If You Could Have Only One: SUB Vs GMT

[Generation]

Originally Posted by Jim_GMT

Or perhaps if you just prefer the look of it that's as good as any reason to choose it?

How many people buy a Daytona and use the chronograph function? Probably about 1% 😄

I wouldn't want a Daytona, either -- even if I was offered the chance to purchase at MSRP. I like functional, no-fuss designs. Frankly, I'm not sure why the Daytona is as popular as it is. I think it might have something to do with Paul Newman, who was well before my time, but I'm not really sure.

If one likes the design of a GMT or Daytona and purchases for that reason alone, that is fine with me. But I believe form follows function, and if one doesn't have any need for a particular function, I would advise purchasing a different watch.

[Major69]

If I had to make the choice, it would have to be the GMT. I use the GMT function more often.

[911991]

Sub since it was my first Rolex 35 years ago, most of the other models are a variation of the Sub IMHO...

[imsayingthough]

The sub drew me into the brand, when it was time to purchase my first presented with both i chose the gmt. Still on the hunt for a 116610LV

Cant go wrong either way.

[JerBear]

Originally Posted by Aberdein

My 16750 GMT is 38 years old and it has been the best purchase I've ever made..

Hopefully I enjoy 38 yrs with mine as well!

[Ivan Drago]

Gmt

[Oyster Sauce]

If I could have only one Rolex? GMT

If I could only have one watch? Sub

[toneafficianado]

Originally Posted by Dr_P

Tough question. I voted GMT but I am personally split 50/50 between both.

For those of you who have both, how much wrist time do they get? Do you use one as a daily beater and the other one for special occasions? Or is it 50/50 wrist time?

I have both and Sub was my first Rolex. GMTs get more wrist time. They are lower on the wrist , have the colours and I use the bezel regularly for timing things that take approx an hour or less.
I swim in them too.
Still love my sub though!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LChanyungco]

GMT for me. If you want 2-in-1 get a GMT with a black insert.

[synrrgy]

It's a toss up for me, I own both and love them for different reasons. I do travel a lot and use the GMT function a lot, so for me it would be GMT.

[EtherBrown]

Put me in the both camp. But if one had to stay, it would be the GMT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lew Archer]

I voted for the GMT. As it happens, a GMT Master II (the so-called Coke variant) was my first Rolex. While the Submariner was the first Rolex to strike my fancy, by the time I was in a position to buy a Rolex, I already had a perfectly good "dive" watch--an Omega Seamaster--and so chose the GMT, which provided a very valuable alternative function--the GMT hand and rotating bezel, allowing one to quickly read two to three time zones.

I traveled enough that this proved to be a very useful feature. Indeed, to this day, it is my preferred watch for travel when crossing time zones, foreign or domestic.

A few years after buying that GMT, I succumbed to my love for the Submariner, despite that trusty Omega. I'm not a diver, but, like others, find the classic dive watch to be simply a thing of functional beauty...or, as a Bond villain observed in "Live and Let Die", a "particularly handsome watch".

So, I bought, before it was discontinued, the predecessor to today's Submariner Date. It was, and is, fantastic. I also eventually acquired the predecessor to today's Submariner--which, aesthetically, has always appealed to me, because of the clean look of a dive watch without the date complication.

So, obviously, I am a devotee of the Submariner and an admirer of the GMT.

So, the poll presented an interesting, if theoretical choice. I chose the GMT simply because, over the years, I've found the GMT function so very useful and expect that will continue to be the case. As another member noted, the elapsed time feature of the Submariner is, indeed, useful for timing many things, and I use that, too. But, the GMT's rotable bezel can also be used, in a way, to gauge elapsed time.

I have not addressed the visual presence of the two watches, just their different functions. I find them equally handsome in that regard. In fact, were I to switch out the Coke bezel for an all black bezel, an option on older Submariners, they would be so very similar visually as to be hard to distinguish at a distance, at least to the average, casual observer, as opposed to the watch collector for whom even slight variations scream out. The pre ceramic bezel GMTs do afford the ultimate in visual versatility, at least in potential. You can have an all black bezel, or a red and black bezel, or a blue and black bezel--and some GMT aficionados acquired all three aluminum bezels, for that very reason...the ability to change the look of the watch. I've never done so, but, for those inclined and so equipped, it's an option. And, therefore, the aluminum bezeled GMT, potentially, has greater visual versatility than the Submariner/Submariner Date, whose bezel, aluminum or ceramic, may be had in black, or, if you prefer, black, unless, of course, you'd rather have black. There is no option to swap out bezels of different color schemes on your trusted Submariner or Submariner Date.

A few years after buying the GMT, I was chatting with a salesman at an AD. I wasn't in the market for a Rolex, just window shopping. We were talking about the Submariner and I said how much I liked it, that I'd buy it, except for the fact that I had a GMT, and, visually, both watches looked to me so similar (as an aside: at that point in my horological exploration, I perceived the visual similarities more than the differences. Today, the two watches don't look at all like to my collector's eye, which sees great differences in subtle variation). The salesman, being a good salesman, observed that many people owned both...

Both! The idea had not occurred to me, given the cost. Mind you, I had not yet adopted the rationale (or, rather, excuse) of "collecting" and so couldn't justify such an unnecessary luxury expense. That salesman planted a seed though...a few months later, I bought that Submariner Date, followed, a few years later, by the Submariner (as another aside, I don't use the term "Submariner No Date" or "no date Sub", in deference those here who cherish correct precision in semantics. As others here have instructed: there is the Submariner and the Submariner Date. Our semantic sticklers say it's so because Rolex says it's so--just check their catalogue--and so who am I to argue?)

Both watches, however you vote, are fabulous and the proof of that is that they remain sought after classics in all references more than fifty years following their debut on the watch scene. I consider myself very fortunate to own either, let alone both.

Finally, either Submariner or GMT, could, for me, be that "one watch" if circumstances dictated that I was a one-watch man.

Heaven forbid.

[DoctorA]

I must have changed the vote three or four times before submitting it
It’s a tough one! I ended up going with the LV because there are a number of GMTs ( Pepsi, Batman, discontinued LN, the 5 digit ones) but there’s only one green dial sub!

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Lew Archer

I voted for the GMT. As it happens, a GMT Master II (the so-called Coke variant) was my first Rolex. While the Submariner was the first Rolex to strike my fancy, by the time I was in a position to buy a Rolex, I already had a perfectly good "dive" watch--an Omega Seamaster--and so chose the GMT, which provided a very valuable alternative function--the GMT hand and rotating bezel, allowing one to quickly read two to three time zones.

I traveled enough that this proved to be a very useful feature. Indeed, to this day, it is my preferred watch for travel when crossing time zones, foreign or domestic.

A few years after buying that GMT, I succumbed to my love for the Submariner, despite that trusty Omega. I'm not a diver, but, like others, find the classic dive watch to be simply a thing of functional beauty...or, as a Bond villain observed in "Live and Let Die", a "particularly handsome watch".

So, I bought, before it was discontinued, the predecessor to today's Submariner Date. It was, and is, fantastic. I also eventually acquired the predecessor to today's Submariner--which, aesthetically, has always appealed to me, because of the clean look of a dive watch without the date complication.

So, obviously, I am a devotee of the Submariner and an admirer of the GMT.

So, the poll presented an interesting, if theoretical choice. I chose the GMT simply because, over the years, I've found the GMT function so very useful and expect that will continue to be the case. As another member noted, the elapsed time feature of the Submariner is, indeed, useful for timing many things, and I use that, too. But, the GMT's rotable bezel can also be used, in a way, to gauge elapsed time.

I have not addressed the visual presence of the two watches, just their different functions. I find them equally handsome in that regard. In fact, were I to switch out the Coke bezel for an all black bezel, an option on older Submariners, they would be so very similar visually as to be hard to distinguish at a distance, at least to the average, casual observer, as opposed to the watch collector for whom even slight variations scream out. The pre ceramic bezel GMTs do afford the ultimate in visual versatility, at least in potential. You can have an all black bezel, or a red and black bezel, or a blue and black bezel--and some GMT aficionados acquired all three aluminum bezels, for that very reason...the ability to change the look of the watch. I've never done so, but, for those inclined and so equipped, it's an option. And, therefore, the aluminum bezeled GMT, potentially, has greater visual versatility than the Submariner/Submariner Date, whose bezel, aluminum or ceramic, may be had in black, or, if you prefer, black, unless, of course, you'd rather have black. There is no option to swap out bezels of different color schemes on your trusted Submariner or Submariner Date.

A few years after buying the GMT, I was chatting with a salesman at an AD. I wasn't in the market for a Rolex, just window shopping. We were talking about the Submariner and I said how much I liked it, that I'd buy it, except for the fact that I had a GMT, and, visually, both watches looked to me so similar (as an aside: at that point in my horological exploration, I perceived the visual similarities more than the differences. Today, the two watches don't look at all like to my collector's eye, which sees great differences in subtle variation). The salesman, being a good salesman, observed that many people owned both...

Both! The idea had not occurred to me, given the cost. Mind you, I had not yet adopted the rationale (or, rather, excuse) of "collecting" and so couldn't justify such an unnecessary luxury expense. That salesman planted a seed though...a few months later, I bought that Submariner Date, followed, a few years later, by the Submariner (as another aside, I don't use the term "Submariner No Date" or "no date Sub", in deference those here who cherish correct precision in semantics. As others here have instructed: there is the Submariner and the Submariner Date. Our semantic sticklers say it's so because Rolex says it's so--just check their catalogue--and so who am I to argue?)

Both watches, however you vote, are fabulous and the proof of that is that they remain sought after classics in all references more than fifty years following their debut on the watch scene. I consider myself very fortunate to own either, let alone both.

Finally, either Submariner or GMT, could, for me, be that "one watch" if circumstances dictated that I was a one-watch man.

Heaven forbid.

Great post. Thanks for sharing.

[djyolky]

Gosh, I've never really thought about this... Come to think of it, this might be the first time someone asked this particular question. I guess I would have to pick, the Daytona. Lol

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[D.P.G.]

Easy answer I sold a Sub that I had worn daily 12 years for a new GMT Master ll and could not be happier. Much more comfortable with jubilee bracelet.

[HaiovR]

Sub

[JRell]

Just opinions here - but my order is sub>datejust>Daytona>GMT. Have the first 2, waitlist for Daytona, might get a gmt at some point as I like the look of the Batman.

[Nikrnic]

I have 2 of each, Subs and Gmts in 5 and 6 dgt Rolex. If it came down to it I'd put my 14060m as the no.1 keeper then the 16710.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[gtnator]

Originally Posted by Lew Archer

I voted for the GMT. As it happens, a GMT Master II (the so-called Coke variant) was my first Rolex. While the Submariner was the first Rolex to strike my fancy, by the time I was in a position to buy a Rolex, I already had a perfectly good "dive" watch--an Omega Seamaster--and so chose the GMT, which provided a very valuable alternative function--the GMT hand and rotating bezel, allowing one to quickly read two to three time zones.

I traveled enough that this proved to be a very useful feature. Indeed, to this day, it is my preferred watch for travel when crossing time zones, foreign or domestic.

A few years after buying that GMT, I succumbed to my love for the Submariner, despite that trusty Omega. I'm not a diver, but, like others, find the classic dive watch to be simply a thing of functional beauty...or, as a Bond villain observed in "Live and Let Die", a "particularly handsome watch".

So, I bought, before it was discontinued, the predecessor to today's Submariner Date. It was, and is, fantastic. I also eventually acquired the predecessor to today's Submariner--which, aesthetically, has always appealed to me, because of the clean look of a dive watch without the date complication.

So, obviously, I am a devotee of the Submariner and an admirer of the GMT.

So, the poll presented an interesting, if theoretical choice. I chose the GMT simply because, over the years, I've found the GMT function so very useful and expect that will continue to be the case. As another member noted, the elapsed time feature of the Submariner is, indeed, useful for timing many things, and I use that, too. But, the GMT's rotable bezel can also be used, in a way, to gauge elapsed time.

I have not addressed the visual presence of the two watches, just their different functions. I find them equally handsome in that regard. In fact, were I to switch out the Coke bezel for an all black bezel, an option on older Submariners, they would be so very similar visually as to be hard to distinguish at a distance, at least to the average, casual observer, as opposed to the watch collector for whom even slight variations scream out. The pre ceramic bezel GMTs do afford the ultimate in visual versatility, at least in potential. You can have an all black bezel, or a red and black bezel, or a blue and black bezel--and some GMT aficionados acquired all three aluminum bezels, for that very reason...the ability to change the look of the watch. I've never done so, but, for those inclined and so equipped, it's an option. And, therefore, the aluminum bezeled GMT, potentially, has greater visual versatility than the Submariner/Submariner Date, whose bezel, aluminum or ceramic, may be had in black, or, if you prefer, black, unless, of course, you'd rather have black. There is no option to swap out bezels of different color schemes on your trusted Submariner or Submariner Date.

A few years after buying the GMT, I was chatting with a salesman at an AD. I wasn't in the market for a Rolex, just window shopping. We were talking about the Submariner and I said how much I liked it, that I'd buy it, except for the fact that I had a GMT, and, visually, both watches looked to me so similar (as an aside: at that point in my horological exploration, I perceived the visual similarities more than the differences. Today, the two watches don't look at all like to my collector's eye, which sees great differences in subtle variation). The salesman, being a good salesman, observed that many people owned both...

Both! The idea had not occurred to me, given the cost. Mind you, I had not yet adopted the rationale (or, rather, excuse) of "collecting" and so couldn't justify such an unnecessary luxury expense. That salesman planted a seed though...a few months later, I bought that Submariner Date, followed, a few years later, by the Submariner (as another aside, I don't use the term "Submariner No Date" or "no date Sub", in deference those here who cherish correct precision in semantics. As others here have instructed: there is the Submariner and the Submariner Date. Our semantic sticklers say it's so because Rolex says it's so--just check their catalogue--and so who am I to argue?)

Both watches, however you vote, are fabulous and the proof of that is that they remain sought after classics in all references more than fifty years following their debut on the watch scene. I consider myself very fortunate to own either, let alone both.

Finally, either Submariner or GMT, could, for me, be that "one watch" if circumstances dictated that I was a one-watch man.

Heaven forbid.

Loved reading that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bladeshot]

GMT. Until this year, I traveled a lot. Found the time zone function handy, and the bezel, too. I’m kind of shocked that the GMT is not running away with it. But, that shows how much I know.

[sgwatchguy]

GMT

Given how popular and iconic a Rolex Sub has always been, I’m surprised the GMT is almost tied. Guess it’s becoming well loved.

[brandrea]

Almost a dead heat ... guess that means you really do need both

[ltmgeller]

This is a tough one. If it could only be one, it would be a 16710 with all 3 inserts. 3 watches in 1.

[Steed]

Daily = GMT, weekends = 116519LN, anything strenuous = 16600

Love how the 116710LN makes me smile every time I notice the subtle green “GMT” text and 24Hr hand.

Explorer II hardly getting any wrist time nowadays...

[JRell]

I’d like to see this poll outside of this forum. I am pretty sure sub with its history and being an iconic symbol of the brand, along with datejust, draws more people to sub. For me, I want to like the GMT look more, because i will want to add another cyclops to my collection at some point. I can’t totally get past the large numbers on the dial. That is a big reason I like the sub more as to my eyes it is a cleaner look. Now the jubilee with the GMT, I think that is helping with the GMT popularity. It got my attention!

[HHIslander]

Sub. The GMT bezel is too busy for me, prefer the simplicity of the sub. I do have a Coke that I use for travel, the time zone function is nice. But my daily is (and always will be) a 5 digit sub.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by JRell

I’d like to see this poll outside of this forum. I am pretty sure sub with its history and being an iconic symbol of the brand, along with datejust, draws more people to sub. For me, I want to like the GMT look more, because i will want to add another cyclops to my collection at some point. I can’t totally get past the large numbers on the dial. That is a big reason I like the sub more as to my eyes it is a cleaner look. Now the jubilee with the GMT, I think that is helping with the GMT popularity. It got my attention!

Like I said on another post, the Submariner used to win these polls and the difference used to be large. I could be wrong of course but IMHO what we see here reflects the investment they've made on the GMT line on the last couple of years. They released a new movement (3285), brought back two classics, Pepsi and Root beer, also released a rose gold CHNR, so with the exception of a controversial decision of discontinuing the steel oyster bracelet they've made a lot of improvements on the GMT line. On the other hand, what have they done to the Submariner lately? This is why I believe we'll have some news this year.

[JChips]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Like I said on another post, the Submariner used to win these polls and the difference used to be large. I could be wrong of course but IMHO what we see here reflects the investment they've made on the GMT line on the last couple of years. They released a new movement (3285), brought back two classics, Pepsi and Root beer, also released a rose gold CHNR, so with the exception of a controversial decision of discontinuing the steel oyster bracelet they've made a lot of improvements on the GMT line. On the other hand, what have they done to the Submariner lately? This is why I believe we'll have some news this year.

Why try to improve on perfection ? Hahahaha. Unless people are buying these watches for fashion reasons and not for practical reasons...

Of course I know the answer to this, I’m half joking, but my point is that if people want these watches for dependable and reliable tools that have a fair bit of fit / finish, then nobody ought to be concerned about anything outside of what makes the watch a useful tool.

No different than any other high quality gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by JChips

Why try to improve on perfection ? Hahahaha. Unless people are buying these watches for fashion reasons and not for practical reasons...

Of course I know the answer to this, I’m half joking, but my point is that if people want these watches for dependable and reliable tools that have a fair bit of fit / finish, then nobody ought to be concerned about anything outside of what makes the watch a useful tool.

No different than any other high quality gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have to agree