Can you think of anything that would improve the Sub C?

[sleddog]

Originally Posted by mailman

What the heck are you waiting for

Stipends!!

[esm]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

Rolex needs to redesign its ceramic bezels to eliminate the recessed, applied markers/numbers.

Omega got it right with its Liquidmetal ceramics. The markers/numbers are flush and tough - no chips, no scratches.

Fr. John+

really?!?

come on Fr. John.... there has been many posts by you stating the same thing.... do you have cold hard facts that the Omega LM bezel insert is "actually" better than the recessed Rolex ceramic bezel insert?

[MoBe]

Thin the lugs and give it a wider link where the bracelet joins the head,then taper the remaing links toward the clasp.If Rolex could do a proportional bracelet design as I have described then I might want one,maybe,but for now I can buy as many 16610 Submariners as I want,I reckon there must be at least a couple hundred thousand of them in the wild and hundreds of them for sale every day of the week.

[Chappo]

Thinner lugs, lug holes, more of a vintage/curved profile

[speedo]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

A new movement. In my opinion, the 3135 is in need of a replacement - it's been a worthy and venerable workhorse, but it's beginning to look dated now. I'd love to see something with the ingenuity of the cal. 4160 from the YM II, and decoration to match that of the Prince (not to mention a display caseback). Rolex needs to remind the world just what it is capable of when it comes to movements

why innovate for the sake of innovation? the 3135 works perfectly, it is reliable, it is sturdy and has a history. i for one would not change it for any unproven, untested new movement. i leave that to omega.

[speedo]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Certainly given the higher price point the Submariner has moved to, it has put it in similar leagues to brands where there is a higher emphasis on the look of the movement. I'm certainly thinking Blancpain and Audemars Piguet. At the price point below, you have the likes of Omega bringing out their cal. 8500, which is both beautifully finished and extremely highly specced, already, arguably, a better movement than the cal. 3135. Certainly with the new Planet Ocean in mind, you're getting a pretty much equivalent watch in terms of function with a better movement for about 70% of the price of the Sub. There are aspects of the Sub I think are better (the clasp and the bezel action in particular), but I think the overall package of the Omega is very convincing. The Submariner is still the one all the other manufacturers want to compete with, it's the benchmark: I think the one thing that would make it unassailable would be a new movement.

Improved accuracy, maybe a Rolex-unique technology (I think I remember reading on here about a new hairspring that they're developing, which is very interesting), some nice finishing and a display caseback to show it off, it would be undoubtedly the King, both for reputation and performance. The cal. 3135 is over 20 years old now, progress has to happen some time. I want to see Rolex back at the cutting edge of movement making again, I know they're capable of incredible things (the cal. 4160 is a masterpiece of engineering), I just want to see it on a more available and less niche watch. I would like to see Rolex enhance their reputation even further than just to trade on its existing reputation.

I guess I just want something to really wow me and excite me from Rolex again

Chris

i understand decor (which in my opinion is not a very important aspect of a sport watch) but why would be any of the co-axial movements better than the 3135? is it more precise? does it need less maintenance? do we know how it will work in 30 years? what are exactly the advantages?

[xjeeunitx]

Perfect.

[speedo]

Originally Posted by esm

really?!?

come on Fr. John.... there has been many posts by you stating the same thing.... do you have cold hard facts that the Omega LM bezel insert is "actually" better than the recessed Rolex ceramic bezel insert?

he likes it more, that means it is better.

[speedo]

btw i wouldn't want anything to be changed, it is the perfect versatile sport watch for me. it has a pedigree but it is updated to reflect the needs of the 21st century. i like the lugs, love the bracelet and the clasp and find the lume mesmerizing.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by masterserg

This is very interesting Chris. I don't particularly care about the movement aesthetics on a watch like the Sub but the argument for longer running time / service intervals is hard to beat. As for reliability, etc. the 3135 does the job, right? If it ain't broken ....

There are a couple of weak points in the design that could be improved upon, the jewel and bushing system for the winding weight springs to mind. It's certainly not an unreliable movement, but things can always be improved upon - I seriously doubt with the technological advances of the past 20 years that Rolex can't come up with a better movement for the 21st century. Lots of small changes can add up to a very big change

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by speedo

why innovate for the sake of innovation? the 3135 works perfectly, it is reliable, it is sturdy and has a history. i for one would not change it for any unproven, untested new movement. i leave that to omega.

Originally Posted by speedo

i understand decor (which in my opinion is not a very important aspect of a sport watch) but why would be any of the co-axial movements better than the 3135? is it more precise? does it need less maintenance? do we know how it will work in 30 years? what are exactly the advantages?

I'm quite surprised there's such an aversion to progress here on the forum The 3135 is a good movement, but it's 20 years old, and even then, it was only a gentle evolution of the cal. 3035. Rolex know a thing or two about watchmaking, and I would love them to really demonstrate it by introducing a thoroughly modern movement, to improve upon the solid foundation of the cal. 3135. I think they probably have to if they don't want to lose market share in the next 10-15 years - there is a tendency to see the way brands are perceived as fixed, but if Rolex's competitors keep moving forward the boundaries of what's possible without answer from Rolex, then the brand is going to look outdated very quickly.

With regards to Co-Axial, George Daniels developed it to eliminate what he thought was the biggest drawback in traditional movements with a Swiss lever escapement: excessive friction. Using a properly implemented three level Co-Axial escapement (and I'm not talking about the early two level escapements that Omega used in their early cal. 2500), friction is virtually eliminated whilst increasing the consistency of the timekeeping across the power reserve. That gives the owner a more stable, more reliable and more accurate watch with longer service intervals. There's no down side

Omega did take a big risk with Co-Axial, and there were issues with the first generation movements, but the cal. 8500 is a landmark movement, it's the next big jump forward in mechanical watchmaking. It's been out since 2007, and problems have been extremely few and far between: timekeeping has been universally hailed as superb, and the only argument that detractors can muster is that it hasn't been on the market for as long as the cal. 3135, which, in my opinion, is a pretty weak argument.

There's innovation for innovation's sake, and there's innovation to stay competitive. I believe Rolex will have to do the latter, as its competitors have already brought out some extremely impressive movements, and will continue to do so. I firmly believe we're entering a very exciting period in Swiss watchmaking's history, and we will see rapid advancement in movement technology

Chris

[tattooedfagin]

leave it exactly as it is & definitely no PCL's

[ssmui]

How about a day function?

[speedo]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

I'm quite surprised there's such an aversion to progress here on the forum The 3135 is a good movement, but it's 20 years old, and even then, it was only a gentle evolution of the cal. 3035. Rolex know a thing or two about watchmaking, and I would love them to really demonstrate it by introducing a thoroughly modern movement, to improve upon the solid foundation of the cal. 3135. I think they probably have to if they don't want to lose market share in the next 10-15 years - there is a tendency to see the way brands are perceived as fixed, but if Rolex's competitors keep moving forward the boundaries of what's possible without answer from Rolex, then the brand is going to look outdated very quickly.

With regards to Co-Axial, George Daniels developed it to eliminate what he thought was the biggest drawback in traditional movements with a Swiss lever escapement: excessive friction. Using a properly implemented three level Co-Axial escapement (and I'm not talking about the early two level escapements that Omega used in their early cal. 2500), friction is virtually eliminated whilst increasing the consistency of the timekeeping across the power reserve. That gives the owner a more stable, more reliable and more accurate watch with longer service intervals. There's no down side

Omega did take a big risk with Co-Axial, and there were issues with the first generation movements, but the cal. 8500 is a landmark movement, it's the next big jump forward in mechanical watchmaking. It's been out since 2007, and problems have been extremely few and far between: timekeeping has been universally hailed as superb, and the only argument that detractors can muster is that it hasn't been on the market for as long as the cal. 3135, which, in my opinion, is a pretty weak argument.

There's innovation for innovation's sake, and there's innovation to stay competitive. I believe Rolex will have to do the latter, as its competitors have already brought out some extremely impressive movements, and will continue to do so. I firmly believe we're entering a very exciting period in Swiss watchmaking's history, and we will see rapid advancement in movement technology

Chris

i guess we have a different approach to progress. to me progress is to produce a long lasting, classical product which unlike many of today's products is not engineered for only a few years. this is exactly why the argument you find weak seems the most important to me.

the coaxial for me did not prove anything. it was a flop for the first time and given omega's numerous flops during the last decades i do not really wish to be a part of their new experiment with a movement of which so far we know very little. we do not know how it will perform in decades which for me is very important. regarding the service interval of the coaxial all i know that it is not substantially different to the one of the 3135 so this goal was not really achieved.
so why isn't the coaxial an improvement for its own sake?

[lance3197]

no fat lugs, the pearl should be a little recessed, and their should be a blue/red dial and bezel variation for stainless steel, now that would be cool!!!

[jmsrolls]

Originally Posted by esm

really?!?

come on Fr. John.... there has been many posts by you stating the same thing.... do you have cold hard facts that the Omega LM bezel insert is "actually" better than the recessed Rolex ceramic bezel insert?

Problems arising from the Rolex ceramic bezel design have been reported time and time again on the various forums including this one.

I have yet to hear of any such problems with the Omega ceramic bezels. Admittedly, the production of the Omega ceramics has been limited but with the release of the new Planet Ocean, SMP, and Speedmaster ceramics, I suspect more reports (good and/or bad) will be forthcoming.

Time will tell.

Fr. John†

[CAPDSSD]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

There's innovation for innovation's sake, and there's innovation to stay competitive. I believe Rolex will have to do the latter, as its competitors have already brought out some extremely impressive movements, and will continue to do so. I firmly believe we're entering a very exciting period in Swiss watchmaking's history, and we will see rapid advancement in movement technology

I enjoy reading your posts and have learned much in the process.

I share your enthusiasm and hope you are correct in your predictions, but supposing Rolex did something with their movement, do you really think that would influence sales to the "average" Rolex customer? (That is, not someone as close to the industry and as knowledgeable and interested as you.) The Rolex marketing machine does not seem to need to emphasize innovation - they stick with quality and history. Going forward will that be enough? I don't know.

So maybe you are right. I'm so confused.

[sportsmaven20]

Originally Posted by Slinkey

Does the SubC crystal have an anti-reflective coating? I'm thinking it doesn't, BUT IT SHOULD! I have the 16610 and wish it did. It would make reading the date much easier.

I know the SubC has the AR cyclops, but not sure about the entire crystal.

[stusrt]

Originally Posted by Chipmunk

Lower price?

AMEN !

I have been on the fence awhile about getting one -
love it on one side - $8,000 on the other....

[masterserg]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

Problems arising from the Rolex ceramic bezel design have been reported time and time again on the various forums including this one.

I have yet to hear of any such problems with the Omega ceramic bezels. Admittedly, the production of the Omega ceramics has been limited but with the release of the new Planet Ocean, SMP, and Speedmaster ceramics, I suspect more reports (good and/or bad) will be forthcoming.

Time will tell.

Fr. John†

Did you read the thread of the guy that had a motorcycle accident and broke his arm pretty badly while the sub was pretty much untouched, save for a few very minor scuffs on the ceramic bezel that he was able to polish away? We might disagree here, but I love your Explorer II!!

Originally Posted by stusrt

AMEN !

I have been on the fence awhile about getting one -
love it on one side - $8,000 on the other....

Worth every cent my friend!

[Megalobyte]

Inspired by this thread, I told my wife I was making a list of ways she too could subtly improve herself.

Now I'm single.

[capote]

Originally Posted by speedo

why innovate for the sake of innovation? the 3135 works perfectly, it is reliable, it is sturdy and has a history. i for one would not change it for any unproven, untested new movement. i leave that to omega.

I can't really understand this opinion. Do you want Rolex to stop with their research and development? Would you prefer if Rolex still used Valjoux movements for the Daytona line? I would prefer a movement that was even tougher, more accurate, with a greater power reserve etc than the current one. If you leave the development to Omega before you know it people will say "I don't want to pay Omega prices for a Rolex"

I think Rolex would cease to exist eventually if they stopped their R&D. As much as I don't agree with much of Omega's marketing strategy, or the fact that they released the first co-axial movement without a sufficient quality control, the new generation of PO is the way to update a watch IMO. Smaller design changes and larger movement changes, not the other way around like Rolex has done with the GMT-c and Sub-c.

In the end development benefits the consumer, we will get better products no matter if we choose Rolex or Omega, or something equal)

One picture to illustrate why you can't rely on old "sufficient" products.

[SoftwareDrone]

Originally Posted by superdog

the only change i would make is the cyclops date. absolutely love the watch tho.

I agree. No cyclops, and get rid of the Smurf Blue and bring back that gorgeous deep blue!

[Dr. Robert]

Drilled lug holes.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by mailman

What the heck are you waiting for

Once an enabler always an enabler.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Inspired by this thread, I told my wife I was making a list of ways she too could subtly improve herself.

Now I'm single.

Having "Drive yourself 2,000 miles west of me and remain there for 25 years" at the top of your list would do that.

[Oyster Al]

Nailed it!!!

[tomchicago]

No-Date, Non-COSC version with parachrom blu would win me over!

[B. Doggy]

The lug to bracelet taper is just slightly off IMHO

[JasoninDenver]

I cannot believe that I am the first one to say this:


MATTE DIAL

I have had my SubC for two weeks now and I strained to think of how it could be improved upon. I have even grown to like the Supercase which put me off the watch for two years. Now it seems perfect for the watch.

I guess Rolex does know what they are doing.