Sub maxi case question

[1978]

Originally Posted by mgsooner

Love mine.

Omg gorgeous!

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is true - Rolex design & development was pretty much stagnant during the 80s - 90s until Patrick Heiniger shook things up. And of course it was Heiniger who declared that Rolex was in the luxury business rather than the watch business. They couldn't develop the business with such a dated product range, hence the rollout of updates and new models.

Personally I love vintage Subs (4-digits) and the current models. I'm not so keen on the 5-digit era (the 'middle child' if you will) although have owned a few. Even 20 years ago I was not happy with the old-style clasps and other elements. Nothing wrong with them as such, but not something that they could keep making at the prices they were asking. Talking of the earliest Subs, if the internet had existed back then imagine the uproar when Rolex added crown guards, changed dials and ditched plastic crystals in favour of sapphire.

[toolr]

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.

Purpose for the "large" lugs? Same as the thinner lugs of the 4 and 5 digit watches, to hold the spring bars. One benefit of the larger lugs is that they are stronger, another is that they can be polished without turning in to pointed lugs.

It cracks me up when someone compares the price of replacing an aluminum bezel vs the higher cost of replacing a ceramic bezel but no mention that a routine service for either watch is close to $1000 after tax and shipping.

Like I previously said, if you want a new Rolex dive watch, you're getting it with a ceramic bezel.

[Amochosto]

I’ve got a couple of five digits and a few 6 digit Rolex watches, and some other brands, I might like the functions on one, or the bezel colour on another, but to my eye, none of my watches look better on my wrist than my 114060.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by toolr

Purpose for the "large" lugs? Same as the thinner lugs of the 4 and 5 digit watches, to hold the spring bars. One benefit of the larger lugs is that they are stronger, another is that they can be polished without turning in to pointed lugs.

It cracks me up when someone compares the price of replacing an aluminum bezel vs the higher cost of replacing a ceramic bezel but no mention that a routine service for either watch is close to $1000 after tax and shipping.

Like I previously said, if you want a new Rolex dive watch, you're getting it with a ceramic bezel.

Uh, nope. My AD an aluminum insert is 60 bucks my friend and I was told I can pick up a new one at any time. Sorry, that justification does not work and crockery is more likely to fail, full stop. Sorry.

Apparently you feel that the old normal lugs failed and broke off and so needed to quadruple in size then? I can agree with you on the lugs, if you can get a single person here on the forum who has broken theirs off. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Uh, nope. My AD an aluminum insert is 60 bucks my friend and I was told I can pick up a new one at any time. Sorry, that justification does not work and crockery is more likely to fail, full stop. Sorry.

Apparently you feel that the old normal lugs failed and broke off and so needed to quadruple in size then? I can agree with you on the lugs, if you can get a single person here on the forum who has broken theirs off. Lol.

Nobody's trying to convince you Chester - the decision was made by Rolex way back in 2008 (2005 for the GMT) and has been wildly successful. In truth, the Subs received a pretty modest update - on someone's wrist from a few feet away you'll struggle to tell if it's a 16610 or 116610. Too many large internet photos exaggerate the reality.
Do you really think that Rolex could have simply continued to sell the exact same watches for 30-40 years? Their game is luxury, not supplying equipment or pleasing the aficionados of a bygone era.
Incidentally, I have seen badly damaged 5-digit lugs that have been repaired by laser welding. No doubt this would be easier to accomplish with more metal to work with.

[bezler]

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.

It doesn't look good on the bracelet either. But I remember a thread where someone put their hulk on a bund strap, and it looked great. It's a really smart way to tone down the hulk's bling, remove the jarring case-to-bracelet transition, and draw the eye away from the square case.

[Montremoi]

Apparently there's been a technical problem with the forum software, so I'm having to rewrite my post.

Originally Posted by locutus49

The appetite for lug bashing is endless.

It's a pretty good indication that Rolex made a major design [self-censored because apparently this is considered "language" by a minority of native English speakers] up.

Originally Posted by locutus49

If you don't like the maxi lugs then buy another watch.

Tell Rolex to relaunch it production of the 5-digit series and we'll gladly do that.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by Psmith

Nobody's trying to convince you Chester - the decision was made by Rolex way back in 2008 (2005 for the GMT) and has been wildly successful. In truth, the Subs received a pretty modest update - on someone's wrist from a few feet away you'll struggle to tell if it's a 16610 or 116610. Too many large internet photos exaggerate the reality.
Do you really think that Rolex could have simply continued to sell the exact same watches for 30-40 years? Their game is luxury, not supplying equipment or pleasing the aficionados of a bygone era.
Incidentally, I have seen badly damaged 5-digit lugs that have been repaired by laser welding. No doubt this would be easier to accomplish with more metal to work with.

Listen, I don’t disagree with your point on evolution, and I understand styles change and Rolex has competing demands. They are a luxury company and understand that most that wear their watches are going to pamper them. As the prices moved up and up, they had to give their clients what they wanted which is a larger appearing watch that has more wrist presence.

The solid bracelet I can get on board with. The maxi dial-There is some functional purpose for that too. Now the bezel, they got lazy and could have devised their own proprietary material rather than ceramic. It’s lazy 40 year old tech. The lugs, if you are going to make them larger, do it gradually and slowly. No one will debate that the increase in lug size was abrupt.

Don’t get me wrong, I have worn Rolex for 25 (my family for 40 years) years, I love the watches. But I’m not one of these people that will clap and be happy with what ever they throw at me and I’m supposed to be happy and fortunate enough to be put on a 5 year wait list. I am one of the few on this form that can call the balls and strikes with Rolex. They do many things well, something are mistakes as o see them. I’m not going to say well the giant lugs are a winner. Why because Rolex made them that’s why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crazymcmichael]

Originally Posted by dirt

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

beautifull!

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Montremoi

It's a pretty good indication that Rolex made a major design [self-censored because apparently this is considered "language" by a minority of native English speakers] up.

Or, it’s a pretty good indication that there’s a vocal minority of Internet forum posters who prefer the aesthetics of their old watches.

[belutak]

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.

A bracelet is an integral part of a Rolex watch. Why would you experiment with a strap? If a Rolex bracelet is not to like then one should look for a different watch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Montremoi]

Originally Posted by belutak

A bracelet is an integral part of a Rolex watch. Why would you experiment with a strap? If a Rolex bracelet is not to like then one should look for a different watch.

If this is the case, why does Rolex make its bracelets user-removeable ?

[mgsooner]

Just another shot of this hideous atrocity

[iTreelex]

I have never seen so many men fight over such trivial things. Rolex will do what it wants. Let's hope for a sub nex year with even thicker lugs and 55mm so we can cry and bicker even more

[mgsooner]

Originally Posted by iTreelex

I have never seen so many men fight over such trivial things. Rolex will do what it wants. Let's hope for a sub nex year with even thicker lugs and 55mm so we can cry and bicker even more

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Montremoi

Apparently there's been a technical problem with the forum software, so I'm having to rewrite my post.


It's a pretty good indication that Rolex made a major design [self-censored because apparently this is considered "language" by a minority of native English speakers] up.

Glad you read and now comprehend rule #1 of TRF.

This forum isn’t littered with F bombs and for good reason. Friendly debate yes. That nonsense has no place here

[Tools]

Yep, the old skinny lugs just weren't fit to go on....

Throw 'em all away..


IMG_0442bcopy (2).JPG

[Calatrava r]

Picked up the Sub new last year. Love everything about the watch, including the lugs.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Tools

Yep, the old skinny lugs just weren't fit to go on....

Throw 'em all away..


Attachment 1130655

Where is your Y or F serial mk1, oval "O" dial?

[Montremoi]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Glad you read and now comprehend rule #1 of TRF.

This forum isn’t littered with F bombs and for good reason. Friendly debate yes. That nonsense has no place here

I haven't read anything, just noticed that there was a glitch in the forum software. It's not unheard of with vBulletin, unfortunately. Which is why I usually recommend other platforms to run forums on.

Anyway, since you might have not had the possibility to read my reply before the glitch happened, I'm having to write it again from memory :

I'm not a native speaker of English, but as far as I know this is not an offensive language, merely a colloquial one.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Montremoi

I haven't read anything, just noticed that there was a glitch in the forum software. It's not unheard of with vBulletin, unfortunately. Which is why I usually recommend other platforms to run forums on.

Anyway, since you might have not had the possibility to read my reply before the glitch happened, I'm having to write it again from memory :

There was no glitch. You purposely used the 4 letter "F" word and were censored by a forum moderator. Profanity is not tolerated here. You may not know English, but you knew how to spell that word.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Montremoi

I haven't read anything, just noticed that there was a glitch in the forum software. It's not unheard of with vBulletin, unfortunately. Which is why I usually recommend other platforms to run forums on.



Anyway, since you might have not had the possibility to read my reply before the glitch happened, I'm having to write it again from memory :

I suspect you know you made a mistake but for whatever reason are ignoring it. Others know it and we are trusting it won't happen again.

Good luck to you around here.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Uh, nope. My AD an aluminum insert is 60 bucks my friend and I was told I can pick up a new one at any time. Sorry, that justification does not work and crockery is more likely to fail, full stop. Sorry.

Apparently you feel that the old normal lugs failed and broke off and so needed to quadruple in size then? I can agree with you on the lugs, if you can get a single person here on the forum who has broken theirs off. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And with the introduction of laser welding the issue of case longevity due to long term over polishing has diminished significantly as well.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Montremoi

If this is the case, why does Rolex make its bracelets user-removeable ?

Since they deleted lug holes, the bracelets are harder to remove by the user without a special tool.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Or, it’s a pretty good indication that there’s a vocal minority of Internet forum posters who prefer the aesthetics of their old watches.

To be clear.
I am an unashamed critic of the soap bar case.
But I don't own a 5 digit Sub anymore.
I actually preferred my honest to goodness 4 digit way way better

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Or, it’s a pretty good indication that there’s a vocal minority of Internet forum posters who prefer the aesthetics of their old watches.

It goes way beyond the aesthetics.
It's a matter of essence/soul mixed with a large dose of common sense.
In terms of aesthetics though, we often say in my game "if it looks right then it probably is right"

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by Psmith

This is true - Rolex design & development was pretty much stagnant during the 80s - 90s until Patrick Heiniger shook things up. And of course it was Heiniger who declared that Rolex was in the luxury business rather than the watch business. They couldn't develop the business with such a dated product range, hence the rollout of updates and new models.

I see. This explains a lot. It seems a lot of arguments are because of this fellow's 'artistic vision'..

[Jackumi]

Every day I get up and have a shxt, shave and a shower. Then I put on either my 6 digit GMT, 6 digit Sub or my Datejust whichever takes my fancy, and then I just get on with my life.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Dirt

To be clear.
I am an unashamed critic of the soap bar case.
But I don't own a 5 digit Sub anymore.
I actually preferred my honest to goodness 4 digit way way better

Really? I would never have guessed.