ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

STB · 4 July 2007, 01:12 PM

Do you think it's a good idea for Rolex go for 43mm on the Submariner?

Your thoughts about this?

JPSUB · 4 July 2007, 01:21 PM

No I really like the 40mm. That was one of the selling points for me over the PO. I think its a good a size for most people.

ohlins · 4 July 2007, 01:22 PM

40 mm is fine............so i would opt for status quo in size....

adopting the supercase will be the step forward for rolex ...just as what they did to the gmt 2 ....

Gaijin · 4 July 2007, 01:33 PM

Please no.

TARDIS · 4 July 2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STB

Do you think it's a good idea for Rolex go for 43mm on the Submariner?

Your thoughts about this?

Currently the dimensions of these models are:

Sports Submariner 16610LV 40
Sports Submariner 16610 40
Sports Submariner 16613 40
Sports Submariner 16618 40
Sports Submariner 14060 39.5
Sports Submariner 16800 39
Sports Seadweller 16600 39.5

Yatchmaster & GMT range are slightly larger.

It is always possible that Rolex will reconfigure their Sub range to include Maxi Dial, Chapter ring and case size to match the new GMT II.

I can't see this happening any time soon.

Most purists here would prefer the Submariners to remain as they are I think.

Steve.

astcell · 4 July 2007, 03:28 PM

The SD is .5 smaller??!!??!!

mic6 · 4 July 2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astcell

The SD is .5 smaller??!!??!!

yes

STB · 4 July 2007, 05:27 PM

The reason why I kept thinking about the 43mm Sub was that, if the new GMT-II now comes with a beefer case + Triplock, won't they make the new Sub even bigger? They've already started this with the YM-II.

Like many, I also prefer the 40mm. My 6.5" wrist won't take anything bigger than 41mm

SPACE-DWELLER · 4 July 2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mic6

yes

NO! The SD diameter in total is NOT smaller, but the DIAL is in fact 1 mm smaller in diameter.

BTW: I voted "No".

JJ Irani · 4 July 2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astcell

The SD is .5 smaller??!!??!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mic6

yes

Case diameter of the SD is still 40 mm. It's the dial that's like 1 mm smaller than that of the Sub-date.

JJ

Andad · 4 July 2007, 05:33 PM

yes 43 is ok.

newsub · 4 July 2007, 05:45 PM

Forgive my ignorence (please!)

But is a 43mm sub going to happen soon?

As you know I'm looking to buy a sub now, should I be holding off?

JJ Irani · 4 July 2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newsub

Forgive my ignorence (please!)

But is a 43mm sub going to happen soon?

As you know I'm looking to buy a sub now, should I be holding off?

Don't hold off. The 40 mm is a perfect size. The 43 mm is just hypothetical for now. It may NEVER happen!!

JJ

padi56 · 4 July 2007, 05:49 PM

This present size has suited Rolex for over 50 years now,and I am sure owing to the huge sales worldwide it aint broke,would doubt if it needs fixing.And it would be a considerable cost to re-tool for new size case.

newsub · 4 July 2007, 05:51 PM

Thanks JJ and Padi,

Panic averted!!

walds11 · 4 July 2007, 06:57 PM

The current Sub is "working" very well, so why change it?

Tombstone · 4 July 2007, 07:19 PM

So many people have such small wrists 43mm would cut out half the population it would be too big.

SPACE-DWELLER · 4 July 2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

NO! The SD diameter in total is NOT smaller, but the DIAL is in fact 1 mm smaller in diameter.

BTW: I voted "No".

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Case diameter of the SD is still 40 mm. It's the dial that's like 1 mm smaller than that of the Sub-date.

JJ

JJ, you silly copycat!

mike · 4 July 2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

This present size has suited Rolex for over 50 years now,and I am sure owing to the huge sales worldwide it aint broke,would doubt if it needs fixing.And it would be a considerable cost to re-tool for new size case.

Exactly!

ohlins · 4 July 2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

And it would be a considerable cost to re-tool for new size case.

maybe they have started making tons and tons of super cases (of cos still at 40 mm)......:)

greenfan · 4 July 2007, 08:04 PM

Yes, there could be an alternative Sub in 43mm for those who want it bigger...
but keep the 40mm as well....

Tools · 4 July 2007, 11:22 PM

As padi stated, it has worked for 50 years.

Big watches are a current fashion fad and unlikely to stand the test of time. Past a certain size, say 40mm, a comfortable wrist watch becomes impractical. In fact, prior to the current big watch trend, watchmakers were trying to get their product smaller and slimmer.

Mechanical watches like the Rolex have difficulty getting much smaller due to the requirements of the movement.

Some of the watches of today aren't much more than a Big Ben bedside clock with a band attached.

leopardprey · 4 July 2007, 11:50 PM

Sitck with 40mm. Not too big, not too small. Great size. The current fad of really large watches, is just that a Fad.

If you want a way big watch, then go get a Panerai 44mm or a 45.5mm Omega Planet Ocean.

astcell · 5 July 2007, 01:07 AM

I do think the sub could be thicker. It is closer to a Prez than a GMT. Not a full tool watch feel.

Atomant · 5 July 2007, 01:20 AM

Just did a measurement across the 50th and 20th minute mark across the SD case. Read 39.5mm.

U gotta squint your eyes to see the reading, it's VGA.

The Mole · 5 July 2007, 01:27 AM

I for one would like to see a larger case size in the sub. You don't have anything to worry about though, even if they did introduce a case size change at the Basel show next year they would start with the all gold model first. That being the case you wouldn't expect the stainless steel model to change for three years or so.

The Mole · 5 July 2007, 01:39 AM

As a side note they are already tooled for an all gold watch case in a 43 mm case size with the Yachtmaster II. hmmmm

mcubed · 5 July 2007, 03:46 AM

I hope not. The 14060 is really big and heavy enough.

Trini · 5 July 2007, 07:27 AM

did I mis-read someone ? Is the new SS GMT a 43 mm case ??

Thought the Yacht Master was the only one with a bigger case ...

Green Arrow · 5 July 2007, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STB

Do you think it's a good idea for Rolex go for 43mm on the Submariner?

Your thoughts about this?

If they will take the SD or Submariner out to 43 mm I will buy one in a heart beat. The ONLY thing I don't care for in my Rolex's is that at 40 mm they are becoming too small for my aging eyes. And while they are at it, the new Maxi dials have great long term lume on the hour markers, but need to beef up the hour and minute hand markers with more lume than they have.

It is time.

View Poll Results: 43mm Submariner?
Yes!	23	30.67%
No!	46	61.33%
Don't know	6	8.00%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

4 July 2007, 01:12 PM	#1
STB "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Asia Watch: IWC, JLC, Rolex Posts: 90	New Submariner at 43mm? Do you think it's a good idea for Rolex go for 43mm on the Submariner? Your thoughts about this? __________________ Assume nothing, question everything.

4 July 2007, 01:21 PM	#2
JPSUB "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: James Location: Houston TX Watch: 16610 Posts: 332	No I really like the 40mm. That was one of the selling points for me over the PO. I think its a good a size for most people. __________________

4 July 2007, 01:22 PM	#3
ohlins "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Singapore Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,213	40 mm is fine............so i would opt for status quo in size.... adopting the supercase will be the step forward for rolex ...just as what they did to the gmt 2 .... __________________ the hype is true. a crown for every achievement. visit my audio and watch blog & how to use the rolex comfort link?

4 July 2007, 05:27 PM	#8
STB "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Asia Watch: IWC, JLC, Rolex Posts: 90	The reason why I kept thinking about the 43mm Sub was that, if the new GMT-II now comes with a beefer case + Triplock, won't they make the new Sub even bigger? They've already started this with the YM-II. Like many, I also prefer the 40mm. My 6.5" wrist won't take anything bigger than 41mm __________________ Assume nothing, question everything.

4 July 2007, 01:33 PM	#4
Gaijin 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Japan Watch: ing your back. Posts: 16,180	Please no.

4 July 2007, 03:28 PM	#6
astcell "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Robert Location: Angelus Oaks, CA Watch: 116713 Posts: 6,828	The SD is .5 smaller??!!??!!

4 July 2007, 05:33 PM	#11
Andad 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 36,807	yes 43 is ok. __________________ E

4 July 2007, 05:45 PM	#12
newsub Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: nottingham uk Posts: 200	Forgive my ignorence (please!) But is a 43mm sub going to happen soon? As you know I'm looking to buy a sub now, should I be holding off?

4 July 2007, 05:49 PM	#14
padi56 "TRF" Life Patron Join Date: Jun 2005 Real Name: Peter Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng Watch: ing you. Posts: 52,269	This present size has suited Rolex for over 50 years now,and I am sure owing to the huge sales worldwide it aint broke,would doubt if it needs fixing.And it would be a considerable cost to re-tool for new size case. __________________ ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder

4 July 2007, 05:51 PM	#15
newsub Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: nottingham uk Posts: 200	Thanks JJ and Padi, Panic averted!!

4 July 2007, 06:57 PM	#16
walds11 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Real Name: Adam Location: Philly ‘burbs Posts: 5,632	The current Sub is "working" very well, so why change it?

4 July 2007, 07:19 PM	#17
Tombstone "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Richard Location: LV, NV Watch: LV Sub and others Posts: 2,689	So many people have such small wrists 43mm would cut out half the population it would be too big.

4 July 2007, 08:04 PM	#21
greenfan "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: George Location: Athens Greece Watch: GMT II 16710 Coke Posts: 1,046	Yes, there could be an alternative Sub in 43mm for those who want it bigger... but keep the 40mm as well.... __________________ $C:\Documents and Settings\George.HOME\My Documents\My Pictures\Rolex$

4 July 2007, 11:22 PM	#22
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,051	As padi stated, it has worked for 50 years. Big watches are a current fashion fad and unlikely to stand the test of time. Past a certain size, say 40mm, a comfortable wrist watch becomes impractical. In fact, prior to the current big watch trend, watchmakers were trying to get their product smaller and slimmer. Mechanical watches like the Rolex have difficulty getting much smaller due to the requirements of the movement. Some of the watches of today aren't much more than a Big Ben bedside clock with a band attached.

4 July 2007, 11:50 PM	#23
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	Sitck with 40mm. Not too big, not too small. Great size. The current fad of really large watches, is just that a Fad. If you want a way big watch, then go get a Panerai 44mm or a 45.5mm Omega Planet Ocean.

5 July 2007, 01:07 AM	#24
astcell "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Robert Location: Angelus Oaks, CA Watch: 116713 Posts: 6,828	I do think the sub could be thicker. It is closer to a Prez than a GMT. Not a full tool watch feel.

5 July 2007, 01:27 AM	#26
The Mole "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bay Area Watch: 116520 Posts: 256	I for one would like to see a larger case size in the sub. You don't have anything to worry about though, even if they did introduce a case size change at the Basel show next year they would start with the all gold model first. That being the case you wouldn't expect the stainless steel model to change for three years or so. __________________ The Mole "Time is inseparable from existence for us ... It enables the real world not simply to be, but to become." Prof. Albert Facquard Inaugural Conference of the 12th International Chronometer Congress, October 2004.

5 July 2007, 01:39 AM	#27
The Mole "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bay Area Watch: 116520 Posts: 256	As a side note they are already tooled for an all gold watch case in a 43 mm case size with the Yachtmaster II. hmmmm __________________ The Mole "Time is inseparable from existence for us ... It enables the real world not simply to be, but to become." Prof. Albert Facquard Inaugural Conference of the 12th International Chronometer Congress, October 2004.

5 July 2007, 03:46 AM	#28
mcubed "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: US Posts: 468	I hope not. The 14060 is really big and heavy enough.

5 July 2007, 07:27 AM	#29
Trini Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Caribbean Posts: 117	GMT = 43 mm ? did I mis-read someone ? Is the new SS GMT a 43 mm case ?? Thought the Yacht Master was the only one with a bigger case ...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)