Is a larger Submariner in the offing?

[nodatalog]

Super case C date Sub 42 or 44 mm would be nice. I would buy one. 40 mm... it's the same size of the Sub date for my 16 y.o. BD, many years ago. Nowadays, it's way to small for a sports watch, and it's way to small on a "decent" male wrist.

The current Sub is only match for spoiled teens, girls and hair dressers - Q.E.D.

[dsio]

Originally Posted by nodatalog

Super case C date Sub 42 or 44 mm would be nice. I would buy one. 40 mm... it's the same size of the Sub date for my 16 y.o. BD, many years ago. Nowadays, it's way to small for a sports watch, and it's way to small on a "decent" male wrist.

The current Sub is only match for spoiled teens, girls and hair dressers - Q.E.D.

[Ski Dweller]

Yawn. I hear they are coming out with a 55mm Rolexium Blingmaster for the hip hop set.

[kareemthedream33]

40 is perfect, I will be upset if they start making them bigger.

[Grumpy Badger]

Originally Posted by nodatalog

The current Sub is only match for spoiled teens, girls and hair dressers - Q.E.D.

You were clearly angling for a bite, so I'll sure oblige you, pilgrim...


Here's me in my "girly" 40mm 14060m... I'm not sure if you can make out my french manicure and pink tutu in this pic, though...!

[drdenn]

I hope they do make it bigger and discontinue the Sub C. This would in effect re-define the Sub C as a transitional watch, which would be great for me and my fellow "C" Dweller's! However, we all know this just isn't going to be the case!

[STEELINOX]

If ROLEX is gonna do it, it'll be a complication, long overdue; this'd make sense, sorta maybe, naaaaaaah

[paddy_crow]

Originally Posted by nodatalog

Super case C date Sub 42 or 44 mm would be nice. I would buy one. 40 mm... it's the same size of the Sub date for my 16 y.o. BD, many years ago. Nowadays, it's way to small for a sports watch, and it's way to small on a "decent" male wrist.

The current Sub is only match for spoiled teens, girls and hair dressers - Q.E.D.

Nonsense.

[SkyClown]

Originally Posted by nodatalog

Super case C date Sub 42 or 44 mm would be nice. I would buy one. 40 mm... it's the same size of the Sub date for my 16 y.o. BD, many years ago. Nowadays, it's way to small for a sports watch, and it's way to small on a "decent" male wrist.

The current Sub is only match for spoiled teens, girls and hair dressers - Q.E.D.

What the hell are You talking about?
This is the most classic watch on the planet!

[dddrees]

Not necessary in my opinion, I think 40mm works just fine.

[chiko323]

Originally Posted by nodatalog

Super case C date Sub 42 or 44 mm would be nice. I would buy one. 40 mm... it's the same size of the Sub date for my 16 y.o. BD, many years ago. Nowadays, it's way to small for a sports watch, and it's way to small on a "decent" male wrist.

The current Sub is only match for spoiled teens, girls and hair dressers - Q.E.D.

Please tell me this was a joke...

[Rollie2011]

Do I think they'll do it? No
Would it be interesting to see... Yes

[mrbill2mrbill2]

Originally Posted by dean mack

I think Rolex made a big mistake with the sub c and should have just made a 43 mm version with the same proportions, don't like them ugly fat lugs but the other upgrades are fantastic and much needed . Also a bit of red lettering wouldn't have gone astray either . Just my opinion.

X2

I don't care for the fat lugs and fat crown guards.

A propotional 11610 at 42-43mm would be fatastic.

[Rollie2011]

Originally Posted by kareemthedream33

40 is perfect, I will be upset if they start making them bigger.

I dont get this frame of mind at all. If you dont like it, dont buy it.
Theres no need to get angry about it.

[nodatalog]

Originally Posted by chiko323

Please tell me this was a joke...

My 15 y.o. son's best friend wants a stainless one (about to happen)
My GF has bi-color one. Looks ridiculous...
My hair dresser has a bi-color one (probably to feel like a men)
The waiter of a coffee I go has a bi-color one (probably to feel like a manager)

Indeed the new Sub C is popular... and, yes, wearing a new sub as a city watch, is a kinda joke, for me now.

It's because the diameter is more or less still the same. It's too small. It was a big watch when I was a teen. An Oyster 36 mm was the standard back then.

If the new Oyster is 41, the Sub should be ~44. If the SD was not so heavy and thick, I would buy one. The case size is decent.

On the other side, if I had a wrist the size of a girl, I would probably be winning about keeping the current midget case size forever. But I am no hairdresser.

[chiko323]

Originally Posted by nodatalog

My 15 y.o. son's best friend wants a stainless one (about to happen)
My GF has bi-color one. Looks ridiculous...
My hair dresser has a bi-color one (probably to feel like a men)
The waiter of a coffee I go has a bi-color one (probably to feel like a manager)

Indeed the new Sub C is popular... and, yes, wearing a new sub as a city watch, is a kinda joke, for me now.

It's because the diameter is more or less still the same. It's too small. It was a big watch when I was a teen. An Oyster 36 mm was the standard back then.

If the new Oyster is 41, the Sub should be ~44. If the SD was not so heavy and thick, I would buy one. The case size is decent.

On the other side, if I had a wrist the size of a girl, I would probably be winning about keeping the current midget case size forever. But I am no hairdresser.

Ok, I see where your coming from, but IMO, 40mm is a good size for an everyday watch, as in it looks good on just about ALL wrist sizes from small to huge. Me and many others on this forum believe that the huge (44mm+) watch fad is a temporary thing, but even amidst these huge watches, the standard submariner size is a good timeless one that will never be too big or too small. There is a reason the DSSD is too big for many folks here.

[Danand]

Originally Posted by nodatalog

Super case C date Sub 42 or 44 mm would be nice. I would buy one. 40 mm... it's the same size of the Sub date for my 16 y.o. BD, many years ago. Nowadays, it's way to small for a sports watch, and it's way to small on a "decent" male wrist.

The current Sub is only match for spoiled teens, girls and hair dressers - Q.E.D.

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in a long time. Perhaps I should change my career to be a hairdresser since my wrist size is not decent for a male. :

[MortgageGuy]

I hope not, I for one am in the group that thinks 40mm is perfect for the Sub. I like the options of differing sizes. 41mm DJII/DDII, 42mm EXPII, 44mm DSSD and the like but increasing everything to 42 or 44m would be a huge mistake for Rolex IMO and cannot see this happening especially with the new ceramic and new design for the Sub that just came out

[Mosco]

Originally Posted by tomchicago

lineup will eventually look like this: EII 42mm, Sub 49mm, DSSD 75mm.

[gwalker]

I think its a very interesting idea. Will they, doubtfull. What I don't get is how close minded some people are. Really if Rolex made a 42mm Sub some would get "angry." Please there is a lot of things in this world to get mad about but Rolex making a larger Sub is hardly one of them. I for one was happy to see the changes to the Sub. It is a very classic design but IMO it was time for some kind of change when they came out with the Sub-C. IF they did do it there is no reason to get mad. Its not like there aren't millions of 40mm subs out there for the buying....

[Mockingbird]

Originally Posted by nodatalog

My 15 y.o. son's best friend wants a stainless one (about to happen)
My GF has bi-color one. Looks ridiculous...
My hair dresser has a bi-color one (probably to feel like a men)
The waiter of a coffee I go has a bi-color one (probably to feel like a manager)

Indeed the new Sub C is popular... and, yes, wearing a new sub as a city watch, is a kinda joke, for me now.

It's because the diameter is more or less still the same. It's too small. It was a big watch when I was a teen. An Oyster 36 mm was the standard back then.

If the new Oyster is 41, the Sub should be ~44. If the SD was not so heavy and thick, I would buy one. The case size is decent.

On the other side, if I had a wrist the size of a girl, I would probably be winning about keeping the current midget case size forever. But I am no hairdresser.

It sounds like you're trying to compensate for something, what with all your judgements about others and evident insecurity. I prefer an understated watch, I have no need to broadcast my wealth or to try to make an impression with a larger watch. I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity to wear a 32mm dress watch occasionally.

It's a shame that the same cant be said for you.

But if you truly insist on wearing those clown-sized abominations, I suggest you check out Panerai or look at the AP ROO. Hopefully those will convey that you're an oligarch/pimp appropriately.

[George Ab]

Exp II went from 40mm to 42mm and now the fat lugs looked proportioned once again. Makes perfect sense to grow the sub to 42mm. I really like a 42mm watch, wearing one now.... so maybe this is wishful thinking.

Another note, when JLC gave their Navy Seals diver to Navy Seals to try out..... they came back and said it was too big. To JLC's credit they scaled it back to 42mm.

[TopNotchChach]

Originally Posted by R.G

I know where he got that image from...

hahah where?

bump!

[TSW]

Wouldn't bet on it!

[mapula]

I don't see it happening, espcially after I found that Rolex even did not change the size of the new Daytona, which is too small in many people's eyes.

[porschenut]

Any new rumors on a 42mm Sub?

Bump

[tulsaokusa]

That's what the DSSD is for. The Sub has never been larger than 40mm. That's part of its charm & legacy. The less changes, the better. That is one of the very definitions of classic.

[Maxseven]

Originally Posted by flyinbrian

Maybe they will copy Omega and do a 40 and a 42.5. Kind of like Omega's PO in 42 and 45.5. I am saying this more as a joke but Rolex is still a business that likes to have market share. I also want to state that I have no idea what market share either of these brands have.

I think you may be correct in thinking that Rolex may offer two sizes of Subs in the future to compete with Omega. They may be losing market share presently, lacking different size options in the submariner line.

In response to why some watch snobs get angry when there is any talk about a larger sub, is because they feel betrayed by what is perceived to be a mere fashion trend. They own one or more submariners, and have a personal connection to the shape and size of the watch, how it looks on them, and what defines the true submariner heritage. They may also be experiencing some fear, as they know it is quite possible that Rolex may change the size to stimulate sales and align with market forces. Any changes are unwelcome if they disturb the pedigree of the submariner. They view larger watches as a display of poor taste, over-stated and generally annoying to their sensibilities. Thus the issue becomes polarized, and the original sub defenders will not associate themselves with a group of defectors that have tolerance or desire for changes to the design, whether the change is for the better or worse. Finally, the anger is a symbol of protest for any attempt to disturb what they view is the quintessential and legendary dive watch known as the submariner.

[pokpok]

Bring back the Sea Dweller in 42mm

[pacifichrono]

Why mess with perfection?