SS sub ceramic LN or gmt II??

[Stitch]

Hi guys

Now that wrist shots of the new sub ceramics are surfacing I must admit I'm not blown away (strap looks too narrow etc) My thoughts are turning to the GMT II.
As far as I can tell the gmtvalready has the ceramic bezel, is waterproof to 100m and has a great bracelet.
What's are your views guys? Sensible alternative?

[Stitch]

30 views and no opinions??

[slevin kelevra]

I really like the GMT IIc, just the plain SS version though!


As for the new Sub, Im a bit undecided!

[esm]

i wouldve thought both the new Sub-C and the GMTIIC have the same style case, and therefore the same bracelet.
the reason you think the Sub-C bracelet looking weak is probably because of the non-PCL on the bracelet.
i have a LV, so im not all that interested in the new Sub-C. BUT the GMTIIC is an awesome piece.

you cant really go wrong with either to be honest. at the end of the day, it all depends on if you want the 2nd time zone function and PCL on the bracelet or not.

other than that, both are capable of years of Rolex enjoyment.

maybe wait for a few more weeks and see if you are able to physically trying both at an AD.

[nauticajoe]

That's probably because it's a tough question to answer.

You'll always have followers for both the Subc and GMTc. They're 2 totally different watches.

IMO, I would probably lean towards the GMT, since it has the 24hr. complication. I use this feature for work.

Either way, they are both beautiful watches. You can't go wrong with either one.

Good Luck!

[Stitch]

Wow thanks for the quick up posts guys!

[EZZELDIN]

Although I am a recent owner of a GMT 2 C v serial (3 MONTH) and after I saw the wrist shots of the new sub , sometimes it crosses my mind to trade in, but I bearing in mind tt there is a difference in price around usd 1000 I also think tt the two watches are nearly similar and although I cant afford to by another I watch , I think it is ridiculous to by both .

[Stitch]

Good point as Cost is a factor too. I'm also thinking that the gmt will be easier to pick up. In terms of fucntionality, I neither dive nor fly so the key purpose of both watches is not so much of an issue.

[Spirit-V12]

Indeed, as our fellow ESM said, they´re basically the same.

I think it will be a personal decision to what you will use the watch the most, like... different timezones? ....diving? what style you like the most? (bezels)
...But the New GlideLock on the Submariner totally owns the lack of it on the GMT-IIc. The EasyLink is awesome none the less, but the GlideLock is way more practical.

I´d look into my watchbox and see what fits it, if you already have any watch with polished midlinks, then go for the Sub with no fears, if not, the GMT-IIc is more flashy.

Also, talking about the price point, the GMT-IIc can be find nowadays here in brazil for a very attractive pricetag. Even cheaper than the standard 16610 Submariner. and I guess the new Subs will arrive on the ADs costing a little premium, so they will be more expensive than the GMT-IIc.
So, best advice is to go to your AD and try on both of them, this way you will feel the 'love' for each one on the wrist, and wallet...

Best Regards,
Erwin.

[Psmith]

They are both fantastic watches, but my personal preference is for the GMT IIC. Please note that the case is different to the Sub C...

Sub C lugs are wider
Sub C case is thinner
Sub C caseback is thicker

There is very little difference in overall height between the two - Sub C is about ½ mm taller due to the thicker caseback. The most obvious difference is the thinner lugs of the GMT IIC.




Cheers

[jmsrolls]

I shopped the new Sub a few weeks back and decided to go with the GMT IIc to replace my EXPII (the ashtray was full).



Having satisfied my Rolex craving, I then added the new Omega LiquidMetal as my diver instead of the Sub:



Fr. John†

[spuds]

Originally Posted by Psmith

They are both fantastic watches, but my personal preference is for the GMT IIC. Please note that the case is different to the Sub C...

Sub C lugs are wider
Sub C case is thinnerSub C caseback is thicker

There is very little difference in overall height between the two - Sub C is about ½ mm taller due to the thicker caseback. The most obvious difference is the thinner lugs of the GMT IIC.




Cheers

With respect I think you could be wrong on that .....

I agree that the case back is thicker by a marginal half a mm or so, but as far as I understand it the rest of the case (ie: the 'super-case') is the same.

I think.....????

[spuds]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

I shopped the new Sub a few weeks back and decided to go with the GMT IIc to replace my EXPII (the ashtray was full).



Having satisfied my Rolex craving, I then added the new Omega LiquidMetal as my diver instead of the Sub:



Fr. John†

What a beautiful pairing.....

& great shots too.

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by spuds

With respect I think you could be wrong on that .....

I agree that the case back is thicker by a marginal half a mm or so, but as far as I understand it the rest of the case (ie: the 'super-case') is the same.

I think.....????

No really, it's true Dan - the GMT has a slightly thicker middle case than the Sub, but the Sub's thicker/deeper caseback makes it taller overall. And the Sub's lugs are noticeably wider than the GMT's. Rolex tech data sheets bear this out. So... although they are both supercases, they are different in all dimensions other than overall diameter



Cheers

[rzielinski]

First: The new sub doesn't have any strap, it has a great bracelet. Second the sub is made of a better quality steel. The sub is "The Man"

[Kanger]

I feel like the GMT is a bit better looking simply because the Sub C is just a bigger version of the 16610 to me. By that I mean the maxi dial and super case, everything is just bigger. The GMT looks very different from the previous 16710 in my opinion so I would have to go with GMT.

[numbsy]

if you go with the gmt make sure you can handle 100s of scuffs on the PCLs - the mirror like finish is very sensitive to surface scratches

[Watch Professor]

Originally Posted by rzielinski

First: The new sub doesn't have any strap, it has a great bracelet. Second the sub is made of a better quality steel. The sub is "The Man"

Better quality steel than the GMT IIC? Afraid your very wrong here.

[theken]

If cost is a consideration, you can find a pre-owned GMT2C for $5500. I suspect it will be a year before a pre-owned SUB C is available at that price. On the wrist, there is little difference between the 2 watches. The GMT function is probably more useful for most of us when choosing between the 2 watches.

[mike]

Originally Posted by rzielinski

First: The new sub doesn't have any strap, it has a great bracelet. Second the sub is made of a better quality steel. The sub is "The Man"

I'd be curious what the difference is?

[masterkiller]

SS SubC hands down, cleaner bezel, glidelock, all brushed finish, cleaner dial, no green at all, More classic model, to buy the SS SubC now will also mean that you buy it for the lowest price it will ever sell for...

I sold my GMTIIC and are waiting for my 116610 :-)

/martin

[bahrenj]

I struggled with the same decision but have decided to go for the GMT 16710 M or Z for the "vintage" factor, versatility and longer term value retention. A minty 16710 will only become harder to get and you'll be able to buy the ceramics for years to come.

[sakuraba]

What would swing the vote for me is the absence of PCLs on the Sub.

[spuds]

Originally Posted by Psmith

No really, it's true Dan - the GMT has a slightly thicker middle case than the Sub, but the Sub's thicker/deeper caseback makes it taller overall. And the Sub's lugs are noticeably wider than the GMT's. Rolex tech data sheets bear this out. So... although they are both supercases, they are different in all dimensions other than overall diameter



Cheers

Clive mate I didn't know that!!

I'd not noticed the wider lugs so I'm intrigued to see it in person.

Thanks for clarifying that & thanks for not getting all 'shirty' when I queried your original statement too.....

[Timber Loftis]

Gmt.

[ayres]

Originally Posted by Psmith

No really, it's true Dan - the GMT has a slightly thicker middle case than the Sub, but the Sub's thicker/deeper caseback makes it taller overall. And the Sub's lugs are noticeably wider than the GMT's. Rolex tech data sheets bear this out. So... although they are both supercases, they are different in all dimensions other than overall diameter



Cheers

hi clive, i'm curious to know where specifically you find the lug width and case thickness of these two models. short of actually measuring the watches, i've never come across any released data.

[psv]

I thought I'd be all over the new Sub-C and if I only could own one Rolex that might be it, but since I already have a Sub 16610 I have to recommend the GMTIIC. I'm obviously a later bloomer when it comes to the GMTIIC, but that model is growing on me rapidly. Might be my next watch.

[jonathon555]

Both are iconic models , I prefer the bezel on the sub , but I prefer the bracelet on the gmt c

The gmt is a touch more bling bling, sub c is very sweet looking

I Have the gmt c & I would also like a sub c

Both are awsome.

[1000ftSub]

Originally Posted by jmsrolls

I shopped the new Sub a few weeks back and decided to go with the GMT IIc to replace my EXPII (the ashtray was full).



Having satisfied my Rolex craving, I then added the new Omega LiquidMetal as my diver instead of the Sub:



Fr. John†

Very nice watches

[WatchForLife]

GMTIIC is a beautiful and highly functional and precise watch. If you need a diver watch you might want to consider DSSD or Omega Liquidmetal instead of the SubC.