Reply With QuoteNo messing about, give these guys a ring and get that on your wrist
https://www.ukspecialistwatches.co.u...ite-dial-2020/
Hi Guys,
I'm in the deliberation for a full white gold sub or GMT, I already have a stainless version of each but I wanted to know what the weight is like to live with?
I know what some of you are thinking "if he already has the stainless version, why go for gold"? To be honest, I cant answer that question myself at the moment! I just have a hankering for a precious metal version.
Cheers
Mark
No messing about, give these guys a ring and get that on your wrist
https://www.ukspecialistwatches.co.u...ite-dial-2020/
I'd rather buy the previous version for about £25k!Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner
No messing about, give these guys a ring and get that on your wrist
https://www.ukspecialistwatches.co.u...ite-dial-2020/
I wear a 116619LB (old shape WG blue Sub') daily, and on the wrist it feels very similar in weight to say, my 45.5mm Planet Ocean.
So if you're used to a watch with a bit of 'heft' the weight really won't be an issue IMO, and if you're concerned that WG will mark easier than SS I run a glorified skip-yard so the watch is hardly pampered, and I don't think it marks any more easily than say, the PCL's on my SS GMT or SS Daytona.
If you can buy one at the right money I'd say go for it, WG is far more discreet than RG/YG and it's very much a "you have to know, to know" kind of thing and the pleasure is in the wearing.
(I do consider where I do/don't wear my RG DD40, but the WG Sub' rarely leaves my wrist).
True story: Prior to the WG Sub' my daily wearer was a bi-metal (blue-dialled) Sub'.
When I started wearing the WG Sub' several customers said "Oh! Sorry you had to sell your nice watch mate, I preferred the one with gold in it...." so 'each to their own' I guess, and I do still wear the TT when I fancy a bit of 'holiday bling'....
Thanks Spuds, Was the thing I wanted to hear!
I had a white gold GMT last year which I really liked, and enjoyed the extra weight - noticeable, but not by any means too heavy
It was in pretty much perfect shape when it came to me, and somehow without noticing managed to put quite a deep scratch into one of the PCL links - no idea how that happened given that I was pretty much sat in my home office all last year. That has never happened on a steel bracelet or case to me, so if you like it to stay pristine, then be aware it does mark a lot easier
I have a yearning for a WG watch on bracelet to mark my retirement, hopefully next year. Pretty certain it will be a Rolex, and the YM2 is favourite atm. Would not be a popular choice but I do like it a lot.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
........Do I recall a story where you were even wearing the white gold sub whilst getting involved with a club hammer? You really do wear it and enjoy it. Good to hear
Love the WG Sub
I saw a weight comparison here if it's of interest
https://millenarywatches.com/rolex-submariner-weight/
Rolex Submariner weight
Rolex Submariner 5513: 119 grams
Rolex Submariner 16610: 135 grams (including all links)
Rolex Submariner 14060M: 124 grams (with 11 links)
Rolex Submariner 16618: 175 grams
Rolex Submariner 16613: 150 (with gold on the clasp and solid end links)
Rolex Submariner 116610LV: 160 grams
Rolex Submariner 116610LN: 160 grams
Rolex Submariner 114060: 152.9 grams. (2 links removed)
Rolex Submariner 116613LB: 172 grams (all links)
Rolex Submariner 116613LN: 172 grams (all links)
Rolex Submariner 116618LN: 296 grams
Rolex Submariner 116618LB: 296 grams
Rolex Submariner 116619: 229 grams
I wear my Smurf quite regularly alternating with a 16710 and 16600. The weight is noticeable, but certainly not uncomfortable. The additional heft is a very subtle reminder that what you have is truly exceptional. And that is how it should be - for you, and not others.
Thanks for all the replies guys.
That’s it......a purely private pleasure. To me, white gold is a real delight. Not ‘necessary’ but lovely. Yes, it costs more, but it feels worth it (to me anyway). A guilty pleasure.
Yep that was me mate!!
With respect, if you don’t know how you did it, how do you know that a SS watch wouldn’t have suffered the same?
Absolutely agreed, for me that’s the thing about WG, it’s for you the wearer, whereas I’ll freely admit that when I wear RG it’s perhaps almost equally about the ‘viewer’....
Absolutely. I hear the same things all the time about gold, but my WG watch on full bracelet has faired at least as well as any of my well worn steel sports watches - some of those were much worse. If you have an accidental bash against something you may not even notice it until much later - I’ve often wondered how some marks have appeared, whereas others you hear and feel the impact.
In reality I doubt there is much real difference.
It's just a matter of time...
You will not be disappointed with either a WG Sub or GMT.
My WG Sub has been on and off my daily for nearly 7 years now and certainly does not get pampered. About the only time I will take off my wrist is when I am doing some welding and do not find it marks anymore than a SS Sub. Yes I have damaged one of the links, not sure how it happened but sure the same would have happened if it was a SS bracelet.
I was sat at my desk all day and didn’t bang it into anything. Could have brushed against a zip or similar, but nothing like that has happened to me with any of my steel watches without me knowing about it as I am generally very careful
Just my opinion, weight is not an issue but white gold is far more susceptible to damage than steel.
Is there a stat for how much harder Rolex steel is Vs white gold or how much softer the white gold is? I'd love something WG at some point but the softness Vs steel does worry me, even though I have no idea if it's 1% softer or 50% softer.
This seems to illustrate how the various gold alloys compare to other metals and their alloys
https://www.mjewelry.com/precious-metals-guide
With both being alloyed for hardness, the Stainless steel should still be twice as hard, I would expect.
Thank you. The range on the hardness scale for white gold is interesting. I didn't think it would be stronger than silver.
Understandable when you see what the silver is alloyed with- Copper.
I think the only WG watch I have noticed on here was a sports Rolex with a bright blue bezel and the whole thing was just to-o-o shiny.
I’m sure there are lots of posts on here already, but Rolex has its own foundry, and I’d guess their unique mix is pretty damn good and as well as being homogenous and not requiring a Rhodium plating, pretty hard.
Taken from another post:
”
The normal annealed austenitic stainless steels, 316L and 316L VM, have 150 - 190 HV on a Vickers Hardness scale. They can achieve 250 - 300 HV, when they are cold hardened (note: Ice hardened 316L & 316VM tool steels may achieve 600 – 700 HV; these are very expensive). The hardened austenitic stainless steel used in watches’ cases (316L or 316L VM) has 200 - 240 HV.
The super annealed austenitic stainless steel 904L has circa 150 - 190 HV and the cold hardened super austenitic stainless steel 904L can achieve 250 - 300 HV (note: Ice hardened 904L tool steels may achieve 600 – 700 HV; these are very expensive). The hardened super austenitic stainless steel used in watches’ cases has 200 - 240 HV. There are no differences in hardness between 316L, 316L VM and 904L stainless steels used in watches.”
Rhodium (plating) 800 HV 14k White Gold 230 HV 18k White Gold 210 HV 18k Yellow Gold 155 HV 14k Yellow Gold 140 HV 14k Rose Gold 140 HV Palladium 130 HV Platinum 125 HV Sterling Silver 75 HV
The above are standard ratings and not using a proprietary mix such as Rolex or Omega. Hublot achieve over 900HV with an 18k mix, and A Lange & Sohne over 300HV.
I just know that whatever I’ve put my WG watch through, a steel watch would look similar, and both would look great after a refurb, despite them both having some dinks etc.
It's just a matter of time...
I would say that must be incorrect with the 6 digit submariners. Surely there is no weight difference between white gold and yellow gold on 116618 and 116619.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The YG & WG Ceramic Subs are all circa 230 with all links..give or take 2 grams
16618 is circa 185 grams as it has hollow links whereas the ceramic model has solid links and a meaty clasp....
I wore a 116718 vert as a daily after parting with a 16618...the Ceramics are noticeably heavier I love the heft...
And if you want a workout try a Platona or Platinum DD40...
Last edited by TKH; 9th January 2021 at 07:33.
Much heavier - see figures above.
As regards being a daily wearer of a gold watch - it is less scratch resistant, but if you can get over micro-scratches these really give character to your watch and eventually don’t be noticeable.
not the same as a Rolex - but here is my 5146J showing some “wabi”.
I think it’s important to remember that these are watches made in metal, and not glass, toffee or chocolate :)
It's just a matter of time...
I have a white gold Calatrava 6000G already, so I have some experience of the gold characteristics and daily wear. It was my daily for over 2 years and has worn very well (surprisingly). When possible I am going to try and locate a dealer with a full gold and see how it feels.Much heavier - see figures above.
As regards being a daily wearer of a gold watch - it is less scratch resistant, but if you can get over micro-scratches these really give character to your watch and eventually don’t be noticeable.
not the same as a Rolex - but here is my 5146J showing some “wabi”.
Cheers
No messing about, give these guys a ring and get that on your wrist
https://www.ukspecialistwatches.co.u...ite-dial-2020/I’d have to be paid £41,900 to wear that!!!
Not a fan of meteorite dials then
I’ll do it for free haha, saw it in person once during a Rolex event at Pragnell (not from the AD but someone else who was there), as much as I’ prefer 4 and 5 digit Rolexes, the watch is beautiful (especially under a loupe).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree with that
I think the GMT meteorite is a stunner.
Posting Permissions
