ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Mosco · 7 March 2012, 11:50 PM

who was hoping the new Submariner (No Date) would be 42mm? Man, that would have been a stunner....

Puffy · 7 March 2012, 11:51 PM

can't see why they would have made it 42....

Dan2010 · 7 March 2012, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puffy

can't see why they would have made it 42....

To differentiate it from the Sub Date.

theken · 8 March 2012, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan2010

To differentiate it from the Sub Date.

agree 100%

esm · 8 March 2012, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puffy

can't see why they would have made it 42....

apparently the case/lug design was "based" on the 216570.... so why didnt they go all the way

Reu · 7 March 2012, 11:52 PM

Yeah... Wrist clock.

Good for some I guess but personally glad they didn't.

STEELINOX · 7 March 2012, 11:52 PM

42 + matte dial + lug holes = tool watch !

snowbird · 7 March 2012, 11:56 PM

Interesting idea but realistically, I don't think Rolex would offer ND in 42 and the other subs in 40.

Reu · 8 March 2012, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowbird

Interesting idea but realistically, I don't think Rolex would offer ND in 42 and the other subs in 40.

mjclark32 · 7 March 2012, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

42 + matte dial + lug holes = tool watch !

azguy · 7 March 2012, 11:57 PM

It's perfect the way it is, sometimes no change is the best change

Rsvrider · 8 March 2012, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEELINOX

42 + matte dial + lug holes = tool watch !

Let's start a petition letter!

RedBaronF2001 · 7 March 2012, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosco

who was hoping the new Submariner (No Date) would be 42mm? Man, that would have been a stunner....

I thought it would be, but then I realized that Rolex has no interest in making a slightly larger Cerachrom bezel just for this model (I'm assuming that this would have to be made to fit the slightly larger EXP II type case).

tranny · 7 March 2012, 11:58 PM

Being a big guy, I love meaty watches. Still, I like them to look purposefully meaty. Going bigger without adding complexity is form for form's sake, not form following function. Nice for a beater watch, but not for a Rolex!

mannyv11 · 8 March 2012, 12:26 AM

I would love if they actually started moving all subs towards the 42mm size. Hopefully we will see it someday

Gharddog03 · 8 March 2012, 12:28 AM

42 would be awesome.

Rags · 8 March 2012, 12:37 AM

It seems that most of tudor line is 42mm while rolex keep most at 40mm. I guess its a way of keeping sales going on both lines..

DARK_KNIGHT · 8 March 2012, 12:39 AM

42mm would have been fab !

Tony-GB · 8 March 2012, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan2010

To differentiate it from the Sub Date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theken

agree 100%

So the Submariner should be different from the Sub Date? Why?

Dan2010 · 8 March 2012, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony-GB

So the Submariner should be different from the Sub Date? Why?

If they made a 42MM case and no date it would definately look different than the Sub C Date. Add red Submariner writing on the dial like they had in the 70s and maybe lug holes and it would be a totally different twist.

mboverst · 8 March 2012, 12:52 AM

I knew there wasn't much hope, but I had my fingers crossed! A 42mm no date would arguably be my favorite dream/grail piece.

Dan2010 · 8 March 2012, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mboverst

I knew there wasn't much hope, but I had my fingers crossed! A 42mm no date would arguably be my favorite dream/grail piece.

I agree. Still picking one of these babies up though!

Speed · 8 March 2012, 12:58 AM

The Rehaut engraving bugs me more on this watch than on any other. I will have to pass. Would prefer a 2-line 14060M.

42mm would not away me.

STEELINOX · 8 March 2012, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed

The Rehaut engraving bugs me more on this watch than on any other. I will have to pass. Would prefer a 2-line 14060M.

42mm would not away me.

42 without the silly rehaut wuld though, am I right

psv · 8 March 2012, 01:00 AM

40mm is just perfect!

Jason71 · 8 March 2012, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psv

40mm is just perfect!

+1

dddrees · 8 March 2012, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psv

40mm is just perfect!

x2

Mosco · 8 March 2012, 03:38 AM

I think it would have been a happy alternative to those who would like larger than 40mm, but can't swing the Deepsea size. Just my twopence. It would have been my hands down favorite piece. A diver the size of the new Exp II = ultimate grail piece.

SohAIS · 8 March 2012, 03:39 AM

if they made the no date in 42mm don't you guys think it would have given the SubC a run for it's money.

sdwtchlvr · 8 March 2012, 03:43 AM

42mm would have been stunning too. It would have made me prefer it over the Ceramic date.

7 March 2012, 11:50 PM	#1
Mosco "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Greg Location: Cincinnati Watch: I like to... Posts: 18,567	Am I the only one who was hoping the new Submariner (No Date) would be 42mm? Man, that would have been a stunner.... __________________ Instagram - @CaliberSwiss *“A man who procrastinates in his choosing will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.” - Hunter S. Thompson*

7 March 2012, 11:51 PM	#2
Puffy "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 12,485	can't see why they would have made it 42.... __________________ Fine Quality is Long Remembered After the Pain of Spending Money is Forgotten

7 March 2012, 11:52 PM	#7
STEELINOX 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Sink-O! Location: a praire in AZ Watch: ROLEX-less atm... Posts: 14,021	42 + matte dial + lug holes = tool watch ! __________________ *Positive Waves Baby* Lug Hole Loyalist / Chamfer Line Inspector INFORTHE WIN SUB-MAH-REEEN-ER ~ !

8 March 2012, 12:37 AM	#17
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,196	It seems that most of tudor line is 42mm while rolex keep most at 40mm. I guess its a way of keeping sales going on both lines.. __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

8 March 2012, 12:39 AM	#18
DARK_KNIGHT "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Jack Location: Dothan Watch: Cartier Posts: 1,236	42mm would have been fab ! __________________ "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."

7 March 2012, 11:52 PM	#6
Reu Banned Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: London Posts: 1,152	Yeah... Wrist clock. Good for some I guess but personally glad they didn't.

7 March 2012, 11:56 PM	#8
snowbird "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: USA Watch: Sea-Dweller 16600 Posts: 2,157	Interesting idea but realistically, I don't think Rolex would offer ND in 42 and the other subs in 40.

7 March 2012, 11:57 PM	#11
azguy Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: ------- Location: ------- Watch: --------- Posts: 12,609	It's perfect the way it is, sometimes no change is the best change

7 March 2012, 11:58 PM	#14
tranny Banned Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Steve Location: Boston, MA Watch: 116509,A21330,MVQV Posts: 773	Being a big guy, I love meaty watches. Still, I like them to look purposefully meaty. Going bigger without adding complexity is form for form's sake, not form following function. Nice for a beater watch, but not for a Rolex!

8 March 2012, 12:26 AM	#15
mannyv11 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Manny Location: MA Watch: DD,Sub,GMT,Daytona Posts: 4,510	I would love if they actually started moving all subs towards the 42mm size. Hopefully we will see it someday

8 March 2012, 12:28 AM	#16
Gharddog03 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Genaro Location: Fresno Ca. Watch: R O L E X Posts: 4,466	42 would be awesome.

8 March 2012, 12:52 AM	#21
mboverst "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Real Name: Matt Location: Dallas Posts: 1,683	I knew there wasn't much hope, but I had my fingers crossed! A 42mm no date would arguably be my favorite dream/grail piece.

8 March 2012, 12:58 AM	#23
Speed "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 19,706	The Rehaut engraving bugs me more on this watch than on any other. I will have to pass. Would prefer a 2-line 14060M. 42mm would not away me.

8 March 2012, 01:00 AM	#25
psv 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: USA & France Posts: 11,078	40mm is just perfect!

8 March 2012, 03:38 AM	#28
Mosco "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Greg Location: Cincinnati Watch: I like to... Posts: 18,567	I think it would have been a happy alternative to those who would like larger than 40mm, but can't swing the Deepsea size. Just my twopence. It would have been my hands down favorite piece. A diver the size of the new Exp II = ultimate grail piece. __________________ Instagram - @CaliberSwiss *“A man who procrastinates in his choosing will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.” - Hunter S. Thompson*

8 March 2012, 03:39 AM	#29
SohAIS ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 2024 SubLV41 Sponsor & Boutique Seller Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Aamir Location: Atlanta, Georgia Watch: Patek, Rolex Posts: 34,556	if they made the no date in 42mm don't you guys think it would have given the SubC a run for it's money. __________________ Instagram: AIS_Watches 2FA security active

8 March 2012, 03:43 AM	#30
sdwtchlvr "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: SoCal Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,308	42mm would have been stunning too. It would have made me prefer it over the Ceramic date.

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