearms. The wingspan of the case does make the watch wear big for a 42mm.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
I agree with the OP regarding the Polar Explorer.
May be unpopular, but I also prefer my 16610 to the later 6 digit versions- the 16610 is ugly in comparison, with those exaggerated lugs & crown guards, and the 41mm is just too big.
I'm lucky, mine is a Swiss only dial, too.
Then again, I prefer a smaller Speedy to the Pro, so I may be mad.
Last edited by apm101; 20th April 2023 at 13:54.
Oops. LOLZ
Love a good 16570, they just feel really special and precise… think the proportions help here.
Posting Permissions
