REVIEW: The Rolex Explorer II 216570>>>>>>>>>

[jholbrook]

I mentioned that it was good review!

Please, do not forget that you brought the Twinlock issue up, which bothered you in the old Exp!

And as stated, it doesn't bother me on the new Explorer II as it is larger.

Considering that your review of the Exp came very late anyway and the watch was discussed for a couple of months on many forums, it is fair to ask that you can include some of the concerns in your review in addition to your subjective feelings.

It's hardly "late" - the new Explorer II has only been available here in the US for a couple of months. I haven't even seen it reviewed in any of the major US trade publications.

The review has been read several thousand times at this point and your the only person who has indicated I should have included the thoughts and opinions of various online communities in my review. So I think it's more than fair to say your criticism is simply that I didn't write the review to please you and you alone.

Many discussions such as the movement description in your recent review are very similar or identical to your older reviews such as the 2007 review of the GMTIIc.
The same for other parts such as the size comparison of the subs etc.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this Bernhard, but Rolex use the same basic movement in all their non-chronograph sport watches. So it only stands to reason that a technical discussion of the movements of various sport Rolex models will sound similar.

As I said, you're welcome to your opinion. Why don't you get your camera out, get an Explorer II and write your own review the Bernhard way instead of criticizing others for writing a review which didn't cater to your own individual tastes?