must confess I never really noticed how thick the C/G is on the new one,always thought it was just the lugs that were thicker.I have the old SD and the ceramic GMT and love both,each has plus and minus points
The SUBc is 40mm but the lugs add to the wrist presence that I personally think is lacking from the older models, though I do like the classic case design. It's not blingy but it looks expensive, because it is.
Objectively, everything about the SUBc is an improvement. Aesthetics are down to personal opinion- chances are you'd prefer the old model if you own one!
I don't have side shot of old versus new as I dumped 'old' in favour of 'new' - but this shows a profile shot http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...-C-vs-Sub-C-LVOriginally Posted by RobDad
The watch the OP is selling has signs of wear - hairlines in the polished sides and a scuffed clasp. I think £3750 is a fair price for a watch that brand new is very readily available at £4500 (Iconic for example).
Yes, because the 16610 is more desirable. Apparently.
It seems that way, plus Rolex steel sports appear to be way easier to get hold of than in times gone by.
Supply and demand.....
Please source me some pre-owned ceramic Subs at £3,750 (anywhere in the EU) and I'll buy 5. :)
There's one on SC at £3950 not sold, so stick an offer in to the seller ;0)
Being not so modest, I think mine looks the dogs on my 6.5" wrist.
It's only 40 mm, and I find perfectly suited to a girls wrist.
There's 3(!) on the 1st page of SC at the mo - although one person hasn't taken a look at the competition when pricing.
Last edited by noTAGlove; 21st March 2014 at 17:56.
If the rumours are true and Rolex are discontinuing the DSSD, then maybe they may think about doing the same with the new sub and coming out with one with a case that doesn't make the watch look stupid
I'm definitely in the classic camp myself. Both sub and gmt are classics in their old guises IMO.
The new ones are nicely engineered but the lugs and CGs are just not in balance to my eye, on or off the wrist.
I think the fact that late previous models go for roughly the same price as new models is a good indication that the "1"s hold their own against the "11"s
I've warmed to the new case - and no doubt the technological improvements are all good - but I really do think the classic case size is better proportioned.
Great wristy. I'm in the apparent minority in actually preferring the more chunky and muscular Sub C case; after all it's a diver, not a dress watch.I preferred the older Subs but thought I would try one of the newer Ceramic models. I picked up this new Submariner a few weeks ago and.......wow what a piece
Personally I think Rolex did a great job of bringing the iconic Submariner design into the 21st century, whilst resisting the urge to supersize like the ceramic POs.
It's amazing how tiny the markers look on the classic 166xx dials once you get used to the maxi dial. And that super cool blue lume... I'd take the new Sub every time. 116610 LN - cyclops = my perfect watch.
A very good comparison photo. In the new lugs is there just the hint of another diver?
Sound fellow.IMVHO that is.
I could have collected a 116610 today but after checking size comparison to my old 16610 I decided to pass.
Looked a bit daft on my 6.75" wrist I thought.
comparison2 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr
David
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
I just like my Sub-C.
Main problems with the old Sub (14060 / 16610) for me are the smaller plots on the dial, skinny hands, poor bezel and bracelet. The case is o.k., as is the movement. :)
The 16610LV Solves 2 of those issues - maxi dial and thicker hands. Bezel works and cheap to replace (with a black one if you like) and the bracelet is what it is.
Poor bezel?, why do you think that?
Well not poor exactly - just a bit dated and insubstantial. Works though I suppose. :)
The only problem with the older submariners is that I don't get own enough of them
It's just a matter of time...
+1 I cannot even begin to like the look of those nasty large almost square luggs
Looks pretty marginal to me but if you have a preference, just go with it.
I prefer the classic case, but the off wrist comparison shot does exaggerate the blockiness of the lugs of the supercase. On the wrist it isn't as noticeable as it just looks like a submariner.
Fans of the old - Wear one for a week and tell me you're not converted.
I looked at photos and thought it was damned ugly. I still didn't like it after trying one on. You have to wear it for a while and then it just clicks.
When I wear my old shape, I prefer it. When I wear the new, I prefer it.
Pretty much my thoughts - but I sold my new ones, and still have most of the old ones - as an everyday, or maybe an only watch the newer ones are probably the better prospect for most people - unless they are looking at very long term values.Fans of the old - Wear one for a week and tell me you're not converted.
I looked at photos and thought it was damned ugly. I still didn't like it after trying one on. You have to wear it for a while and then it just clicks.
When I wear my old shape, I prefer it. When I wear the new, I prefer it.
It's just a matter of time...
For me it's the maxi-dial that puts me off the new Subs (and Explorer II's) for that matter. The extra large plots just make the dial look so cramped.
I can understand that some may not warm to the thicker lugs of the 116610 but I prefer it hands-down to the 16610 which I feel is often viewed with rose-tinted glasses.
The hour plots on the older model are starting to look quite small and dated, similarly the hands look quite anaemic.But I can appreciate than in combination with the more streamlined case shape, this more 'restrained' aesthetic of the 16610 has its appeal.
However the real sticking point for me with the older model has always been the bracelet. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, it was garbage (in the sense that it was outdated and totally unbefitting of a watch of this quality and calibre). You can tell me it was perfectly adequate, or functional, or tried and tested... or whatever, but it was tinny and felt cheap. The stamped clasp always looked jarring to my eye against the oyster links and was no better what you would find on your average watch. The Sub ND was even worse with its even cheaper hollow end links. I could never buy a Sub on that bracelet.
I always liked the maxi dial of the LV over the 16610 and was very pleased that this look was transferred over onto the modern Sub. The new bracelet with glidelock clasp is so much better in functionality and appearance I don't know how anyone could argue to the contrary and keep a straight face.
As for the lugs... when I first saw the 'fat lugs' however many years ago, I thought the design was ruined. Somehow I have warmed to it and there has been no arm-twisting or wishful thinking involved. I think one thing that positively influenced me was when some collectors pointed out that the prominence of the lugs to the bracelet was very reminiscent of the vintage Subs of the late 50s, and I think I agree. One of the things that all brands strive for is 'design DNA' and heritage/lineage and I see the new ceramic Sub as very faithful to its roots. The lugs look a bit brutal, but there is something unashamed about them that charms me: the original Sub was a bruiser of a watch with distinctive dimensions, just like the new ones.
Add on the new ceramic bezel which looks way nicer than the printed aluminum predecessor and I much prefer the new generation of Submariner.
All good point Dent99, but I do prefer the older watch in LV guise much more. Only the clasp has moved things on in any real way - the older SEL bracelets are fantastic and there is very little changed apart from the clasps. Ceramic is personal taste; I think it looks alright, but prefer the old metal insert.
I will buy more ceramic subs in the future, and enjoy wearing my DSSD, but for now my heart is with the older Subs/SD's
It's just a matter of time...
One of the reasons I think the Sub LV Kermit is perfect - you get the maxi dial, out a Black bezel on it and you have the perfect sub IMHO.
Should have gone to specsavers.
A very good comparison photo. In the new lugs is there just the hint of another diver?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
