The next Submariner with Oyster or Oysterflex?

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by doramas

It doesn't make sense. The Sea Dweller is 43mm

And the DSSD is 44mm, which could be the same argument against the SD being 43mm.
Also, the SD and Sub were the same size for decades.
Personally, I think they should keep the Sub (no date) at 40mm, then the Sub Date can grow modestly to 41 or 42mm. That way the range of divers would have a spread of sizes to suit most people.

[rmagoo57]

Originally Posted by WatchEater666

Sub on rubber is juicy.

Exactly. I would love to easily swap to rubber on occasion. Was thinking about this for a beach vacation this spring. Until the virus.

[Yess]

Originally Posted by Psmith

And the DSSD is 44mm, which could be the same argument against the SD being 43mm.
Also, the SD and Sub were the same size for decades.
Personally, I think they should keep the Sub (no date) at 40mm, then the Sub Date can grow modestly to 41 or 42mm. That way the range of divers would have a spread of sizes to suit most people.

Haha well spotted - if you have a small wrist, don't let logic get in the way!

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by Yess

Haha well spotted - if you have a small wrist, don't let logic get in the way!

A Sub or Sub Date '39' (or smaller) option would probably make some people happy, although Rolex sizing is sometimes approximate anyway (famously with the Daytona).
Changing anything that is perceived to be an 'icon' is a challenge (be it watch, car, or whatever). Debates (at least in the forum micro-world) rage on, many years after models have changed.
Having a range of sizes just seems logical - witness the YM, which is now available in 37, 40 and 42 albeit not all in the same metals. Nothing to stop Rolex doing, for example, a larger Daytona to run alongside the current one. Or doing nothing whatsoever

[Greg 59]

Originally Posted by Psmith

Personally, I think they should keep the Sub (no date) at 40mm, then the Sub Date can grow modestly to 41 or 42mm. That way the range of divers would have a spread of sizes to suit most people.

This makes a lot of sense. I like your thinking.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[djyolky]

Originally Posted by Greg 59

And of course, you know everything and i know nothing.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

It's not that, it makes zero sense. The Sea Dweller is 43.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Greg 59]

Originally Posted by djyolky

It's not that, it makes zero sense. The Sea Dweller is 43.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

And that model started off as a 40mm. Maybe I'm being too exact with my suggested revised size of 42mm for the sub. I should have said 41-42. My reasoning? Watches in general are getting larger. Not to the extent of those oversized models that started to appear about a decade ago, that was just too much and they have all but disappeared but nevertheless because watches are now perceived more as a fashion accessory than a timepiece they are becoming more prominent and flamboyant hence the increase in size. The sub's size has not altered since its inception and it would not be the first time Rolex has increased the size of a current model. In fact they've done it quite a bit recently.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Yess]

Originally Posted by djyolky

It's not that, it makes zero sense. The Sea Dweller is 43.

What you are saying makes zero sense. I don't want a Sea Dweller - I want a Sub that doesn't look like a toy on my wrist.

[Greg 59]

Originally Posted by Yess

What you are saying makes zero sense. I don't want a Sea Dweller - I want a Sub that doesn't look like a toy on my wrist.

So now you're inferring all 42mm or greater watches look like toys. I can assure you my SkyD and my Explorer 2 don't look like toys.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Yess]

Originally Posted by Greg 59

So now you're inferring all 42mm or greater watches look like toys. I can assure you my SkyD and my Explorer 2 don't look like toys.

Actually the opposite - and I was agreeing with you.

But you seem to be on a tear - so keep going... it's entertaining

[Greg 59]

Originally Posted by Yess

Actually the opposite - and I was agreeing with you.

But you seem to be on a tear - so keep going... it's entertaining

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your response. I think we're all getting a bit too edgy being stuck indoors 24/7

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Yess]

Originally Posted by Greg 59

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your response. I think we're all getting a bit too edgy being stuck indoors 24/7

All good... and I agree, again, with your take on things!

[doramas]

Originally Posted by Psmith

And the DSSD is 44mm, which could be the same argument against the SD being 43mm.
Also, the SD and Sub were the same size for decades.
Personally, I think they should keep the Sub (no date) at 40mm, then the Sub Date can grow modestly to 41 or 42mm. That way the range of divers would have a spread of sizes to suit most people.

That's why. He's not going to make three watches with practically the same diameter.

[Brew]

Love the YM too, OP!

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by doramas

That's why. He's not going to make three watches with practically the same diameter.

Why not? Rolex made three divers with the same diameter (Sub, Sub Date, SD) for many years. Now they make two (Sub, Sub Date), plus the SD 43 and DSSD 44. Moving the Sub Date up slightly to bridge the gap between the Sub and SD would be entirely consistent with their approach. Each is different enough beyond just the diameter to warrant its own space.

[Brny11]

Originally Posted by doramas

Oysterflex should 100% have endlinks and the red placement is off. Sub line or 2-line red would be dope. As a concept though, I love it. Would definitely be interested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marc2828]

The OP is only speaking about the new sub being on a rubber OF band. My personal opinion is it should not. For some reason, I think the signature "look" of Rolex is the Submariner/SD/Deep Sea...and they all look correct on a brushed no PCL steel bracelet. If you ask most people the GMT, the Sub, SD, and Deep Sea all look the same. Even many of the YM line looks like a Sub variation. And they should be on Oyster bracelets.

However, off topic, I do think the Daytona on OF looks great. And if they made it 42-44mm, that would be great also. Lightweight, flat to the wrist, and on a OF would be my choice.

[danwang0520]

Always oyster.....on Sub

[1William]

On the bracelet and a Rubber B strap or other can be fitted for a fraction of the cost.

[GoingPlaces]

Sub on OF would be amazing, likely in PM not SS.

[Montremoi]

Originally Posted by doramas

What's your opinion?

Absolutamente linda !

But I'll have the Sub version, thank you.

[Old Geezer]

Originally Posted by brandrea

As a strap option with a changing tool it would cool

Agreed. Rolex certainly wouldn’t lower the price for OF versus oyster so to me it’s only attractive if you get both even if they raise the price.