Red Submariner for Baselworld 2018?

[Raza_actual]

Originally Posted by function12

Red doesn't work underwater.
The longest wavelengths, with the lowest energy, are absorbed first. Red is the first to be absorbed, followed by orange & yellow. The colors disappear underwater in the same order as they appear in the color spectrum. Even water at 5ft depth will have a noticeable loss of red.

I did not know that. Learn something everyday.

Anyway, I already have my favorite Submariner in the history of Submariners (yes, I'm the only one who prefers the 114060 to all other Submariners), so I'm good. Release it with red lettering on the dial, green numbering on the bezel, and a polka dot dial, drop the steel model and make it only out of platinum and charge $200,000 for all I care. I'm sticking with what I've got.

[Raza_actual]

Originally Posted by Dirt

In all fairness to Omega.
They don't have the same type of history that Rolex has.

To break it down.
Rolex has largely been late to, or a no show to the big things that have happened and if it wasn't for some shrewd marketing. Well

The Explorer as a model was a late comer to the party at the top of the world despite the tenuous advertising connection relating to a different model. Actually as a model it was a no show altogether.
The Vindication swim was a fizzer despite the spin Hans Wilsdorf put on it, even though i think it was, for all intents and purposes still a legitimate demonstration of the capability/reliability of the concept around the Water proof Oyster case design which was an assembly of other people's technologies any way.
The only thing Rolex did genuinely achieve was to be the first to go to the very bottom of the ocean. But that wasn't a resounding success because one of the experimental Deepsea special watches leaked/failed. In all fairness to Rolex things were done very differently in those days with a large degree of "rule of thumb" and "trial and error" being the norm. Both concepts were the norm for the Space race in the lead up to and completion of the Apollo missions.

With regard to the Space race party.
Rolex was officially a no show(not invited) due to a failure in testing despite the fact that they stiil managed to go to the moon(a different model) later on after the Omega Speedmaster was the only one to officially complete the required range of tests, first to go into space and first to go and be on the surface of the moon.
And by default was the time piece(Niel Armstrongs's watch") used as the clock in the Apollo 11 LM due to the failure of the onboard clock(non Omega) whilst there. Also the time piece that was used to time crucial burn for the the drama filled Apollo 13 mission.

Even though it has all become somewhat tiresome like the Apollo missions themselves, i think Omega has a more legimate right to claim a greater number of significant milestones in history than Rolex.
After all, with a near disaster and seven trips to the moon plus a slew of space related firsts. Who could blame them for making the most it around a single model given the facts as they stand.
I say good luck to them.

[ras47]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I'd say it's both. Every time I turn around, I'm getting an email notifying me of another edition. With that degree of regularity, I don't consider them to be very "special." But yeah...they're not terribly limited, either.

I put in for this last Speedy Tuesday really only to get on Omega’s radar for a future model I might want. About the only LE I’d be interested in is the Silver Snoopy.

Speedmasters have become ubiquitous. There are tens of millions of them now. I love the design and history, but there’s nothing special about owning one.

[ras47]

Yup! 2,000 of anything is not “limited” by any rational definition of the word. Omega is lucky they still have a rabid fanboy base for the Speedmaster. Like Apple fanboys who will buy anything Cupertino puts out, no matter what the price or performance.

[Raza_actual]

Originally Posted by ras47

Yup! 2,000 of anything is not “limited” by any rational definition of the word. Omega is lucky they still have a rabid fanboy base for the Speedmaster. Like Apple fanboys who will buy anything Cupertino puts out, no matter what the price or performance.

Really? 2,000 isn’t limited? If there’s 2,000 of something in the entire world, you’re unlikely to ever see one. Of course 2,000 is limited.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by jfmiii

I disagree. If anything, the SD43 would detract from Sub sales and they still released it. In fact, I posit that they reconfigured the SD (Cyclops) to appeal to the large contingent that wants a larger watch. For someone like me, I dont like oversized watches. So while I like the aesthetics of the SD appeal to me (Red text ), it is too big for me and I would NEVER buy one. A red 40mm Submariner would appeal to me. They have differentiated the product line such that if you want a larger "Sub" you buy a SD; if you want a more normal sized watch, you buy a Sub.

Why would they care if the SD hurt Sub sales? They're selling more expensive watches. $11350 per SD vs $8550 fper Sub Date vs. $7500 for a Sub. It's called pay to play.

[Lol-x]

Its frustrating because no one knows for sure except Rolex.
They do have the new movement 3235 and the 3135 appears to have had a long run.
I just don't see Rolex having the 3235 in the DJ but the 3135 in the professional model for an extended period. Whether that means a red Sub or just a revised existing Sub, it will be interesting.

[jrs146]

I don’t think we will see a Red sub in a way like the Hulk with a red dial/bezel. It’s possible we could see red text in the dial like the SD. But that seems unlikely because of how recently the SD came out.

Therefore my crystal ball predicts a new black sub with the new movement and slightly different proportions making it a very close comparison to the current sub and the SD4k.

The only other guess is do they discontinue the Hulk. My crystal ball says.... maybe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Royalex]

Red sub with white gold case.

[toto]

When does Rolex generally release its teaser for Baselworld? We might have an hint at what is coming.... or not.

[yannis]

Originally Posted by toto

When does Rolex generally release its teaser for Baselworld? We might have an hint at what is coming.... or not.

Probably a week or two before the show

[ras47]

Originally Posted by Raza_actual

Really? 2,000 isn’t limited? If there’s 2,000 of something in the entire world, you’re unlikely to ever see one. Of course 2,000 is limited.

Limited for collectibles is usually under 500, at least with watches. Any set number of something is “limited” by definition. But when folks hear “limited” for watches I think they expect a low enough number that it actually means something. Omega strains the accepted definition of the word. Plus they release LE models frequently. They should change the spelling of Omega to O-LE-mega.

[Raza_actual]

Originally Posted by ras47

Limited for collectibles is usually under 500, at least with watches. Any set number of something is “limited” by definition. But when folks hear “limited” for watches I think they expect a low enough number that it actually means something. Omega strains the accepted definition of the word. Plus they release LE models frequently. They should change the spelling of Omega to O-LE-mega.

Oh, I see. 500 or fewer must be written somewhere in the Watch World Rulebook. Section 12, Paragraph 9, right?

There are 7 billion people on the planet. Rolex sells 1 million watches a year. Omega sells 720,000. 2,000 of a watch is nothing; a little more than one quarter of one percent of their annual watch sales. My Monaco is a limited edition of 4,000. Do you know how many I’ve ever seen other than my own? That’s right, zero. Feels pretty limited to me, despite being way over the 500 threshold.

And don’t give me the "all things are limited because there are finite resources on the planet and eventually human life will become extinct with the death of the sun” argument either, because we both know that’s silly.

I don’t mean to be combative or anything, but I’ve seen this tired argument so many times. People complain about certain luxury watches being common. Then they complain that they’re rare. Then they complain that they’re not rare enough. Sigh.

[btinl]

Hopefully not since I own two original red subs. =p

[Juantxo]

I’ve already called my trusted AD just in case.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Raza_actual

Oh, I see. 500 or fewer must be written somewhere in the Watch World Rulebook. Section 12, Paragraph 9, right?

There are 7 billion people on the planet. Rolex sells 1 million watches a year. Omega sells 720,000. 2,000 of a watch is nothing; a little more than one quarter of one percent of their annual watch sales. My Monaco is a limited edition of 4,000. Do you know how many I’ve ever seen other than my own? That’s right, zero. Feels pretty limited to me, despite being way over the 500 threshold.

And don’t give me the "all things are limited because there are finite resources on the planet and eventually human life will become extinct with the death of the sun” argument either, because we both know that’s silly.

I don’t mean to be combative or anything, but I’ve seen this tired argument so many times. People complain about certain luxury watches being common. Then they complain that they’re rare. Then they complain that they’re not rare enough. Sigh.

I imagine you are satisfied with your limited Monaco then?
I put it to you that your one of 4000 position is somewhat flawed just because you have never seen another one.

I personally have never seen another DSSD in the wild or for that matter an original Co-axial Omega Railmaster or another Seiko SKX171, all of which are regular production models where many thousands would've been made.
Maybe it's where I hang out

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by ras47

Limited for collectibles is usually under 500, at least with watches. Any set number of something is “limited” by definition. But when folks hear “limited” for watches I think they expect a low enough number that it actually means something. Omega strains the accepted definition of the word. Plus they release LE models frequently. They should change the spelling of Omega to O-LE-mega.

This is a legitimate argument.
I suppose from Omega's point of view anything that is intended from the start to be limited to a specific number prior to production and not a regular open ended production model is entitled to be classified as a limited model. Especially if it's a numbered production model and or produced in one continuous run with no view to re-issue it or ever do any other production runs.

[WJGESQ]

Still need a mock up.

[Fabrice M]

Originally Posted by RHIII

Maybe it’s just me — but the only Red line sub that interests me is a 1680...

Just my .02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For sure :)

[Raza_actual]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I imagine you are satisfied with your limited Monaco then?
I put it to you that your one of 4000 position is somewhat flawed just because you have never seen another one.

I personally have never seen another DSSD in the wild or for that matter an original Co-axial Omega Railmaster or another Seiko SKX171, all of which are regular production models where many thousands would've been made.
Maybe it's where I hang out

I've seen several DSSDs in the wild, actually. More than Submariner no date models, even (though not as many as Submariner Dates).

And yes, I love my Monaco. There's not a watch made I'd ever trade it for. Don't much care if it's "not limited enough". Though, they only imported 400 to the United States, so I guess that "counts"? We'll have to ask the refs for an official ruling.




It's just a thing people complain about because it's Omega that's doing it. It's silly really.

[soundserious]

With faux patina, count on it.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by soundserious

With faux patina, count on it.

Agreed.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Raza_actual

It's just a thing people complain about because it's Omega that's doing it. It's silly really.

Disagree. I'd complain if it was any brand I cared about. Breitling has a history of doing it too, and like Omega, I feel it cheapens the brand. For me, it's not so much the number of watches in the edition; it's the number of editions. Too much variation dilutes the core models, and makes the design choices seem arbitrary.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by soundserious

With faux patina, count on it.

If that happens, I'll probably go temporarily insane with rage and do something stupid, bordering on illegal.