When you put the Seamaster inside the Explorer II to demonstrate the lug to lug difference, my mind was blown! I've never seen it compared in that fashion, and I appreciate you taking the time to show it.
I did not expect how different the two 42 mm watches felt on the wrist. And the Seamaster fitted so well underneath the explorer case making a good demonstration of the reasons the watches are very different. Want to try out the 16570 now.
Thanks so much! This was super useful! Sorry, I have to add this. Why does this small channel have the best watch review I've seen all day? What's going on with the world? I loved your video man! Keep it up!
What size is your wrist? I think it looks ok. I tried the omega Seamaster on a rubber strap and thought it looked big, but the Explorer looked ok. Also, I got the call today and will be picking it Jan. 6 month wait
your the first channel ive seen that put them on top of each other. I almost got the 216750 but it is too big and I have a 7.25 inch wrist but any bigger than my seamaster pro isnt what i want
Cool video, but your lug to lug measurement on that Seamaster is off. It's 49.5mm lug to lug (and about 50.2mm end link to endlink) so you either didn't measure properly, or you remembered the lug to lug of the previous generation (which indeed was about 47.1mm). The "fit inside" comparisson is also a bit flawed, when you consider that they're not alligned at crown level so they're not level. Don't get me wrong, the Explorer 2 has a slightly longer lug to lug and longer end link to endlink but not as dramatic as presented.
Indeed the lug to lug distance is wrong. But this does not effect the fact the Omega feels much better fitting than the 42 mm Rolex. I decided to try out the 40mm vintage explorer but never got hands on one. Just love the Black Bay Pro as my GMT watch and am wishing that Tudor will do the polar dial.
Nice review, and I enjoy your videos. However, the Explorer II doesn’t look too large on your wrist to my eye, even with the normal camera effect. I think it’s in your head, not reality.
Legend has it that he is still adjusting the omega
When you put the Seamaster inside the Explorer II to demonstrate the lug to lug difference, my mind was blown! I've never seen it compared in that fashion, and I appreciate you taking the time to show it.
I did not expect how different the two 42 mm watches felt on the wrist. And the Seamaster fitted so well underneath the explorer case making a good demonstration of the reasons the watches are very different. Want to try out the 16570 now.
Why is the GMT hand on the Exp II full orange? Fake?
Thanks so much! This was super useful! Sorry, I have to add this. Why does this small channel have the best watch review I've seen all day? What's going on with the world? I loved your video man! Keep it up!
Omega should do a white dial gmt seamaster and crush the explorer 2 for good.
Omega did an Aqua Terra Woeld Timer which is more complex than any Rolex GMT.
Late to the party here....I wish Omega would release a white dialed GMT. But, being Omega, the watch would be 18mm thick.
Great point about lug to lug. Stacking the two says everything.
Thanks for commenting.
What size is your wrist? I think it looks ok. I tried the omega Seamaster on a rubber strap and thought it looked big, but the Explorer looked ok. Also, I got the call today and will be picking it Jan. 6 month wait
My wrist is 18cm. And I was struggling with the grey market Explorer price. Although I found my perfect watch in Black Bay Pro. Only need it in Polar.
your the first channel ive seen that put them on top of each other. I almost got the 216750 but it is too big and I have a 7.25 inch wrist but any bigger than my seamaster pro isnt what i want
Looking at these two pieces. Originally was comparing the Yacht Master 16622 and the Explorer II 40mm. Now I’m here.
Wonderful video, thank you. I have to agree, the Omega does look and suit your wrist better, even though I own the 226570.
That Explorer II is perfect. Maybe not for wrist though. Mine is coming next week
Cool video, but your lug to lug measurement on that Seamaster is off. It's 49.5mm lug to lug (and about 50.2mm end link to endlink) so you either didn't measure properly, or you remembered the lug to lug of the previous generation (which indeed was about 47.1mm). The "fit inside" comparisson is also a bit flawed, when you consider that they're not alligned at crown level so they're not level. Don't get me wrong, the Explorer 2 has a slightly longer lug to lug and longer end link to endlink but not as dramatic as presented.
Indeed the lug to lug distance is wrong. But this does not effect the fact the Omega feels much better fitting than the 42 mm Rolex. I decided to try out the 40mm vintage explorer but never got hands on one. Just love the Black Bay Pro as my GMT watch and am wishing that Tudor will do the polar dial.
Nice review, and I enjoy your videos. However, the Explorer II doesn’t look too large on your wrist to my eye, even with the normal camera effect. I think it’s in your head, not reality.
Maybe I am wrong and simply do not want to pay the grey market price. And looking for an excuse. But I am wishing for a Polar Black Bay Pro
Nice comparison. Why lose money on the Rolex? You can just buy it and sell it later on for a good profit.
Rolex is indeed an investment if you can buy at the AD price. For 11K GBP you will be struggling to get it all back.
Because he bought it on the gray market so any profit the watch could make was already taken by the resellers, leaving him with loss
I actually think it looks great on your wrist.
The 42 mm explorer? It felt too big for me. I need to try the vintage 40 mm model. The Seamaster wins for the wear experience for now..
The omega is disposable. The Explorer lives for ever.
You have. 15 cm wrist and not 18cm.
This review is teash