I for one am hoping for a sub redesign...

[faz]

Originally Posted by Unsubscriber

Thought I'd see if I could cobble together a reasonably accurate picture comparing the lugs of the SubC, GMT-II Pepsi, and SD4K. It's not perfect but I used several reference points as guides.

I do see the difference between the Sub and the GMT, subtle though it is – I think this obsessional, comparative view makes the new, slight taper (more) evident. Seems reasonable to think a Sub update would inherit the new GMT case. Who knows? What's really clear is why the SD4K suits my small wrist so much better than the others. Very apparent difference.

Anyway, as a relative newbie, wanted to try to give back to the forum!

great photo compilation/overlay.

On the subject,
I currently have one of each, 5 and 6 digit, GMT and Sub. I enjoy them all. 5 digits comfortable to wear, beautiful and classic, the 6 digits modern and solid. I can see how it could be disappointing if one was a one-watch-man and happened to not like the super case. If and when Rolex changes the case again, I am sure there will be enough followers to make that release great too.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by Ra_88

The biggest 2 hints that the maxi case was a mistake is that the references since have been slimmed down, and the price of the 5 digits are crazy high.

These definitely could be interpreted as a result of maxicase intolerance. I know a few chaps who absolutely will not buy a 6 digit who've worn a Sub since around the early 80s who 'still don't like the new ones' and believe 'they've spoilt it'. Then a younger chap around my age didn't seem to understand when I mentioned liking the pre-C one better. Predictably he went straight on to the new bracelet being better. Sigh. It could be that his expectations of a Sub are based on recent Ceramic and Glidelock publications whereas the older chaps want the Sub they are familiar with. I'm not saying the y-geners are responsible for maxicase popularity. Just an observation. This is anecdotal obviously so make of it what you will. Interesting thread nonetheless.

[beyondthered]

I'd take a matte black bezel option, or a ghost bezel option.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Unsubscriber

I do see the difference between the Sub and the GMT, subtle though it is – I think this obsessional, comparative view makes the new, slight taper (more) evident. Seems reasonable to think a Sub update would inherit the new GMT case. Who knows?

The 1166xx Subs have a slightly different case from the 1167xx GMTs, so comparing the existing Sub to the new GMT doesn't really tell us much. What we need is a comparison between the 1267xx and 1167xx GMT cases. That will give us an idea of how much they modified the new case, which might hint at how much Rolex will modify the Sub case when the time comes to upgrade the movement.

Beyond the differences in the cases themselves, the lighting is substantially different in all the pictures you used, and I'm not convinced the angles are identical either. All of these can influence how we see the differences between something as small as a lug.

When all is said and done, the same answer applies here as it did to all the Basel predictions: we won't know until Rolex does it.

[Unsubscriber]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

The 1166xx Subs have a slightly different case from the 1167xx GMTs, so comparing the existing Sub to the new GMT doesn't really tell us much. What we need is a comparison between the 1267xx and 1167xx GMT cases....

Beyond the differences in the cases themselves, the lighting is substantially different in all the pictures you used, and I'm not convinced the angles are identical either. All of these can influence how we see the differences between something as small as a lug.

Sorry you don’t find it useful (tough crowd!). But whether you’re comparing changes within or across references, it’s all speculative (I don’t think the adjustments made within the GMT line necessarily predict changes within the Sub line). I used the Sub as a starting point because that’s the topic at hand. I hadn’t thought to include the 1167xx case — good idea.

As for the angles, as a matter of geometry, they really can’t be far off enough to account for apparent differences at the lugs without affecting perspective at the yellow guidelines and markers but I hear you, it’s rough. And there’s always watch-to-watch variability and the possibility that the Pepsi is a pre-production model. Far from perfect and in the time I was willing to allot to this, I didn’t find images with backgrounds and lighting that were more similar. My private reason for doing this was really to see how similar or different the Pepsi case is to the SD4K’s and I’ve scratched that itch.

[sco]

If the lugs ever get thinner, we better see some incomings from those most vocal in every thread like this one. Otherwise I really don’t understand the dog they have in the fight.

[liu_watch]

You're not the only one who dislikes maxi lugs on subs. The proportion is just wrong. In fact, it is the main reason why I don't own a sub. I'll patiently wait for Rolex to come out with a thinner-lug sub, powered by the newer 32## caliber, but with the silicon hairspring they are still testing.

Originally Posted by busytimmy

.... at Basel 2019 or perhaps 2020. Slimmer lugs, thinner case and new movement please - that would be the cherry on top.

I’ve owned 4 maxi case references, including PM, and all of them were flipped at some point PURELY due to how the square case looked on my 7” wrist. It always just looked like the watch was wearing me, as opposed to me wearing the watch. And it was frustrating to finally realise it, since they’re all great watches.

For now DJ41 and a soon to be added Tudor Blackbay 58 will keep me satisfied.

Anyone else wishing for newer Rolex sport watches closer in dimensions to the 5-digit references of yesteryear?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

I could see if the Sub was sitting on shelves with no buyers....but we all know that isn't the case. This supposed "mistake" watch is flying off the shelves with more demand than ever, people are speaking with their wallets, and they seem to like it.

I'm sure Rolex's foot is aching something fierce from where they shot themselves with these "mistake" watches, starting in 2005. And man are they dumb: 13 years later they repeated the mistake with the 126710. They screwed up so bad there are multiple-year waitlists for it already, and fanboys are drowning in their own drool. What was Rolex thinking?

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I think the killer for the SDc was always the price point.
In store it looked like a Sub date, only without a Cyclops.

It was also a middle child.
Not fish nor fowl.
In ways it was overshadowed by the technical advancements of the DSSD and not perceived to be as good as the Sub in general terms.

I agree on price along with being too thick for its smallish size, but this was a case of put your money where your mouth is, and people didn't so those bitching now about the Sub as a mistake seem doubly ridiculous.

[wisguy]

Would be nice, I’ve owned 5 and 6 digit references and would like to see a 5 digit case with a 6 digit bracelet, the new movement gets me going at a rational level, but I don’t think it’s a huge improvement in real life.

[Hard_Six]

I like the super case

[49ers101hitters]

Originally Posted by wisguy

Would be nice, I’ve owned 5 and 6 digit references and would like to see a 5 digit case with a 6 digit bracelet, the new movement gets me going at a rational level, but I don’t think it’s a huge improvement in real life.

That 70 hour power reserve is still pretty impressive. I'd say it's a more significant change than the caliber 30XX to 31XX was.

I've got my eye on the 126233 Datejust that was just revealed at Basel. No one seems to be talking about it though

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

This is of course your opinion, not fact.

What you claim as having been slimmed down is not in fact correct. The SD4k wasn't a slimmed down version of anything. It was it's own new model watch. The previous five digit SD had this slim case you are all crazy about but won't buy any old watches for...

The SD43 is not a slimmed down version anything either as this also is a new watch.

The Deepsea isn't a slimmed down version as this also was a new watch.



There isn't an example to my knowledge of a ceramic model sports watch in the six digit reference range that has been slimmed down as you claim. The only two watches people are bitching about are the Submariner and GMT ll and both still have their same maxi cases since introduction.



Rolex may slim the cases of these models, but so far doesn't look promising since the Pepsi and Rosegold model new generation watches have the same cases from what it looks like. So highly unlikely Rolex with change the Submariner, a watch which can't even be kept on display for more than a day.



Rolex is doing surprising things so anything is possible but I'm in the not likely camp, and going 100% against any reduction in case shape. While some claim it's the worst in proportions I think it is the best it has ever been. I could see if the Sub was sitting on shelves with no buyers....but we all know that isn't the case. This supposed "mistake" watch is flying off the shelves with more demand than ever, people are speaking with their wallets, and they seem to like it. And guess what, if Rolex slims it down to look all skinny and feminine, I won't bitch, I'll just go buy an 11 series six digit reference, which I don't know why you five digit guys don't source a watch and upgrade the bracelet...too expensive for an "old" watch?? but...but, you love it right...

Cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Ra_88

What are you ranting on about? Lol.

I think he was saying that because the SD4K, SD43 and DSSD are not Submariners, you cannot use their designs as evidence Rolex has backtracked from the "mistake" of the Submariner super-case. If anything, the new GMT is a better indication of where Rolex's head is regarding the design, since it's a closer cousin to the Submariner case design than either the SD or DSSD.

Beyond that, sales are a better indication of whether or not a design choice was a misstep. If the six-digit Subs are selling exceedingly well, how can the super-case be considered a mistake in Rolex's eyes, and what would be their incentive to treat it as such in subsequent designs?

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by AK797

SD4K had the thin lugs and nobody bought them so Rolex got rid of it. This was there for all the thick sub haters but where were they? When sub sales fall dramatically then maybe a grand redesign will occur... so some time during our grandchildren's later years.

Hmmm. Not quite eh? Funny how you’ll pay upwards of 9K GBP for one now and people are willing to pay it for a correctly shaped watch.

[wisguy]

Originally Posted by 49ers101hitters

That 70 hour power reserve is still pretty impressive. I'd say it's a more significant change than the caliber 30XX to 31XX was.

I've got my eye on the 126233 Datejust that was just revealed at Basel. No one seems to be talking about it though

I agree, the 70hr power reserve is great.

My comment was based on my usage case, if it's not back on my wrist in 24 hours it's because I rotated to something else so a longer power reserve really doesn't help me at all.

The little crown in between the Swiss Made though...

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Dirt

They're not having trouble selling Subs because it's simply all one can get in that size range in the Rolex diver line up. And at the entry level Rolex diver price point.
[snip]
There are people who just want to have a Rolex diver.
The Sub is the iconic go to example with quite a lot of choice in the model line up to appeal to the masses.

There's a problem with the logic here. One of the major obstacles to the "super-case was a mistake" argument is the reality that the super-case Subs and GMTs sell exceptionally well. You present the typical counterargument: they sell because people want a Rolex Sub, and that's the only Sub available.

The problem here is twofold: for one, the counterargument is a deflection, insofar as it does not grapple with the actual question. If the super-case Sub sells well, how can it be considered a mistake from Rolex's perspective? You offer an explanation for why it sells, but fail to explain how something can sell well and still be considered a mistake. If Rolex's goal is to design and produce watches that people will want to buy, then anything that sells well, especially over the long term, would self-evidently be considered a success, wouldn't it? If you disagree, then explain why that's wrong. So far, none of the super-case tar-and-feather mob has.

Two, if people will buy any old thing Rolex puts out (which isn't really true, but let's not let the truth get in the way of a self-gratifying theory), then Rolex is essentially infallible. In other words, they cannot make a mistake. That makes the argument in support of the "mistake" claim self-defeating.

[mdubya]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

There's a problem with the logic here. One of the major obstacles to the "super-case was a mistake" argument is the reality that the super-case Subs and GMTs sell exceptionally well. You present the typical counterargument: they sell because people want a Rolex Sub, and that's the only Sub available.

The problem here is twofold: for one, the counterargument is a deflection, insofar as it does not grapple with the actual question. If the super-case Sub sells well, how can it be considered a mistake from Rolex's perspective? You offer an explanation for why it sells, but fail to explain how something can sell well and still be considered a mistake. If Rolex's goal is to design and produce watches that people will want to buy, then anything that sells well, especially over the long term, would self-evidently be considered a success, wouldn't it? If you disagree, then explain why that's wrong. So far, none of the super-case tar-and-feather mob has.

Two, if people will buy any old thing Rolex puts out (which isn't really true, but let's not let the truth get in the way of a self-gratifying theory), then Rolex is essentially infallible. In other words, they cannot make a mistake. That makes the argument in support of the "mistake" claim self-defeating.

Your entire argument here is a straw man. He was not arguing that the maxi-case Subs and GMTs do not sell well. He was arguing that the current popularity of Tudor BBs and 5-digit references may be a result of discontent with the current design by a segment of the sub-buying population.

Secondly, any argument that the maxi-case watches "sell well" and therefore are a success makes no sense. We do not have access to Rolex sales data, we do not know what demand would be like if the maxi-case did not exist, and we do not know how many watches rolex supplies every year. For example, if subs and gmts had 5-digit proportions, maybe demand would be twice as strong and therefore waitlists twice as long and grey prices twice as expensive? You cannot judge popularity of an item when sales data is private and supply is restricted, because you have no control numbers.

The reality is, if there are 1,000,000 potential sub customers, 500,000 of which refuse to buy due to maxi-case, but rolex only supplies 50,000, the watch would still "sell well", but its market is halved due to poor design choice. It may not affect Rolex in the short term, but it may affect them long-term should market conditions change and their pool of buyers is smaller than it would have been with a different design.

Anyways, there is not really any point in arguing further considering it is strictly a personal preference and at this point in time, given we have no idea what the popularity and demand for a different designed sub would be. It seems like anytime there is a poll or a thread here, at least 30-50% of the population voices displeasure with the design and states it has affected their purchasing decision. Anecdotally, many people I have spoken to outside of this forum who are WIS's have also voiced their displeasure with the sports cases. Many of the popular watch channels on youtube have also covered the polarizing case design, and you will frequently see comments to the same effect. Many watches are universally considered beautiful, or are least nowhere near as polarizing, so with the amount of controversy and complaining about the maxi-case, my educated guess is that is indeed was a mistake and demand/pricing would be much higher if the case had been the same as the SD43.

[TacticaLCawacoL]

Originally Posted by mdubya

Problem with going back to 5-digits is 90% of them on the market are horrible polish jobs, incomplete sets, or grossly overpriced. Sorry, I'm not paying 11K for a 10 year old, polished, 16710 that is going to need a service in a few years. Also terrible condition 14060s and 16610s with asks in the 7K range... To find a nice set in good condition is an exercise in frustration. I know this is the new reality of rolex but Im not paying more for a 16710 or 16610 than I would for a brand new BLNR or sub. Its just insanity.

I also agree with some posters in here that the maxi case is a huge mistake in design and looks terrible on 90% of wrists... there is no flow between the watch and the bracelet and it looks like it was put together as an afterthought. If rolex produced watches designed as they did for the first 70 years of their existence that I could actually but from an AD, they would probably have 30-50K of my money right now. A 40mm sub and GMT with case proportions like the SD43, please.

This.
But i wouldn’t call the maxi case a huge mistake in design cause it sells pretty well and some people like it a lot.

[TacticaLCawacoL]

Originally Posted by RolexEDC

If the slimmer lugs you guys are lusting for then Rolex made the luxury version of the sub its call the YM

100% agreed, and that is why i just ordered it. Plus it has an incredible blue sun ray dial.
And a shame this watch is so underrated. Because it is very comfortable due to its flatter case back and its weight balance.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by mdubya

Your entire argument here is a straw man. He was not arguing that the maxi-case Subs and GMTs do not sell well. He was arguing that the current popularity of Tudor BBs and 5-digit references may be a result of discontent with the current design by a segment of the sub-buying population.

You mischaracterized what I was arguing, which, ironically, means you're creating a straw man. I didn't say Dirt said the super-case models don't sell well. Quite the opposite: I acknowledged that he said they do sell well. What I am asking is how one can take the position that the super-case design is a mistake (a term used several times in this thread, and with which Dirt himself agreed) if it sells well (a premise with which Dirt also appeared to agree). So far, nobody seems to be willing to answer that question on its own terms.

Originally Posted by mdubya

Secondly, any argument that the maxi-case watches "sell well" and therefore are a success makes no sense.

I disagree. I think the premise leads logically to the conclusion: if a company that exists to produce watches that sell well produces a watch that sells well, that watch can be considered a success from the viewpoint of that company. What you're arguing is factual, rather than logical. In other words, you're disputing the factual accuracy of my premise: that the watches indeed sell well. I will grant that we do not have direct sales data, but we have indirect data in the form of super-case scarcity and waitlists at ADs, and over-MSRP prices at grey dealers. That may not be rock solid, but I don't see you presenting data to the contrary. Accordingly, I would say the weight of the data supports the premise that the super-case models sell well.

Beyond that, you're now undermining the shibboleth that Subs only sell well because they're what's available to buy. If the people who don't like super-cases would rather argue they are failures because they don't sell well, they should stop admitting they sell well and coming up with bogus rationalizations why that doesn't prove anything.

Originally Posted by mdubya

We do not have access to Rolex sales data, we do not know what demand would be like if the maxi-case did not exist, and we do not know how many watches rolex supplies every year....

The reality is, if there are 1,000,000 potential sub customers, 500,000 of which refuse to buy due to maxi-case, but rolex only supplies 50,000, the watch would still "sell well", but its market is halved due to poor design choice.

So my argument fails because we don't have sales data, but your argument succeeds because you invent data?

Originally Posted by mdubya

Anyways, there is not really any point in arguing further considering it is strictly a personal preference...

That's all it ever has been, and if that's all the super-case detractors would say - "I don't like the super-case" - I wouldn't be having this discussion with you right now. Unfortunately, some of the detractors take it a step further and claim the design is a failure - or mistake - in objective terms. As you say, preference for the super-case is subjective. Accepting that as true, then the definition of "mistake" amounts to, "I don't like it." That being the case, I could just as easily claim the super-case is a success because I do like it. If those are the only criteria, the entire question of failure versus success is rendered moot. If only the people who keep claiming the design is a mistake could recognize that, we could move on to other points of contention.

[mailman]

The six digit Submariner and GMT models are a mistake?

It seems like Rolex has no problem selling every one they make

[mailman]

Originally Posted by jrs146

Stop waiting and just go for a 5-digit. You can get the best of both worlds with the 16610LV. Maxi dial with the slimmer case.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As much as I love everything about my 114060, this is probably my all time favorite SS Rolex

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Ra_88

Hmmm. Not quite eh? Funny how you’ll pay upwards of 9K GBP for one now and people are willing to pay it for a correctly shaped watch.

Originally Posted by mdubya

Your entire argument here is a straw man. He was not arguing that the maxi-case Subs and GMTs do not sell well. He was arguing that the current popularity of Tudor BBs and 5-digit references may be a result of discontent with the current design by a segment of the sub-buying population.

Secondly, any argument that the maxi-case watches "sell well" and therefore are a success makes no sense. We do not have access to Rolex sales data, we do not know what demand would be like if the maxi-case did not exist, and we do not know how many watches rolex supplies every year. For example, if subs and gmts had 5-digit proportions, maybe demand would be twice as strong and therefore waitlists twice as long and grey prices twice as expensive? You cannot judge popularity of an item when sales data is private and supply is restricted, because you have no control numbers.

The reality is, if there are 1,000,000 potential sub customers, 500,000 of which refuse to buy due to maxi-case, but rolex only supplies 50,000, the watch would still "sell well", but its market is halved due to poor design choice. It may not affect Rolex in the short term, but it may affect them long-term should market conditions change and their pool of buyers is smaller than it would have been with a different design.

The fact is the SD4K gives us evidence of how a thin lugged watch would do against a thick lugged Subc and it was very poorly. Just because the price was higher is not enough of an argument now as we have seen lately that many people are prepared to pay much higher for a Subc than retail, and now far more than the SD4K's price, so the money is there, but still no one was buying the SD4K, whereas people are demanding the Subc at well over the SD4K's price.

The SD4K at £9K with almost no supply is a pretty poor showing, esp when the LVc is selling for £9.5K and is still in mass production. The Black Subc if discoed tomorrow would probably fetch £11-12K.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by mailman

The six digit Submariner and GMT models are a mistake?

It seems like Rolex has no problem selling every one they make

I hate this watch. Aesthetically it's just all wrong

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[Wools]

Originally Posted by Onikage

Then a younger chap around my age didn't seem to understand when I mentioned liking the pre-C one better. Predictably he went straight on to the new bracelet being better. Sigh. It could be that his expectations of a Sub are based on recent Ceramic and Glidelock publications whereas the older chaps want the Sub they are familiar with. I'm not saying the y-geners are responsible for maxicase popularity. Just an observation. This is anecdotal obviously so make of it what you will. Interesting thread nonetheless.

That's an interesting perspective but like you mention, I think it's just a case of familiarity and subjective opinion.

There's no question in my eyes that the 6 digit Submariners are better in material and construction than any old Sub's so that's beyond argument. But if you factor in someone preferring a smaller case, then they won't like the new one. Also, if people like faded bezels and patina on lume, then the new watches are made of tough stuff, so that won't happen. Also, if you just prefer the design and look of old Sub's that's perfectly fine.

I come from Videogames and Cars so hearing watch guys and girls going gooey over faded patinas made me laugh initially, as seeing a Nintendo SNES games console with faded yellow plastic is really awful. So seeing that replicated on a watch still looks awful in my opinion! :)

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by AK797

The fact is the SD4K gives us evidence of how a thin lugged watch would do against a thick lugged Subc and it was very poorly. Just because the price was higher is not enough of an argument now as we have seen lately that many people are prepared to pay much higher for a Subc than retail, and now far more than the SD4K's price, so the money is there, but still no one was buying the SD4K, whereas people are demanding the Subc at well over the SD4K's price.

The SD4K at £9K with almost no supply is a pretty poor showing, esp when the LVc is selling for £9.5K and is still in mass production. The Black Subc if discoed tomorrow would probably fetch £11-12K.

Because you know as well as me that every clueless Tom Dick and Harry are currently jumping on the Rolex bandwagon thinking they’re going to make a fortune and everyone’s heard of a Submariner. Only reason.

The proof in the pudding is when they eventually introduce the new movement into the Sub range with (potentially) a new case design.

And your use of ‘mass’ production is rubbish, as you well know. Again, only due to very limited supplies are these references in demand.

And whilst on the subject of SD’s - I wonder why the SD43 is selling for a huge premium? Because it has perfect proportions, slimmer lugs and wider bracelet.

[ccaballero]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I hate this watch. Aesthetically it's just all wrong

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Having worn a 114060 for a while, I have to agree. The block shaped case has no aesthetic flow with the bracelet.

[Shamorai]

If those that like the current design, myself included, hadn’t posted here, this thread would have died quite quickly.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Ra_88

Because you know as well as me that every clueless Tom Dick and Harry are currently jumping on the Rolex bandwagon thinking they’re going to make a fortune and everyone’s heard of a Submariner. Only reason.

The proof in the pudding is when they eventually introduce the new movement into the Sub range with (potentially) a new case design.

And your use of ‘mass’ production is rubbish, as you well know. Again, only due to very limited supplies are these references in demand.

No, you are completely wrong, demand surged on the LVc on disco rumours last Aug, supply did not change ONE IOTA in Aug. Price shot up from 6K to 9.5K now. SD4K has done nothing like it.