Reply With QuoteIt never really bothered me, but I think in hindsight the newer model feels much more balanced.
Well, it’s ‘dead’ in the sense of being replaced in the Submariner range. But do people now see it as a ten-year styling error, finally corrected by Rolex? Or will they miss it, mourn it?
Me, I couldn’t stand it. Delighted to see Rolex back on track. But others may disagree......
Incidentally, the arrival of the slimmer lugs on the SD43 was surely the clue.
Last edited by paskinner; 21st September 2020 at 10:53.
It never really bothered me, but I think in hindsight the newer model feels much more balanced.
I think they were under pressure to produce something for Basel. They leaped into the plunge pool, and that was that.
I think it was a success, as they seemed to sell, albeit not my cup of tea.
But there is always the expectation amongst the watch industry, and enthusiasts, of something new, even if minor tweaks are made.
The majority of the planet are blissfully unaware, nor are they bothered, if you ask me.
I do like the return of the slimmer case, and if ever I see one in the shop window, I'll happily try one on.
Short production run (especially in steel), unloved. They’ll be selling for a premium in no time. I agree with above.
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 21st September 2020 at 12:27.
The GMTs still have the super case - even the ones released a couple of years ago. Somehow with the jubilee bracelet on, the bigger lugs don’t present such a visual issue for me. Also now they have gone on the new model subs I have begun to appreciate the super case a bit more, than I had previously. It has it’s own strange charm. I was desperate for the sub lugs to slim down and now they have, I’m delighted but at the same time I will always look at the fatter ones from the last decade with a fondness.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Rolex arrived late to the big watch trend which was in full swing a decade ago, in my few they made a mess with the maxi case introduction and have been looking to kill it off for the last few years.
Bad design is bad design, no matter how many ££££ you put on the price ticket and I think the maxi case will be consigned to Rolex history as not their finest decade.
Never hid that I thought it was shonky in the extreme.
Not "wrist presence" .......... shonky.
Slap a green dial and bezel on it - and it looked like it was a prize in a toy crane-game at the fairground.
Not that it affects me personally very much; I probably won't buy a new Rolex again, though I may buy something quite closely inspired by one. But yes, agreed. An unfortunate error.Originally Posted by paskinner
I agree. I always thought the shoulders on the hulk for example were just too much. Even more so when you flip it over and see the shape of the case from that perspective. I can see plenty of people wanting to go back to 5 digits and think the modern bracelets on those older cases would just about be a perfect Rolex. I assume those modern shoulders are solid. If so they could take 200 years worth of service polishing and would slowly look better every time :-)
Yes I totally agree and yet in 20 years time these ugly ducklings could easily become highly sought after, such is the weird world of the Rolex market.
Agree with OP so now all they need to do is ditch the ceramic and we’’’ are back with a decent looking watch.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by Hood; 21st September 2020 at 13:46.
Don't think we'll miss and mourn it. The lugs are the worst part of my Sub. Looking forward to being able to swap it for a new one at some point.
I have a couple of examples of the now discontinued Submariner in my collection and I have to say that the case design has never been an issue for me. It sits comfortably on the wrist and was (to my mind) an improvement on its predecessor. My sense is that on the wrist there will be little difference between the old and new case design.
Last edited by Woody74; 23rd September 2020 at 13:18.
I personally prefer the older cases, but I don't see the current GMT BLRO or the Daytona falling out of favour any time soon.
Biggest difference will be on the no date.
I prefer 5 digits. I have a sue-ellen shouldered LV that im very fond of.
Im not close remotely close to climax over the new ones to be honest. I think that they're probably perfect.
I had a 116600 which was perfect, and I was so bored.
Time will tell I suppose, but I prefer quirks and oddities.
I would like to see the new ND Submariner. Probably the only one I would get.
I agree with all of the above, (and this especially) except in honesty the newer case just 'flows better' when worn, even at a glance....
Problem for me is that 5 digits are nice for 4-5k and not 8k, not to mention that what makes them is lustrous brushed factory finish and slim chamfers, majority of 5 digits have been polished by either idiots that rounded lugs or someone that made chamfer wide like the English channel, so the only nice 5 digits are the ones that were not polished and thus command premium which I am even less willing to pay for rattly tool watch that should have never costed more than 5k.
Yes I wondered that. My thought was that they had the slimmer lugs on the SD43 to distinguish it from the Sub; then couldn't help notice how many commentators said they preferred it. Impossible to know with Rolex of course.
What about 5 digits that have only been serviced once or twice by Rolex? If they've been serviced by idiots then don't buy them. Simples. If you think 5 digit subs are just a "...rattly tool watch..." "...that should never have costed more than 5k(sic)..." perhaps you'd be better off with a a Vostok. Guess you think a Porsche Macan would be nice for £20k and not circa £60k!
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Why do you think so? Surely they share the same case and size?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Less distraction without the date and the cyclops so the lugs are laid a bit more bare
Serviced by Rolex does not mean much, Ive seen well polished/brushed examples just as I have seen butchered cases from Rolex, depends on RSC. For me the rattly bracelet is part of the charm, and I had every 5 digit sport reference apart from Daytona. 1st one being 114270 for about 2k many years back, the list price on the 5 digits when they were discontinued (excluding Daytona) was what ? 4.2k max? And they were being discounted. I paid 5k for 16600 2 years ago which was the last 5 digit I have bought and I already felt like it was a lot of money, but Seadweller has special place in my heart, and I loved the redundancy of having it strapped to my wrist while scuba diving. Personally I just feel like they are too expensive for what they are. I do not really understand the Macan analogy as I am not a car guy, perhaps you could explain it to me, is Macan discounted and expected to double or quadruple its value once it is discontinued?
That is a valid point but equally I bought a ceramic Sub on here for 4.7K 3 years ago and that seemed about right for that too.
Prices have moved on for both 5 and 6 digit and you either get your head around it or don't.
Yup but 3 years ago price increase was around the corner no? For me the 6 digit difference is mostly between the fact you could get them preowned with some discount compared to them still being available for list price, I bought the one I wanted for list price from AD after a bit of wait at least. I suppose in UK the market is different and the chances of getting Sub/GMT without prior purchase history are worse and thus 5 digits still do not seem so expensive compared to dealer prices of 6 digits, you are right of course that the prices moved a lot in past 2 years at the end of day buying LVc for 18k is worth it for some people aswell.
Be interested to see proof of butchered cases from Rolex. Personally I think you're talking rubbish.
As for the Macan analogy, if you pay Dacia money you get a Dacia, if you pay Porsche money you could get a Macan.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Well that explanation did not help at all. Are you suggesting that by paying 8k for 5 digit is just what it is since it is Rolex without correlation to the quality you could get elsewhere for 8k or that it is a good perceived quality for 8k?
I feel like you are being what I perceive as rather hostile towards me.
Anyway here is friends 16600 after RSC was told not to polish, came back polished with HEV sticking out and new chamfers.
And this is UK RSC GMT that I bought many years ago and got rid of since
Last edited by Exiztence; 21st September 2020 at 18:14.
Rolex butchering cases at service. I must confess this is news to me....do you have some examples of this butchery?
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I leapt at getting the maxi case when the GMT2Cs came out and traded in my older GMT-Master 2. It didn’t take long before I realised the maxi case was a slab sided block of steel and I missed the comparative elegance of the older models. I think there is a middle ground for sports watches between the two.
I even thought the milgaus was a bit too much steel which is why I settled for the DJ41 in the end as the Rolex that has stayed in my collection.
Linked above, perhaps butchering was a hyperbole but such uncharacteristic wide chamfers ruin the case for me personally, because they have no business being there and take out a lot of metal.
Was this not the infamous Bexkey bevel?
I think it’s better now but I do remember it mentioned in previous threads
I would agree that the super wide chamfer you see on some is pretty off.
I think it is, perhaps that is why I saw a lot of examples of 5 digits with these bevels from UK, I think they look like they belong on 4 digits but 5 digit case is different it just looks awkward. I suppose to each their own but to me it is more like modification of case which has no place there, compared to sexy thin factory bevels.
Well that explanation did not help at all. Are you suggesting that by paying 8k for 5 digit is just what it is since it is Rolex without correlation to the quality you could get elsewhere for 8k or that it is a good perceived quality for 8k?
No. I'm saying you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay it get something else, instead of whingeing about how much they cost nowadays.
I feel like you are being what I perceive as rather hostile towards me.
No, hostile towards your views actually.
Anyway here is friends 16600 after RSC was told not to polish, came back polished with HEV sticking out and new chamfers.
And this is UK RSC GMT that I bought many years ago and got rid of since
Find it hard to believe tbh. Look like the kind of finish seen at some independents.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Anyway since you find it hard to believe, I found a thread here with 16710 or 16700 with this style of refinish:
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...=1#post4894407
I do not know why you find it hard to belive what I wrote as I have no reason to lie.
I 100% do think it was a styling error. Rolex have really struggled with upsizing some classic designs, and for me the maxi case was an unsuccessful attempt to add heft by changing only one component instead of the scale of the whole watch. The movements, dials, date wheels hands and bracelets were a certain size, so they looked for other ways that would be easier than scaling up every part and keeping the iconic, and IMO correct proportions. Though for me, I never needed it to be scaled up in the first place. A slightly larger DJ, Oyster Perpetual and Explorer for modern tastes is reasonable, but personally I think they slightly overdid those with 39 and 41, others with larger wrists will quite reasonably disagree. Proud owners of maxi cases may also like them that way, let’s see how they age and if they are sought after. But I’ve always preferred the classic vintage designs, frankly I never really liked the sub until I saw a vintage one.
Rolex enjoyed its best period during the maxi years. So hardly an error or a mistake. Amusing and laughable to see it being referred to as such.
The case has now evolved. The new one is certainly not a dramatic departure from the maxi case.
So, yes the current maxi case is dead for the foreseeable future.
You’ve owned a wide range of watches so I’d be interested to know what you felt was added by the move to the Maxi-Case. The old models were slim but that was a positive - any fool can make something bulky and strong, making something svelte and strong takes talent. Other than the DSSD, specs didn’t change so what was the benefit? The move from 120 click to 48 (or 24?) click bezel on the GMT lost more than it gained. As a former GMT owner, the move from “cheap to change” metal bezel insert to ceramic, again, lost more than it gained.
Aesthetics aside - as I appreciate that just because I prefer a slimmer watch doesn’t mean everyone has to - what did the Maxi-Case add?
Thanks for the share and learnt something new today about the Bexley Edge!
S
To me, the ‘blocky’ shape was just plain poor . Yes, it’s always a matter of personal taste, but some things are better than others.....
At least now I could contemplate wearing a current Sub (assuming I could actually get one!).
Last edited by paskinner; 21st September 2020 at 21:51.
Define ‘best’.
Rajen won't countenance any criticism of Rolex.
You should know this by now.
Greatest demand or greatest demand-supply mismatch. Commercially best.
It was the combination of ceramic bezel and ‘bigger’ or bigger looking case. It was something different, not necessarily better. Just like cars undergo changes in Shape and sizes, so do watches. Rolex can’t go on making same looking watches for centuries with only changes in movement, though obviously some would prefer that. Some people are resistant to change and stagnant, some welcome change. Commercially it worked wonders for Rolex. Rest is down to personal preference. I am able to enjoy both, so not a big deal for me. One thing I will definitely say- I laugh at people who wear their preference for 5 digit cases as a badge of honour.
And for those who are hailing this return to ‘normalcy’, this is not your grandpa’s Submariner. For the record, I do like it a lot but is not different enough from the maxi case for me to rush out to buy it, though I will get one in due course.
Last edited by RAJEN; 21st September 2020 at 23:18.
Lol, I just feel the need to provide a counterfoil to the TZ-UK herd mentality. ( Not to be confused with herd immunity like a certain person).
Because you said Rolex were "butchering" cases and then went on to claim that the fact they refinished cases with a bevel was proof. It's no such thing. You were just having a pop at Rolex in the time honoured tradition.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
So the bevel I linked was first unbeliveable and surely done by independant and short of calling me a liar is now a time honoured tradition? Each to their own. I think the discussion run its course.
Fair assessment
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
I have always thought the same - the cyclops/date helps to deflect from the bulk of the case (slightly).
Could be true, never thought of it that way. I know the new sub date has more of a 16610 feel to it obviously, than the maxi case ever could.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Posting Permissions
