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

[jholbrook]

Hey guys - I just posted my review of the fantastic Rolex Explorer II 216570 to The Rolex Reference Page at LuxuryTyme.com:

Review of the Rolex Explorer II 216570 | Luxury Tyme: The Rolex Reference Page

Just click on the above link to read the review. Many thanks to WATCH TALK FORUMS member JohnR for providing the watch used in this review! Please reply to this thread and let me know what you think of the review and this watch!

[Smartass]

Well done. Thank you!

[jholbrook]

Well done. Thank you!

You're most welcome - glad you enjoyed it!

[löwenzahn]

Interesting review of the 216570. Great pictures. Thanks John.

Best regards

Michael

[RBLU]

Very good review!
It is certainly written for Rolex newbies as indicated by the elaborate discussion of the Parachrom spiral, a technology already 6 years old. However, some points are missing: for example, the new Explorer has still a Twinlock crown. This is certainly a minus, considering that all new sport models should have a Triplock crown.
Concerns which are discussed in many forums such as the lengths, coloring of the hands were also not addressed.

As I said it is very good review, but a little more critique can be included. I am aware that there will be only marginal issues on this very good watch. Otherwise, it reads too much like an official press relaese.

Regards,
Bernhard

[jholbrook]

Very good review!
It is certainly written for Rolex newbies as indicated by the elaborate discussion of the Parachrom spiral, a technology already 6 years old. However, some points are missing: for example, the new Explorer has still a Twinlock crown. This is certainly a minus, considering that all new sport models should have a Triplock crown.
Concerns which are discussed in many forums such as the lengths, coloring of the hands were also not addressed.

As I said it is very good review, but a little more critique can be included. I am aware that there will be only marginal issues on this very good watch. Otherwise, it reads too much like an official press relaese.

Regards,
Bernhard

Do me a favor....go to the top of the review and check the "by" line. Now, the last time I checked, it says "By: John B. Holbrook, II." That means it reflects MY opinions, and MY points of view, not yours Berhard. Do I write my reviews to be accessible to the widest possible audience? Absolutely. If someone is quite familiar with, for example, the Parachrom spring, then they can skip that part. But omitting it would be a disservice to those who may never have seriously looked at a Rolex prior to the 216570.

I didn't discuss the Twinlock crown on the 216570 as a negative because I personally didn't find it to be one. It's not the same Twinlock crown that's on the 16570 - it's dimensions have grown to in proportion to the dimensions of the rest of the watch. The new Twinlock crown didn't bug my like the previous one - if it had, I would have written about it.

You're perfectly welcome to like or not like anything I post. I just just think it's rather silly to criticize the fact that I came away from evaluating the watch with different opinions on certain aspects of the watch. The fact that I liked the watch also doesn't mean my review reads in any way like a "press release."

[Laohu]

John, Bernhard wrote his opinion about your review which you should thank him for since it was an honest one. If you disagree, fine. But to attack him like you did was not very professional. After all a forum is all about sharing thoughts and opinions yes?

[RBLU]

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!

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.

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.

Therefore, the amount of "meat" in the review shrinks significantly down.

Regards,
Bernhard

[jholbrook]

John, Bernhard wrote his opinion about your review which you should thank him for since it was an honest one. If you disagree, fine. But to attack him like you did was not very professional. After all a forum is all about sharing thoughts and opinions yes?

I absolutely did not attack him - not in the least. If he's got a right to express his opinion, then I certainly have a right to express mine.

[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?

[flyfisher]

Why did you post the link to you review here then, just to maximise traffic on your website? Sorry mate, but your reactions to the comments seem quite arrogant to me.

[jholbrook]

Why did you post the link to you review here then, just to maximise traffic on your website? Sorry mate, but your reactions to the comments seem quite arrogant to me.

It certainly wasn't posted to hear from those such as you who have nothing positive or even relevant to add to the discussion.

Can we please return to an actual discussion of the watch being reviewed?

[21prozent]

I like your reviews
Concerning this particular watch I don't share your opinion. Too heavy, too big...

[RBLU]

Please reply to this thread and let me know what you think of the review and this watch!

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?

You are contradicting yourself. First you asked for feedback and now? I gave you even quite positive feedback?

It's hardly "late" - the new Explorer II has only been available here in the US for a couple of months.

So what? English is not only spoken in the US? You can fly to Europe, for example, to get your hands on the watch.

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.

That does not justify that you repeat the same story over and over. Maybe, you should include some discussion about the self-winding rotor or the water tight Rolex Oyster case. These technologies were introduced decades ago...

[flyfisher]

It certainly wasn't posted to hear from those such as you who have nothing positive or even relevant to add to the discussion.

Can we please return to an actual discussion of the watch being reviewed?

Is there a rule on this board, that only positive comments are to be posted? If so, where can I find it?

[jholbrook]

I like your reviews
Concerning this particular watch I don't share your opinion. Too heavy, too big...

I can understand that. It would be more versatile for me if it were 40 or 41mm, I'd be more likely to wear it with a suit.

[jholbrook]

You are contradicting yourself. First you asked for feedback and now? I gave you even quite positive feedback?

If anyone is contradicting themselves, it's you. You say you like the review, then go on to say that it reads like a press release, is written for a Rolex Newbie, etc., etc....

Move along Bernhard....you're welcome to your opinion. You've said your peace...now you're just stirring up the pot. Further replies will be subject to moderation.

[jholbrook]

Is there a rule on this board, that only positive comments are to be posted? If so, where can I find it?

I'll ask a second time - please focus your discussion on the actual watch, or something even remotely relevant to the discussion of the watch.

[buchfuchs1]

Great watch, nice review, perfect pics.

[Hannibal]

Please reply to this thread and let me know what you think of the review and this watch!

John, your review is well done. The watch looks good but the predecessor model looks - in my opinion - even better (especially with a black dial).