Is the SubC really a Submariner?

[htrap2294]

So a friend and I were having a discussion. He mentioned he loves Submariners, but does not like the newer models. I asked him why, seeing that the 6 digit Subs are made with better materials.

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.

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?

[rickc007]

I agree with the Speedmaster logic. Not so with the SubC

[lmmrf]

Originally Posted by rickc007

I agree with the Speedmaster logic. Not so with the SubC

Interesting take given that the changes from 5-digit sub to 6-digit sub were far more significant than Omega simply switching the Speedmaster crystal from hesalite to sapphire; every other aspect of the Speedmaster remained virtually identical to the original from the 1960s.

[jrs146]

Pretty much every iconic item has evolved over time. Imagine if the cars we drove today were still exactly like the original models. I don’t buy into these notions at all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but I wouldn’t let that influence your opinions either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[htrap2294]

Originally Posted by jrs146

Pretty much every iconic item has evolved over time. Imagine if the cars we drove today were still exactly like the original models. I don’t buy into these notions at all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but I wouldn’t let that influence your opinions either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're absolutely right. I thought about this too. Take the 911 for example, it has changed so much. Is it recognizable still as a 911? Sure, so is the SubC. However, is it really the 911 in anything apart from name? Well, that is debatable. If one looks at a Singer 911, they go for more than any top of the line 911. It's not because it was better, but because it is as close to the original as possible.

That being said, my personal opinion is a SubC is still a Submariner BUT I can see the logic that some people do not believe it is.

[Nairn1980]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

You're absolutely right. I thought about this too. Take the 911 for example, it has changed so much. Is it recognizable still as a 911? Sure, so is the SubC. However, is it really the 911 in anything apart from name? Well, that is debatable. If one looks at a Singer 911, they go for more than any top of the line 911. It's not because it was better, but because it is as close to the original as possible.

That being said, my personal opinion is a SubC is still a Submariner BUT I can see the logic that some people do not believe it is.

Agree with this

[AEC]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

You're absolutely right. I thought about this too. Take the 911 for example, it has changed so much. Is it recognizable still as a 911? Sure, so is the SubC. However, is it really the 911 in anything apart from name? Well, that is debatable. If one looks at a Singer 911, they go for more than any top of the line 911. It's not because it was better, but because it is as close to the original as possible.

That being said, my personal opinion is a SubC is still a Submariner BUT I can see the logic that some people do not believe it is.

I agree. I love my 6-digit Submariner, and I miss my air-cooled 911 terribly!

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

You're absolutely right. I thought about this too. Take the 911 for example, it has changed so much. Is it recognizable still as a 911? Sure, so is the SubC. However, is it really the 911 in anything apart from name? Well, that is debatable. If one looks at a Singer 911, they go for more than any top of the line 911. It's not because it was better, but because it is as close to the original as possible.

That being said, my personal opinion is a SubC is still a Submariner BUT I can see the logic that some people do not believe it is.

Some people? Your "friend" is the first I have ever heard of on this forum, or out in the real world.

[MARGARITATIME]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

You're absolutely right. I thought about this too. Take the 911 for example, it has changed so much. Is it recognizable still as a 911? Sure, so is the SubC. However, is it really the 911 in anything apart from name? Well, that is debatable. If one looks at a Singer 911, they go for more than any top of the line 911. It's not because it was better, but because it is as close to the original as possible.

That being said, my personal opinion is a SubC is still a Submariner BUT I can see the logic that some people do not believe it is.

Your logic on the 911 Singer is flawed. The Singer is a modded 911. It uses a 964 body while presents itself as a widebody pre 74 911. Buying a new 911 from a dealer today is more of a true 911 than a Singer.

As for the OP - yes the Subc is a submariner. Its a newer version, but still a submariner. Not even debatable.

[DoctorA]

Originally Posted by jrs146

Pretty much every iconic item has evolved over time. Imagine if the cars we drove today were still exactly like the original models. I don’t buy into these notions at all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but I wouldn’t let that influence your opinions either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with that logic!

[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.

[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

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.

[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...)

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[FTX I]

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?

Sorry but I think your friend is full of it.

[htrap2294]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Sorry but I think your friend is full of it.

We all are at times, no? That's what makes opinions!

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

We all are at times, no? That's what makes opinions!

Maybe.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by FTX I

Sorry but I think your friend is full of it.

X2. The Sub in it's current configuration has been made for 10 years now. It is still iconic to millions and one of the most desired pieces in the world.

[DtownRRS]

If it's not, what does your friend say it is? Is he saying the Sub is dead and it should be marketed as a completely new watch? Just curious on where his train of logic would be going.

[htrap2294]

Originally Posted by DtownRRS

If it's not, what does your friend say it is? Is he saying the Sub is dead and it should be marketed as a completely new watch? Just curious on where his train of logic would be going.

Yes, his view was a bit extreme and thought that Rolex should give it an entirely new name. Do I agree with this opinion? No, but it was an interesting conversation and thought perhaps it would be worth posting here to get opinions.

[Tmac478]

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

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by Tmac478

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

X2. In today's world no one likes to be told they are wrong. They like to equate their opinion as a valid truth and must be respected so. Your friend is wrong.

Rolex is the only authority that can say what it is and they say is a "Submariner". This fact is absolute.

[4rnold]

Originally Posted by Tmac478

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

that nails it

[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

[htrap2294]

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

I personally like both. I find for the SS models, the 6 digit looks better. However, the TT and Gold Sub look better in the 5 digit models. Why? Well, the 5 digit is an inherently a slimmer watch - so if you are putting PM on them, it makes sense on the slimmer watch as it will appear more elegant.

However, for the SS models, they look better with the 6 digit case because it makes them chunky which is a good look for SS.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

I personally like both. I find for the SS models, the 6 digit looks better. However, the TT and Gold Sub look better in the 5 digit models. Why? Well, the 5 digit is an inherently a slimmer watch - so if you are putting PM on them, it makes sense on the slimmer watch as it will appear more elegant.

However, for the SS models, they look better with the 6 digit case because it makes them chunky which is a good look for SS.

Here ya go.