Channel Support: www.paypal.me/industrialdesignguy Latest Releases: kzfaq.info/love/zf6rqsEBni5G2TSevD6F4Afeatured Community: kzfaq.info/love/zf6rqsEBni5G2TSevD6F4Acommunity

Simply put, I love my 42mm polar. My 12 watch collection includes 4 Rolex (explorer 2 polar, gmt II black, stainless Yaughtmaster II, 2tone datejust) The Polar is my daily go to watch. I’m 73 and this one is the easiest on my eyes. It’s precise, simple and understated. Great video. Thanks!

Well, i’m a mountaineer and my 216570 get the job done perfectly. Maybe all the suit guys should get a daydate 🙄. Explorer is a toolwatch ! Great video by the way 👍

You are pressure fueling us with knowledge the industry won‘t like us to have. Your videos are lessons, compared to your concentrated input other KZfaq authors just chat about their watch passion. In this case it was just the right thing to put the old version next to the new one: self explanatory 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

I have the polar 42mm and love it! To me much better than the 40mm

This is a nice watch. But if i would choose, I would go for the Explorer 1. I love the simplicity of it. I love you videos and the way you look at the watches from your perspective. Would it be possible to make a video about the Seiko Marinemaster ? Can not wait for the next video. Have a good weekend

Thank you ID Guy for the comprehensive videos on the Rolex Explorers. As a proud owner of both the 39mm 214270 Mk 1 Explorer, as well as the 42mm 216570 Explorer 2 Polar, I can tell you that they are both fantastic tool watches. While I don't agree with all of your conclusions, I do agree that for the larger wristed person (I have a 7 1/2" wrist) they are close to perfect both proportionally and legibility wise. They are prized pieces in my collection.

I love my Ex2 polar. It’s fabulous - I have GMT2; Daytona; SDDS B; Pepsi and Bluesey Sub. The Ex2 gets more wrist time than any of the others. This watch isn’t too big - it has presence; it’s readable and beautiful dial are perfect. I much prefer it to the previous 5 digit model. The 42 is much better - the orange GMT hand is a significant enhancement and more legible that in inconspicuous red GMT hand on the previous model. Yes your view does differ from the majority; furthermore, your view won’t change a thing.

Ex. 2 is my favorite Rolex. Any of them, but the current black dial in 42mm is so charming in the metal.

The unloved Rolex sports models... we all know how this story ends, right?

Lol nah, you must have dainty wrists. The 216570 has great proportions and is much more visually stunning than the previous gen. Don't be so afraid of change man. Entertaining rant though.

I bought my first new Rolex (Submariner) 40 years ago, and my only Watch regret is NOT buying a 1655 back then too. I’ve bought the 16570 and gave it to a kid after wearing it 20 years, and purchased multiple 216570 in recent years. My favorite Rolex one-two combo is a 214270 Explorer and the 216570 Explorer-II.....over ANY watches they’ve ever made. Thanks!

I think (after I seeing it in person) it’s perfect as it’s right now. The legibility is the best you can have in any Rolex and actually it’s very comfortable in the wrist (no like the SD43 or Deepsea Blue which are totally uncomfortable) I hope Rolex don’t change the design or do not add a ceramic bezel ...

I have the reference 16570 black dial circa 2010 and just purchased the 226570 black dial. Both watches are fantastic in my opinion and made to be worn without worrying about scratches or dings. A proper tool watch that will last a lifetime no problem.

ID Guy I recognize your dislike of negative space.On the other hand the maxi dial with enlarged markers is more readable and especially at night. In other words more functional. Its prime function is time keeping after all.

I like the explorer 2 and considered it strongly when searching for my one and only Rolex. I was lucky enough to have a friend let me borrow his new model for a couple of days and I just didn’t connect with it. I loved the idea of the date and gmt function but it was just too big and, for lack of a better term, odd on wrist. I went with a 114270 from 2008 and 6 months later I am 100% certain that my humble explorer in 36mm is the greatest watch I will ever own. A customer of mine who shares a passion for watches saw it and summed it up perfectly when he said “Ahh you got an explorer? That’s a watch that says you’re so good, you don’t have to let anyone know it.” That’s the only person to ever compliment that watch and I just love that.

Thank you for your wonderful videos. But, as a person with a larger wrist, I need a larger watch, like 42 mm. If the Explorer 2 was not 42 mm, I would not own it. I do agree on your other points.

I really appreciate how your videos always bring about intelligent critical thinking about watch design in your audience. Even if I don't agree with everything, you help me to understand better what sort of design approaches I find truly inspiring and attractive and why.

Love your videos but have to totally disagree with you. The large hands and clear dial are the 216570's best features. Of the 18 Rolex watches I have owned, none is as clear and legible as the current 42mm Explorer II. That is what makes it my go-to watch. It's also why my black dial 216570 has received more wrist time than the other 17 combined. True wasted space is a bezel that's too thick. You can't have too much dial.

The 16570 Polar got me into the hobby but I replaced it with a 216570 Polar as it is a better watch with its solid instead of hollow bracelet, solid clasp, better movement and blue lume, if it had been 40mm it would have been perfect, I have a 7 3/8 wrist, my Polar Daytona I can barely read but the 216570 is so bold and legible it serves it's purpose and get's the majority of work wrist time as intended.

it takes a special skill to spout your opinion as thought it was fact and not feel weird about it.

I own both. I prefer the 42mm.

I like the Explorer II in 40mm. The 42mm seems like a much larger watch. I like the smaller case on the older 5 digit ones. I wish I would have bought one back in the day when they were far less expensive. Was kind of an oddball at the time and not all that popular. It's a great watch and thank you for your effort on this video. I did enjoy it.

This format is what we’re been missing. Thank you!

Steinhart seems to make improvements on where Rolex left off. I like their version of a 1655. Also their Dual Time with its fume' polar dial within a Pepsi GMT color scheme.

Nothing beats the 1655 imho. It's superior to its successors in every single way except for it not having GMT functionality. The lucky owner would simply be wearing a museum piece, a true collector's watch. Dankie for another great analysis, boet.

Funny how people complain about Rolex incremental change and when the brand update their watch for better, fans responded with dislikes. 216570 is more thoughtful, better looking of the two. 16570 is Rolex trying to be lazy using the same parts with GMT. Release of 226570 further proof 216570 wasn’t a “design mistake”. Rolex want it to be BIG.

Talking about how the unoccupied space on the dial is a wasted, what are your thoughts on watches like Breitling Superocean II (e.g. A17365D11C1A1)? Better to have the additional digits, or is that a step too far? Thanks!

This is one opinion. Many feel differently.

I couldn't agree more. A few months ago I was in an AD here in Atlanta Ga. In the case was a brand new Explorer II. Before the salesman had it out I had my wallet out. I'd been wanting the watch for while. I'd been looking for a decent five digit reference but I hadn't found one fairly priced. I truly thought my search had ended then I tried it on an my heart sank. It was too big on every way. Maybe if I had a 7 inch wrist I might have taken it. But the smaller the wrist the more the issues you point move to the front. Great vid. I've since settled for a GMT Master II G code just fully serviced by Rolex. But I still favor the Explorer II Polar. But that's a first world problem😊

My first luxury watch , i chose this over a Sub due to the cleanliness, and it has a bit of elegance to it. At the time i found the Sub too butch and common and simple wherein the E2 had 3 complications (time, gmt and a date) which gave more bang for your buck. The new one lost the elegance (metro sexual) which i liked and went full drag, but i guess for the sake of better functionality it could not be helped

I was obsessing about this watch for a while but ultimately 4 hands, 2 of them fat, and a cyclopse are crowding the dial too much for me. Also the cyclopse does not make sense, I have been caving and you scrape and squeeze between rocks so the last thing you would want is a part of the crystal standing out. Rather a watch for caving should inlay the crystal and use the bezel as protection.

I love the 42mm Polar. More wrist prescence and the orange gmt hand gives it some pop.

Very insightful excellent review. I own a 16570 and had the same almost visceral reaction to the 216570 when I first saw it. You put my feelings perfectly into words. I also own an Explorer 39mm and while I suppose you can make a similar argument that all it is is a blown up 36mm, I don't see it that way. It's really more wrist size dependent. While certainly most men were wearing 36mm and smaller way back when, it just doesn't fit many very well. To my eyes the 39mm Explorer doesn't have that same bloat that the 216570 has..The 1655 is just on another level. It's gorgeous and I want one badly...Such great commentary, thank you for making it.

So well done with no BS and extra talking. Thanks!!

I wanted and am still looking for one. I was looking at the older one because the newer ones were out of my price range but then the older ones exploded in price ... so the hunt continues. Thanks for the perspective :)

Another great vid IDGuy! The polar dial really makes this piece special for me. Black dial, just another Rolex, white dial WOW

I don't disagree with your points, but I always abhor the use of the term "lazy" to describe a design process. Unless you know something about the actual development, it's an ignorant and unfair statement. Design is done for purpose: needs and constraints. The 1655 was a tool watch for an era without quartz, without smart phones, and without smart watches. The person buying a mechanical Rolex today is not the same as the person buying one in the 70s. The audience is a factor in design. You can ignore the audience or try to shift your audience, but deciding that the audience's needs and expectations should be part of your constraints does not make the process inherently "lazy". It's a conscious choice, like any other. It's more risk-averse, but cleaving to tradition has its own set of constraints; it doesn't inherently simplify the design process.

I own both the 40m and 42m l prefer the White 42m dail it is awesome watch in person its got a nice Warm feel to it. Definitely understated watch in Rolex Sports Model range for me it's the best Rolex Sports model out there.

Big Agree, 42 is way too big, and the old dial pattern and hands look better. I do love the new gmt hand and bright color. Im praying for a new slimmed down explorer II at basel 2020, hopefully with a purpose built dial as youve mentioned.

In terms of design, the Omega Railmaster was so much more homogeneous than the Explorer I. The Explorer II white dial with the orange GMT and the blue at night is in my oppinion incredibly nicely done. Best looking white dial watch I know.

I'm actually drawn to the design changes you made to the Explorer II in this video. This is beautiful IDGuy

Yes, “evolution for the sake of evolution.” Perfectly put. And applies to so very many of not only Rolex but also Omega, Tag, and even Sinn & Tutima. Sad indeed. ✅

I am an explorer guy as well as a designer and I concur with your critique of the exp II the 1655 is so unique where as the 16570 polar was a fresh look and gave the watch a new feel ..but with the black dial looks too much like a gmt master The newest models are like you said bloated and uninspiring , the orange hand is a nice touch but overall lacks any creativity . Vintage is where its at and I hope that one day you do get your 1655 my friend.! Cheers!

Wow! I never noticed it before but you’re right! Side by side the 5 digit Explorer II looks so much nicer and better balanced than the bloated 🐷 that is the contemporary 6 digit version. But I don’t like the original 70s variation either, it really looks of its era and is less classy than its successors IMHO.

For some reason people want Rolex to keep their watches in smaller sizes. The 42 mm size is perhaps one of the more common sizes today. Often you find Breitling, Omega, IWC, RM, etc. presenting watches as 44 mm ....or even bigger. Size isn’t all but 42 mm is not to big a watch in any way. Love this newest version of the Explorer ll.

You’ve got the most insightful videos.

Agree, in love with my 1655...I hope that 2020 that Rolex bring back a new version of it as they are gearing up to release a complete new range of the Explorer in my view.

I think they’re both fine watches, although my preference is for the Explorer I, based on its beautiful aesthetics. A watch must feel right on the wrist, not only look right.

For me this is the best Rolex because the other designes are copied by so many other brands. It is also a great everyday watch . However at certain times the hands get too crowded.

The bezel on the Explorer II is not intended to track 24h time, although it can be used for that purpose

A white dial submariner would be perfection, but I feel like that will never happen since it would compete too much with the Daytona white dial, hence lower its value, which would affect the Rolex brand negatively since the Daytona is Rolex bread and butter pitch for a store of value investment.

Great video once again - thank you. I have had the Polar since buying it new in 2002, sadly I will be letting it go to make room for a circa 2007 Pepsi 👍

i love the design of 1655, and it bring me to Steinhart Ocean Vintage GMT

IMHO, best current production Rolex model.

You spoke about the 1655, 16570, and the 216570… but nothing about the 16550, which is what the cream dial Explorer-II is.

Great analyses, given the choice I went 42mm simply because of the orange 🍊 if I could get a 1655 I would be content for a very long time

Best watch in the Rolex collection

I adore both the 5 and 6 digit reference. This is the watch that ignited my passion for horology.

Hi ID Guy....great video! I have a black dial 16570 and love everything about it. I have thought as you, wishing there was some type of lume in the bezel for better use in low light or no light conditions. I specifically chose the version from the year 2000 due to the amazing lume (and drilled lugs). The thing that i have noted about this watch is that the GMT hand's triangle pointer is in exact alignment with the circular marker. Along with being the same size as alignment, it will actually cover up the round marker. I've learned to use my version in the dark to tell time with the bezel from memory as it is not rotating, i.e. 6 is at the 3; 12 at the 6 and 18 at the 9 position, etc. Again, great video review!

There is no need to clutter the dial with 24 hour markers. That dial is to busy. If you keep the GMT hand and regular hour hand synced it’s easy to tell at a glance if it’s a.m or pm. When the 24 hour hand is on the right side of the dial it’s am. When on the left side it’s pm.

you can obviously make much of the same criticisms of the modern submariner and its maxi-case which has been very polarizing but I love the explorer 2 in all sizes for its genuine tool watch nature and I'm simply not a fan of glossy modern ceramic dials. I do agree the bezel is too thin - they got that wrong

A welcome attempt to improve the dial to bezel ratio in my view at least. My problem with the brand is their dials are tiny (27-28mm) and their bezels are too thick (5+mm). I prefer the proportions of the latest Exp II. What I don't like are the thicker hands.

Rolex will never do lumed bezels. Which is a shame, considering that would be the only beneficial use of ceramic in my opinion.

A great exposition of the Explorer II. Can't disagree with any of it. My only Rolex is a late 'middle' version, and I'm pleased enough with it, but yes, it is basically a GMT II with a fixed bezel, and has lost touch with its roots.

Hope there is a new explore II in the works

I see what you mean about the sizing, but for me it suits as I need large hands to easily tell the time without my glasses!

This is very compelling...thank you for the perspective.

My personal favourite is the short-lived 16550. A future classic for sure. Nice vid 👌🏻

Great Video, I entered the Rolex family in 2017 and I purchased my first Rolex, the Rolex GMT Master II (Batman) because of the blue part of the bezel, instead of buying a Submariner with all Black bezel. The Sub was always a fantasy watch for me, but the half blue bezel drew me to it. At the time I honestly didn't know what I was really buying. Then after KZfaq video after KZfaq video , plus traveling overseas and going on vacation in different time zones, did I fully understand and really appreciate the watch. The attention it draws is a little crazy too at times. I do wear it everyday. I even got my wife her first Rolex as well.(Datejust 31MM black dial with Diamond # and Diamond Bezel). Now because of my Batman I only want GMT function watches. I have been looking at the Explorer 2 for a while now and have been having a hard time crossing over because of the same functions of Batman(thinking same manufacturer , same watch). I am ready to buy an explorer. I have been looking at the Polar because it would give a new look on my wrist, but at the same time the 40mm is the real size I think I would want to have. I see your point that you made which is right on the money and honestly has only confused me more in which one to buy (40mm v. 42mm). If I was going for the used 40mm watch I think the last years of the watch before they changed to the 42mm would be my choice, but I been trying to figure out the year of the final upgrades to the 40mm watch before they did the upgrade to 42mm. You have differently helped in making my choice even harder. Again thank you for a great video, great opinion and all the best.

Thoughtful, concise, objective ... awesome!!

I think you are kind of missing the point of the 216570. As you mentioned , the explorers started as a watch serving a purpose. Imo the 16570 did not manage to serve this purpose with its poor readability and lack of lume. As I work in a low visibility enviroment with the need of LT and UTC I thought that the 16570 would be a perfect tool watch at the time. I was very disappointed with its performance but kept it as i liked the esthetic of it. A couple of years went by trying on differnt watches for work before the 216570 came. It is , as a toolwatch, far superior in every way. So as I see your point with the watchdesign from the point of it beeing a luxury timepiece with its only purpose of occupying property on the wrist, I think the 16570 is a sleek and beautiful watch .But from a tool watch point of veiw the 216570 is far superior in (almost) every way.

Couldnt agree more. I saw a 42mm explorer once, it looked absurdly big on the person's wrist and had none of the charm of the previous 40mm polar dial. My brother had one a few years back that he sold, i wanted to buy it off him at the time but didnt which i very much regret

The older 39mm Explorer II with polar dial is my favorite Rolex. If I were to become fortunate enough to own one, this would be my choice.

I owned a 16570 polar and it is a stunning watch. I bought it as an investment piece (which was a good call) and sold it recently for a 16600 Sea Dweller. No regrets at all. I never really connected with the Explorer 2. It's a great piece just lacks soul IMHO.

Personally I'm not a fan of the explorer 2 over the E1. For me anyway the most recent Explorer 1 looks amazing, but I really like the E2 GMT, date, and date magnifier function.

My first time watching your reviews. Excellent timing! Thanks. I am currently making a decision between the Explorer 2 and another Rolex model, GMT or Yachtmaster. Of course I can't find them to actually put on my wrist so I have to rely on videos like this. I have yet to find a video which prefers the new version of the E2. The 5 digit model seems to be what is prefered and still relatively attainable at a reasonable (if that can be said of any Rolex purchase) price. Thanks again.

Two pence a from mine: if you didnot get hold of a real 16570 black (ignore hours of watching them on Internet - you could not give appropriate valuation of the esthetic of the watch). It’s so unique in its deeeeep pitch black dial (I still wonder how they managed to get it looked so amazing: so sharp looking without AR coating). My piece of advice: get 16570 on your wrist and Wear it for 10 minutes: nothing can be

I finally put a Polar Explorer II on my wrist in 2000. Atlantic Pacific mountains surfing and it is 100% timeless. The new larger face is just too in your face.

It’s confusing that the 1655 is the one Rolex you’d choose, even though you start the review by saying it “doesn’t hold a candle” to the Explorer I. Did I misunderstand something?

Thank you for a very clear comparison. And now that I see what you mean it is hard to un-see it. Especially the bezel. Though I am guessing someone in marketing told them they had to make the proportions different from either the Subs or the GMTs. But helpful video.

I ❤️ my 42 polar...👌🏼

My first desire is for a 1655, I also like the black dialed 216570 but now what has been seen (told) cannot be unseen. The bezel is too thin. Was justifying the purchase of a 216570 black dial until I watched this, time to hunt for a 1655. Also on the lookout for a birth year 5512.

I agree that it looks too big. Sticking to explorer 1 forever haha

I would love to see a polar explorer 2 with a black ceramic bezel. I hope Rolex is taking notes and watching this video.

The 1655 looks great and really encapsulates the 70s design ethic. But it's not practical. The extra lume plots have a function but in reality make it harder to tell the time. I think there's definately a reason why they made the changes they made from the 1655 to 16550/16570. The 16570 is the most understated watch of the lineup. A perfect daily tool watch that won't catch anyone's attention while the 216570 is a more aggressive/bold take. The modern 216570/226570 is still the most tool watch of all the modern rolexes but it's a bit more flashy than the 16570 for sure.

Great video….I agree with all of your points. With the release of the 16570, the Explorer II became a hybrid, or a diluted GMT Master. I think it was a mistake to uncouple the 24 hour and the hour hand….not to mention also loosing the quickset date feature at the same time. It stopped being a cave explorers watch and just a watered down GMT,

Love your channel!👍🏼 I’ve been think of purchasing this watch but can’t decide which reference to get. I’m trying to find a watch dealer that has both and I can go try them on.

I've heard Tim M argue that the magnifier is much better porportioned on the 42mm, as magnifier dominates the 40mm... Especially for people who, like me, are large and Lukewarm on magnifiers.

Your complain regarding the "proportions".. I am baffled you never even noticed why is this change made. This is by far the most easy to read Rolex out there. I think you don't understand what are you talking about and taking yourself a tad serious.

I beg to differ. I love the 216570!

The new Explorer 2 Polar is a phenomenal watch, but it requires a larger wrist. Those with chic wrists stick with the previous 40mm design, which btw wears smaller than 40mm. If you have hobbit wrists, get the explorer 1, 36mm.

Video Idea: Black bay 58 with different designs. ( bezel inserts, dials, etc )

Sinn 856 utc mops the floor with the Rolex explorer 2 in every category

I think you are wrong on all your points. I don’t own one yet but can’t disagree more

I love my black dial 216570. Perfect in every respect.

Thanks for your knowledge and time.

Look at that Rolex explorer ii 16570 Polar. It is a damn good looking watch and I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure it will rise in value. I just bought one before it's too late :-) Well made and informative video, thanks :-)

Great video. Keep up the good work. 👍

What is the lug to lug wingspan on the 42 mm Explorer II ?