Is the SubC really a Submariner?

[ocN55]

Looks like we all think you need new friends haha

[kangajack]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

His logic was Speedmaster Professional Hesalite vs. Sapphire Sandwich. Even though the Sapphire Sandwich had the better materials, the Hesalite was the more coveted watch.



Thoughts? Opinions?

I don’t think this is entirely accurate. A used 2012 Sapphire Sandwich still sells for more than a similar year Hesalite version. Maybe time will tell, but modern Hesalite versions have different movements than the late ‘60s and early 70’s versions as well. Those earlier versions are definitely coveted, but the recent versions aren’t. My point is, that everything evolves, and the way I look at it, the crystal used, is no more meaningful than the strap in the scheme of things. I know others disagree and I understand the point. Personally I like the Sapphire version. I had one for a time and would like to acquire another.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sublovin]

Two different points of view here...
On one hand, I understand people feeling this way when speaking from a romanticism/nostalgia perspective. Iconic items like the Sub, or 911 as people have mentioned, have a loyal following and people are sometimes resistant to change.
On the other hand, the sub and 911 for that matter are both far superior to the old versions in basically every way.
The sub is made of better materials, has better accuracy, better durability, better lume , etc
The 911 is faster, more aerodynamic, handles better, brakes better, etc
To say you like the old better is a matter of taste, but to say the old “is” better is foolish!
I’m a sucker for the vintage stuff as well, but the very reason we hold these brands in such high regard would be lost if they did not continue to innovate and improve their products.

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by ocN55

Looks like we all think you need new friends haha

Ha ha , yeah ... I agree
I had 3 TT 5 digit subs and much the 6 digit upgrade...

[Brny11]

Originally Posted by cht

The submariner materials offer no improvement in its function other than bling.

False statement. Though I am sure bling was a big part of it.

There are very clearly stated functional changes. Alll about preference.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carry The Interest]

Sounds like your friend is just taking an extreme stance against the maxi case.

It's totally fair game for someone to have a preference and say they like a 4-digit or 5-digit Sub over the current 6-digit. I'd probably draw the line though if they took it one step further to say the current model really isn't a Sub.

Rolex doesn't need to justify itself on how it designed the current model. It's the latest model in a generation of a product-line and gets to decide what to call the watch.

[springer]

If I read the dial correctly - it reads SUBMARINER. Your friend has a reading/comprehension issue.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by Brny11

False statement. Though I am sure bling was a big part of it.

There are very clearly stated functional changes. Alll about preference.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed! First major improvement, the bracelet. I prefer 5 digit subs but the 5 digit vs the 6 digit oyster bracelet are not even in the same league. That’s just one of the improvements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rashid.bk]

So some dude from the street knows better than Rolex themselves what the watch they engineered, designed and produce is. Lols.
It's good you're friend has an opinion and thinks so high of himself, but his point of view is laughable.
My reaction if I were to be having this conversation would be, cool story bro. Not worth going in circles.
Buy the one you like, end of story.

[mecamylamine]

The Submariner and Speedmaster are iconic for entirely different reasons, and I think that's reflected in the present discussion.

The Sub is in some ways a cultural touchstone - its design's persistence and evolution through time is what has made it so famous. In fact, these small iterative changes in a lot of ways are what the enthusiast community obsess and gush over. As such, buying pretty much any version of the Sub doesn't feel wrong, because you're still buying into the tradition and into the continuing story of the model. Everybody (besides your friend) has differing preferences but roughly similar emotional pitch when seeing/wearing any version of a Rolex Sub.

The Speedmaster, on the other hand, is famous for a singular event ("being the first watch on the moon"). The model used in this event is associated with a very specific set of features (hesalite, handwind, etc), so the things that people look for in Speedmasters tend to gravitate towards those. The fame of the watch is closely tied to an incredibly significant event and moment in humanity, rather than a broad time period characterized by evolution (a la Sub), and as such the "true" Speedmaster must reference that period's exact design for it to feel authentic.

In the end, all these things are just quibbles for people like us who will post about watches on the internet. Your friend's observation makes sense at first glance, but it doesn't hold up in my opinion. At the end of the day, it's cliched, but I think people should just wear what they like, regardless of what watch nerds think about whether they're "real" or not.

[tyler1980]

i will never understand why there is resistance to evolving a watch. I don't want to buy a new car that looks like a 1970's car. If i want a 1970's car, then i will buy a period correct one that was made then.

As much crap as brands get for doing heritage reissues with aged lume and vintage styling, this would be the same thing. Purposely keeping a watch looking like it was made 30 years ago.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by traf

I think your friend’s view is a bit dramatic. If you prefer the old one, buy and wear that. I also prefer the 5 digit sub, so that’s what I wear 🥃




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jlovda]

Originally Posted by Dsmith1974

Agree with the Speedy up to a point. The sandwich is not NASA certified and therefore not a moonwatch, but then again the Speedmaster predates the space program and wasn’t designed for space travel in the first place.

Does anyone know which Rolex Swiggert took on the Apollo mission? I think it may’be been a GMT, did he have to smuggle it on board and what happened to it?

My wife and I got a personal tour of Rolex headquarters in Geneva in 1983. The GMT moonwatch (I assume Swiggert) was hanging in a shadowbox picture frame in the lobby.

[zengineer]

Hes either way overthinking it or way under, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes. Definately one of them though.

Then again I never coveted a plastic crystal on my Speedmaster (I opted for the FOIS w/sapphire) either which apparently I am supposed to do.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[cascavel]

Originally Posted by cht

The hesalite wasn't just a more "coveted" watch, it has a design and engineering purpose to contract and expand with temperature change.

The submariner materials offer no improvement in its function other than bling.

This is probably true. I wore a Sub 1680 diving throughout the 1980s and I knew many other divers who wore Subs and I never heard of anyone flooding their watch or having any problems whatsoever. Moreover, while the plexiglass crystal would get scratched and gouged, I never saw one that had cracked. Dive watches were treated differently then, they were just another piece of equipment, albeit an expensive one. Wearing it on the outside of a wetsuit it would get smashed into boats, air tanks, rocks, corals, piers etc. The large numbers of surviving Subs and Sea Dwellers from the 60s, 70s and 80s, many of them never serviced, attests to their durability. Who knows how much better todays watches will fare.

[Stirling Moss]

Originally Posted by rickc007

I had read this too, one of the reasons the Speedmaster was chosen for NASA was it passed tests that others didn't. And one was other watches crystals popped out due to pressure, but the hesalite had more give.

Making the crystal saphire changes that

Wouldn't all of the watches that NASA tested at the time be fitted with plexi crystals? (Except Mae that pocket watch Hamilton sent in...)

[ThomasAndy]

Some people just like old things... probably the same people that sit on their old butts being grumpy and nagging over the “new” generations!!

[4rnold]

Originally Posted by Tmac478

It's a sub because Rolex says it's a sub.

that nails it

[htrap2294]

Haha, it seems this topic has generated some strong statements! Totally called for though, as I also thought the statement made that a SubC isn't a Sub is a bit of an extreme. I understood the logic, but as I said it's not something I would agree with.

I think the poster that stated the Speedmaster works with Hesalite, because it is tied to a specific event hit the nail on the head. The Submariner has constantly been evolving and making marks in history. The reference was ever changing. So, with that in mind, the maxi-case works.

That being said, I do think the Maxi Case does suit the SS models better than it does the YG. WG, I would say looks fantastic w/ Maxi Case though! Again, the previous two statements are just my opinion and my purchases/collection/experience reflect that. Other people's mileage may vary and more power to them! That's why watch collecting to me can be so fun!

[AK797]

Originally Posted by 904VT

The modern SubC 114060 shares more design cues from the early 6204s than the 5 digit 14060s do imo. 114060s and big crowns same shape case too

Originally Posted by kauebm

Totally different is indeed dramatic. Put a 114060 and a 6538 side by side and it's obvious it's an evolution of the same watch.

While we're at it, I don't think Episode I should be called Star Wars.

Yes two models which look closely like the subc, 6538 esp.

https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-bl...ence-6538.html

[101031-28]

We are continuously evolving.. Expecting everything to stay the same is unrealistic to me. In my eyes the 'new' Submariner is just as iconic Rolex as the ones that came before. Prior to the 16610 was the 1680, 5508 etc etc.. Should we then say that the 16610 is not a submariner because it doesn't resemble the 5508?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

He also pointed out that the SubC is not really a Submariner because the case design is entirely different - it no longer harkens back to the days of the old. He felt with the new case design, an element that is Rolex was lost.


Thoughts? Opinions?

It's certainly another way of putting it.

The Speedy has systematically lost a lot since the early days with the Pro Hesalite essentially remaining true to its key elements.

Rolex has evolved the Sub as with all the other models in the range and not kept the early design.
But i believe the SubC was a step way too far/fat. As a result an essential part of the essence of the watch was lost.
They could've thickened up the lugs a little, and implemented the ceramic bezel along with Chromalite lume and called it a day and not many would be offended with the result. But there would be no criticism either but it's easy to have 20/20 vision with the benefit of hindsight.

I think Rolex sort of admitted they made a mistake and went too far with the Maxi-case by pulling back on the proportions of the lugs and crown guards on all subsequent design alterations since.

At least there's an awful lot of scope for some heavy chamfers going forward now.
That should ease the pain of vintage Rolex Subs in the coming decades

[WJGESQ]

Sub C is a better watch. By far.

[JR16]

Originally Posted by kauebm

While we're at it, I don't think Episode I should be called Star Wars.

So true - they just need to remakes 1-3 and keep Lucas out of it.

W regards to the Sub, SubC is clearly a Sub IMO (even though I too am not a huge fan of the maxi case). Just like a 911 is still a 911 and a Range Rover is still a Range Rover , etc etc.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by mecamylamine

The Submariner and Speedmaster are iconic for entirely different reasons, and I think that's reflected in the present discussion.

The Sub is in some ways a cultural touchstone - its design's persistence and evolution through time is what has made it so famous. In fact, these small iterative changes in a lot of ways are what the enthusiast community obsess and gush over. As such, buying pretty much any version of the Sub doesn't feel wrong, because you're still buying into the tradition and into the continuing story of the model. Everybody (besides your friend) has differing preferences but roughly similar emotional pitch when seeing/wearing any version of a Rolex Sub.

The Speedmaster, on the other hand, is famous for a singular event ("being the first watch on the moon"). The model used in this event is associated with a very specific set of features (hesalite, handwind, etc), so the things that people look for in Speedmasters tend to gravitate towards those. The fame of the watch is closely tied to an incredibly significant event and moment in humanity, rather than a broad time period characterized by evolution (a la Sub), and as such the "true" Speedmaster must reference that period's exact design for it to feel authentic.

In the end, all these things are just quibbles for people like us who will post about watches on the internet. Your friend's observation makes sense at first glance, but it doesn't hold up in my opinion. At the end of the day, it's cliched, but I think people should just wear what they like, regardless of what watch nerds think about whether they're "real" or not.

The speedy is also beautiful for its simplicity(for a chrono).
And very few watch designs have ever been as versatile in terms of being able to alter the style and character across a broad spectrum by simply changing the strap.
This is something the Speedy pro hesalite absolutely excels at as a design.
The size and appearance of the watch hasn't been fundamentally altered from the moon watch format as we know it.

[HL65]

I just checked the website and it apparently is sorry.

[WJGESQ]

Originally Posted by DahMan

I traded 5 digit, for 6 digit, I got tired of always seeing nicks, and wear on the Bezel.
The 6 is just about perfect, with fit and finish.

Bingo.

Bezel and Bracelet light years ahead.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

Sub C is a better watch. By far.

I'm not so sure.
Some part of me considers the loss of the Acrylic crystal was a watershed point in time where it definately went backwards in terms of the tool watch category. And possibly even the ceramic bezel may be seen in the same light.

Most other updates in terms of materials were generally incremental improvements.
Whether they were required is another issue though i respect the introduction of 904L SS.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

Bingo.

Bezel and Bracelet light years ahead.

I personally don't see either as a quantum leap forward in real life practical terms.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by WJGESQ

Bingo.

Bezel and Bracelet light years ahead.

Bracelet and glide lock clasp. The light feeling hollow center link and stamped steel clasp of the 5 digit references just didn't feel appropriate for a several thousand dollar high end watch. The AR under the cyclops is also nice too