ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Sub or Exp?? | |||
Keep the Sub-C! | 238 | 55.09% | |
Go for the Exp II 42, you will love it!! | 194 | 44.91% | |
Voters: 432. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
13 September 2012, 11:56 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Andrew
Location: Indonesia
Watch: Rolex
Posts: 2,277
|
sub C for me....
__________________
Baume & Mercier Riviera Rolex GMT II c, DJ 116234, Sub 16610, EXP 2 16570 Panerai 111 , 232 |
13 September 2012, 01:05 PM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Bert
Location: philippines
Watch: 116710 ln
Posts: 3,448
|
The Sub over exp 42 for me!
|
13 September 2012, 02:48 PM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,063
|
Thanks all, I am continuing to debate this decision. I do appreciate all of the comments. I think I am leaning towards the EXP II... Matte dial, a little kick of color with that GMT hand.... I don't know its a bit more unique in my eyes.
|
13 September 2012, 03:48 PM | #4 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
the more I researched, asked questions, thought about it, and went into my AD over and over, the EXP II just rose to the surface. Have you Googled reviews on the EXP II, they are raving to say the least. Here are a few of my personal observations: 1) EXP II 42mm was more comfortable on MY wrist (your wrist may differ) 2) Love the original look! Love the orange hand! 3) No future repair bills for trouble shooting rotating bezel in future from sand at beach (are you a diver? Would you dive w/ your Sub? If not, no rotating bezel is really necessary). 4) Love the Luminated markers! 5) EASY TO READ dial. A big seller for me here! Do yourself a favor, and definitely compare the two watches while on your wrist. the larger 42mm maxi dial and markers easily win here! (no debate needed). 6) Love the larger 42mm watch. Why didn't Rolex increase the size of the Sub in the most recent launch?? Don't know, but I'll take a 42mm over its 40mm brethren any day. It just feels better. 7) Sub is unfortunately one of the most copied watches of all times. Flattering yes... but do you really want a watch that A) Screams Rolex B) Potentially screams fake Rolex by the untrained eye? 8) I am a diver. NO ONE has ever gone down 300 feet sport diving, so who cares if the Sub can go to 1000? (can you say "Dead Diver"?) 9) Glidelock clasp? +1 for Sub-C. Rolex, you big dummies, what were you thinking? Was the EXP II not deserving enough? 10) The EXP II sings to me the loudest. One thing you will here consistently on this forum is "Rolex got this one right" in referring to the 42mm EXP. Wow... how often do you here that? Good luck. You cannot make a bad choice here. Determine what is important to YOU, and choose accordingly. Let's look at some great photo's! (All photos taken from other TRF previous post, in which I do not have names to give credit. If you see YOUR watch photo... thank you, and feel free to claim credit!) |
|
13 September 2012, 06:23 PM | #5 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
|
Quote:
To paraphrase a line from a well-known movie; "You had me at 10)"
__________________
|
|
13 September 2012, 07:10 PM | #6 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: Travis
Location: FL / NYC
Watch: Yes..
Posts: 32,351
|
I own both and will say I'm glad I don't have to make your decision.
The ExpII wears slightly larger but sits lower on the wrist and can say that for me, the ExpII is a bit more comfortable. I do like the shine of the SubC bezel but there are times I feel like toning it down a bit. Glidelock is second to none on the SubC. Hard to explain but the ExpII just screams to be worn. I say give it a try. The ExpII will not disappoint. |
13 September 2012, 07:16 PM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: singapore
Posts: 6,424
|
I think the Exp II is a very handsome watch but I only wish Rolex had fitted it with the bigger and more robust Triplock crown instead of only a slightly larger Twinlock.
(I always thought it odd that the GMT IIc got the Triplock and yet the Explorer II, which is presumably for more rugged use, retained the Twinlock). |
14 September 2012, 08:11 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Austin Tx
Watch: Sub-C
Posts: 504
|
Keep the sub.
|
13 September 2012, 04:02 PM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 277
|
An observation: I just noticed the Sub C guys just say "Sub C", while the EXP II fans elaborate more in depth as to why they chose the EXP II.
I cannot help but point this out, since it has been a pretty common theme on most of the forum post I have read regarding the "SUB vs. (fill in the blank)" . Sub C fans, I am here to learn! Can you elaborate more as to WHY Sub C?? |
13 September 2012, 07:29 PM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 169
|
Here's my pic which you may have seen before. I love the Exp 2 and actually I've since sold the Sub C because I wasn't wearing it since I got the Exp 2.
With your small wrist though I think the Sub C would fit you better
__________________
Current line up: Omega Speedmaster, Rolex Sea Dweller 16600, Tudor Black Bay ETA |
13 September 2012, 11:20 PM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Real Name: MJC
Location: PHL USA
Watch: IWC, Rolex, AP
Posts: 29,232
|
Sub for me
__________________
|
13 September 2012, 11:29 PM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Matthew
Location: Miami/NY
Watch: the shoes.
Posts: 3,482
|
The exp ii is so much more proportioned than the sub. Having owned both I would go exp ii
|
14 September 2012, 12:23 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,063
|
Thanks to all... I want to also add that this will be my everyday watch. For weekends and fancier occasions I have my TT Daytona.
I do not have to worry if an EXP II would look good with a suit, but I am sure it shouldnt be a problem! |
14 September 2012, 01:06 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 277
|
@ Sunster - Thanks for the great photos I used of yours! (again!)
@psSmith - Thank you for a really great rundown. This is the first time I have read of the "why" differences of the EXP/SUB crown, and I enjoyed reading your post (along with numerous others I have seen). @GMTmaster - Another well thought out and delivered post. I certainly do not question your knowledge, and value your input on any thread. |
14 September 2012, 02:22 AM | #15 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,149
|
Quote:
|
|
14 September 2012, 11:37 AM | #16 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
|
Quote:
No problem - happy to help
__________________
|
|
14 September 2012, 01:44 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Real Name: Sandy
Location: England.
Watch: 14060M 2 liner
Posts: 3,204
|
The twinlock plus is a perfect size. The triplock crown would look horrible on this watch.
|
14 September 2012, 01:46 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: US
Posts: 3,384
|
Sub C fits my girly wrist better!
|
14 September 2012, 07:17 AM | #19 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Real Name: Gerardus
Location: EU
Watch: ♕
Posts: 11,904
|
SubC for me
__________________
♕16570 ♕126610 ♕126333 |
14 September 2012, 07:18 AM | #20 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: TSW
Location: Le Brassus
Watch: Rolex & AP's
Posts: 27,449
|
Keep the Sub
__________________
AP Owners Club IG @swiss.watch.connection |
14 September 2012, 07:27 AM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Matthew
Location: Miami/NY
Watch: the shoes.
Posts: 3,482
|
This Exp ii is going to keep getting more and more attention guys. My favorite Rolex I've owned hands down. My next one will be white though.
|
14 September 2012, 07:43 AM | #22 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Dalip
Location: Mumbai and Perth
Watch: Rolex PAM Omega
Posts: 18,656
|
The best advice as always comes from real time wearers and there are some great points made in this thread from those members.
The SubC never managed to gel with me...and I have tried both the LN and LV variants and had them for enough time to form a clear opinion. It was the same with the GMT 2C which was with me for a decent time also. The new case just doesn't work on my wrist. I found i could never seem to size the watch so that I wasn't thinking about it. Just constant fidgeting. This isn't common with others I know who own any of these models. The exp 42 on the other hand is one of th most comfortable watches I own. That and the new DJII smooth bezel which is also fantastic. The case shape and extra size of the explorer II work so well on my wrist. I have never had to adjust it since first sizing the bracelet. The proportions of case and dial are spot on in my eyes. The dial layout and 24 hr hand give the watch a special touch. It really is a seamless integration of all it's parts. The exp 42 works exceptionally well in my rotation....whereas the subC was consistently pushed aside by the DSSD which I find more comfortable (go figure) and just has more that I look for in a watch. or it would be my 16610LV that would be a preferred choice. Both are exceptional models, but my pick would be the exp II 42. Own and wear one for a month and I'd say it'd be a hard one to ever let go. Some pics :
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------ "The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." George Bernard Shaw |
14 September 2012, 07:49 AM | #23 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 6,063
|
Quote:
The EXP really did not seem that much bigger when I tried it on. You just notice the dial a bit more as its bigger (and has a huge orange hand!) I think the value is there but there is just something about the heritage of a SUB! But then again, I can always buy another Sub C, not like theyre discontinued |
|
14 September 2012, 08:02 AM | #24 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Dalip
Location: Mumbai and Perth
Watch: Rolex PAM Omega
Posts: 18,656
|
Quote:
The sub that I have ended up with is the 16610LV. For me it fits perfectly, has a maxi dial which I prefer and the optional (and easy) change of insert Some pics:
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------ "The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." George Bernard Shaw |
|
14 September 2012, 07:56 AM | #25 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Real Name: Serg
Location: US of A
Watch: AP
Posts: 7,427
|
Agree with Dalip above. My Sub LV C feels a little "empty" after the DeepSea (which I also agree, feels better on the wrist ... and that's a lot better). Too sterile? I don't know, maybe it is just the DeepSea honeymoon talking. I wore a 16570 for a few long years and wanted a Sub during all that time.
The GMT C wears too small for whatever reason (in my opinion). The Expy 42 looks very appealing to me.
__________________
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat???? |
14 September 2012, 08:09 AM | #26 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Dalip
Location: Mumbai and Perth
Watch: Rolex PAM Omega
Posts: 18,656
|
Quote:
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------ "The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." George Bernard Shaw |
|
14 September 2012, 08:48 AM | #27 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,144
|
I own both a Sub and the Explorer II. Granted my Sub is an older model, however as an owner of both I will comment nonetheless. Size is just going to come down to prefefence. Proportion is slightly off for me on the new SubC. I felt the GMTIIC had this figured out as well until I tried it on. Something just seems off. Only my perception. The Sub is a classic. Has a great military feel and presence. It is very well recognized which brings its own pros and cons that have already been mentioned. It is the quintessential starter watch along with the GMT in the Rolex sports line. The Explorer II is just different. I cannot explain it in any other context. The orange hand pops but is not overpowering. It stands out in size, solves proportion issues, sports the newst Rolex technology, and is avaikable in two very different but worthy dial variations. I like the observation that the Sub is military and the Explorer II is outdoors. The Explorer has everything you need between the Sub and the GMT in one watch.
We are really arguing over hairline differences here. Choose the one that speaks to you but also consider the spirit of the watch. I think both have two very different auras. |
14 September 2012, 11:34 AM | #28 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Real Name: Alex
Location: Chicago
Watch: AP,PP, Rolex
Posts: 37,156
|
EXII is a beauty!
|
14 September 2012, 11:36 AM | #29 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: CJ
Location: Kashyyyk
Watch: Kessel Run Chrono
Posts: 21,113
|
exp2. just my op.
|
14 September 2012, 11:41 AM | #30 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sea Level
Watch: Varies
Posts: 6,877
|
I've tried on both and my choice was the SubC. Well actually it was the SubC LV.
__________________
Instagram @z32turbo |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.