Sub maxi case question

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Yes.
But they don't look like the 6 digit soap bars.
Not even close.

Better a “soap bar” than a DJ with a bezel. ;-)

More seriously, all are lovely, with clear historical links between the modern and very vintage. Beyond that is personal opinion.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by toolr

Amen! "Rolex put form over function"... what a crock, how is it less functional than previous models?

It’s more about their prioritizing form over function. Can you think of a single purpose for large lugs? Ceramic is preferred for desk divers as the biggest thing that can happen is a scratch. But more likely to fail when given a whack and more costly to replace than 60 bucks for an aluminum insert-yes that fades after 30 years. So yes, the watch is more likely to fail when used ad intended. One can minimize and say oh well who uses their watch as intended. I do, that’s who. When I mountain bike, it’s my 16610, working outside 16610, skiing 16610, playing baseball, soccer, golf, hiking 16610. Can’t think of why I would need thick lugs.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Can you think of a single purpose for large lugs?

'You never really enjoy the fat lugs. You're just thinning them out for the next generation.'

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Chester01

It’s more about their prioritizing form over function. Can you think of a single purpose for large lugs? Ceramic is preferred for desk divers as the biggest thing that can happen is a scratch. But more likely to fail when given a whack and more costly to replace than 60 bucks for an aluminum insert-yes that fades after 30 years. So yes, the watch is more likely to fail when used ad intended. One can minimize and say oh well who uses their watch as intended. I do, that’s who. When I mountain bike, it’s my 16610, working outside 16610, skiing 16610, playing baseball, soccer, golf, hiking 16610. Can’t think of why I would need thick lugs.

Yes. A very clear function of long-term durability, including more polishing and opportunities for repair. This comes in handy as it is a sports watch after all. Maybe desk divers don’t need this design function?

For those who don’t mind over-polished or dented 5-digit lugs, there are many to choose from

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by Chester01

It’s more about their prioritizing form over function. Can you think of a single purpose for large lugs? Ceramic is preferred for desk divers as the biggest thing that can happen is a scratch. But more likely to fail when given a whack and more costly to replace than 60 bucks for an aluminum insert-yes that fades after 30 years. So yes, the watch is more likely to fail when used ad intended. One can minimize and say oh well who uses their watch as intended. I do, that’s who. When I mountain bike, it’s my 16610, working outside 16610, skiing 16610, playing baseball, soccer, golf, hiking 16610. Can’t think of why I would need thick lugs.

So what do you wear when you're diving?

But seriously, are we really still bickering over this - 15 years after Rolex updated the fleet? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of happy owners? Rolex has never been much of a sentimental company - they leave the retro stuff to Tudor. A tiny percentage of people may believe that sport watch design reached its peak in the 1980's, but Rolex clearly did not.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Onikage

'You never really enjoy the fat lugs. You're just thinning them out for the next generation.'

Lol. There is an advantage where the more it’s polished over the years the better the lugs look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[904VT]

Originally Posted by brandrea

It has less to do with the lugs specifically and more to do with the overall shape of the watch. I would reference the 6204 as an example of this

Yes the 6204 rectangular design. Someone gets it!! Finally

I’d focus on the full design not just the lugs measurement on paper solely.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by 904VT

Yes the 6204 rectangular design. Someone gets it!! Finally

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[1William]

I like the six digit Submariner better than any other Submariner model ever. Does not make me right or wrong, just a preference. There is plenty of room for others who don't like it to buy elsewhere and enjoy what they like. The winning never stops though.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by 1978

Thanks, I just looked up 6204. I’d never seen it! Not the same as the new case but interesting for sure.

Also wow, people have ... strong feelings ... about ... lugs

[lord91]

Originally Posted by brandrea

It has less to do with the lugs specifically and more to do with the overall shape of the watch. I would reference the 6204 as an example of this

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

There’s a clear link between today’s modern Subs and the Subs of yesteryear in terms of proportions between the bracelet and watch head, much more so than the more slender DJ-style lugs of those in between. Note how the watch head stands out from the bracelet, much like today’s watches.

Free drinks for these 2! It's not about the lugs themselves, but the rectangular design the original Sub had, where was a completely visual distinction between bracelet, case and dial.

Originally Posted by Dirt

Yes, someone on here has been pedaling this tripe for quite a long time.
Perhaps it is set to become another internet myth

If you would use your energy to do research instead of making statements without prior knowledge, you would eventually find on rolex.com where they state the current line up is true to the original design (without being more specific to what they refer).

Originally Posted by thesharkfactor

Why is it only the Subs lugs that get bashed? GMT has same lugs, yet nobody says boo...

I've noticed the same, the classic "same things, different judgement" type of mentality.

Originally Posted by 904VT

Yes the 6204 rectangular design. Someone gets it!! Finally

I’d focus on the full design not just the lugs measurement on paper solely.

That is 1oo% correct.

The return to the original rectangular appearance, by enlarging the lugs, is Rolex's smart answer to a market demanding oversized bricks on their wrists, without modifying their very well sized cases.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Psmith

So what do you wear when you're diving?

But seriously, are we really still bickering over this - 15 years after Rolex updated the fleet? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of happy owners? Rolex has never been much of a sentimental company - they leave the retro stuff to Tudor. A tiny percentage of people may believe that sport watch design reached its peak in the 1980's, but Rolex clearly did not.

I agree that they have an interesting platform with tudor as they can satisfy more of the purists, while allowing the wheels of progress and style to move forward at the mother ship. I do think in time, they will bring the lug size down, likely gradually however. I think why this is a lasting debate is it’s not just the lug size, it’s what that one change did to the overall lines of the watch, the bracelet looks smallish, no longer seamlessly blends into the case, the shoulders are more square with a circle (bezel) on top. It’s changed the lines from every perspective. I mean do you think that if they offered the current sub and a version with traditional lugs they would really sell more wide lug versions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[J.P. Chase]

It would be nice to see the Submariner keep the currently-sized lugs and slim down the Submariner Date.

I own the Sub Date and really don’t mind the thick(er) lugs but also realize the only diving I do is on the desk.

I figure the original Sub (“no date”) is “more” of a tool watch in direct comparison to the Sub Date(my opinion). Why not cater to both crowds?

[BlakeA]

I bought my 114060 2 years ago (walked into local AD...they had one in the case ;-) ) and at the time, I really wanted the 5 digit 14060, but my thinking was...get a brand new Sub vs. used which might need a $700 service. I really liked the watch, but still longed for the 5 digit.
So...for months I kept looking at 14060’s online thinking I might do a trade, but...the longer I wore the SubC, the more I came to love it. Now, when I see pics of the 5 digit Sub, I’m so glad I hung onto the SubC.
Now, if I had unlimited funds for a 14060, I’d buy one, but I would NOT sell my SubC.
Bracelet is so comfortable, and I really like the engraved bezel.

[WatchNutcase]

Originally Posted by ganiccus

No, just Rolex being blind to the obvious that their dive watch should have been 42mm a long time ago. When even a conservative brand like Patek Philippe is making 38-39mm dress watches today, it is quite comical that Rolex still have their submariner at the same size as 60 years ago when men were significantly smaller in size.

What?!

[Mr. K]

Originally Posted by locutus49

The appetite for lug bashing is endless. If you don't like the maxi lugs then buy another watch.

Well said. Live and let live.

[Paulsky]

The clearest evidence that Rolex screwed up with the fat lugs is when you try to put 6 digit Sub on anything other than its oyster bracelet. Looks absolutely terrible. It’s a fine watch, as long as you keep it on that bracelet. I see people putting theirs on Everest straps and those lugs look absolutely hideous.

[mgsooner]

Love mine.

[mgsooner]

In my eyes it's pretty clear what the thinking was in changing the case of the Submariner. We've all heard the stories about how the Yacht-Master was developed to replace the Submariner. While I think that's a load of hooey, I do think with the six digit references Rolex has shifted what the Submariner is. The Submariner is now much more rugged and robust, while the Yacht-Master has filled the "dressy diver" segment of the Rolex catalogue. There's no right or wrong answer here - if you prefer the shape of the five digit Subs then the Yacht-Master is ready and able to serve. Given that Rolex kept the case shape of the Submariner roughly the same for a period of 50 years, I wouldn't hold my breath that Rolex is suddenly going to reverse course and start producing a ceramic Sub in a five digit case shape.

[TheWatchEnthusiast]

Originally Posted by Paulsky

The clearest evidence that Rolex screwed up with the fat lugs is when you try to put 6 digit Sub on anything other than its oyster bracelet. Looks absolutely terrible. It’s a fine watch, as long as you keep it on that bracelet. I see people putting theirs on Everest straps and those lugs look absolutely hideous.

Not my picture but i think it works very well without the bracelet.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...lDgeexCMTpcKvl

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Better a “soap bar” than a DJ with a bezel. ;-)

More seriously, all are lovely, with clear historical links between the modern and very vintage. Beyond that is personal opinion.

Hey, leave the DJ's out of this or we'll have the DJ fans jumping up and down as well

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

In my eyes it's pretty clear what the thinking was in changing the case of the Submariner. We've all heard the stories about how the Yacht-Master was developed to replace the Submariner. While I think that's a load of hooey, I do think with the six digit references Rolex has shifted what the Submariner is. The Submariner is now much more rugged and robust, while the Yacht-Master has filled the "dressy diver" segment of the Rolex catalogue. There's no right or wrong answer here - if you prefer the shape of the five digit Subs then the Yacht-Master is ready and able to serve. Given that Rolex kept the case shape of the Submariner roughly the same for a period of 50 years, I wouldn't hold my breath that Rolex is suddenly going to reverse course and start producing a ceramic Sub in a five digit case shape.

I totally agree.
However a moderate and tastefull scale back of the lugs(and the crown guards) wouldn't take anything away from the watch.
It doesn't have to replicate the 5 digit cases

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I agree that they have an interesting platform with tudor as they can satisfy more of the purists, while allowing the wheels of progress and style to move forward at the mother ship. I do think in time, they will bring the lug size down, likely gradually however. I think why this is a lasting debate is it’s not just the lug size, it’s what that one change did to the overall lines of the watch, the bracelet looks smallish, no longer seamlessly blends into the case, the shoulders are more square with a circle (bezel) on top. It’s changed the lines from every perspective. I mean do you think that if they offered the current sub and a version with traditional lugs they would really sell more wide lug versions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I reckon they'd sell all of them regardless.
People that just want a Rolex sports watch are going to scoop up whatever is thrown at them at the time.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I reckon they'd sell all of them regardless.
People that just want a Rolex sports watch are going to scoop up whatever is thrown at them at the time.

Lol. But I wonder about the notion that Rolex sells everything they make is a bit of an exaggeration. Plenty Available at gray dealers, chrono 24, and eBay, and not an insignificant amount.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by lord91

If you would use your energy to do research instead of making statements without prior knowledge, you would eventually find on rolex.com where they state the current line up is true to the original design (without being more specific to what they refer).

I acknowledge this in it's entirety.
However, there are two key concepts I take from this.

Firstly, they in all likelihood originally moved away from the squared off look for a good reason and never returned for decades.
Secondly, their statement makes a reference to what may be called mere prototypes that made it to market.
The statement does not in any way endorse what has been widely recognised as the all time classic style. Enter the SD 43

Besides, I have lots of time on my hands these days and what I choose to do with it is my perogative.
We are just having a massdebate
I can do this all day if I choose. The weather is really nice here now as I'm sitting on the back beck of my boat killing time as I see fit hoping to catch some dinner
Getting plenty of bites too

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Lol. But I wonder about the notion that Rolex sells everything they make is a bit of an exaggeration. Plenty Available at gray dealers, chrono 24, and eBay, and not an insignificant amount.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I suppose that's another perspective on it.
But they make nearly a million per year and the small number through greys is inconsequential.
Besides, they're still all sold as far as Rolex is concerned

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Lol. There is an advantage where the more it’s polished over the years the better the lugs look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love it

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by 904VT

Yes the 6204 rectangular design. Someone gets it!! Finally

I’d focus on the full design not just the lugs measurement on paper solely.

Certainly a shape that resembles a rectangular style.
But the 6 digit also has crown guards that are about as appealing as a Boilermakers block.
And they're likely there to offset the visuals going on at each corner of the watch. Did they even need to be that big?
Were the classic crown guards as found on the 5 digit cases so inadequate/found wanting?

[OJONES]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Certainly a shape that resembles a rectangular style.
But the 6 digit also has crown guards that are about as appealing as a Boilermakers block.
And they're likely there to offset the visuals going on at each corner of the watch. Did they even need to be that big?
Were the classic crown guards as found on the 5 digit cases so inadequate/found wanting?

The Sub needs to be more rugged looking now that it’s worn by car salesmen. It can’t be that dainty looking thing that was issued for military use.

[lemaitre]

Love the current Submariner, maybe many of us became used to the 5-digit aesthetics due to their long run? But I think the current iteration is perfect the way it is.