Do you think Rolex is moving towards a more boxy form factor?

[Eric88]

First, please read this thread. A well-known forum member picked up on design hints from the 5513 that spill over into the modern Sub-C. In particular, the shoulders of the watch. The Sub-C has more pronounced lugs. When comparing against the 5513 and other Rolex models, it appears that they have always gone for a boxy look.

Even as I stare down at my GMT Master and Sub LV, I can see the squared-off form factor. This is a svelte and beautiful design choice. What I cannot tell is how well this translates to the new Sub-C. It appears (in photos) to have the most extreme "SQUARE" shape when you look down upon the entire package. I've also noticed this trend in other modern Rolex.

Is the square shape the face of the future?

[htc8p]

i wouldnt it is becoming square period. it think theyre trying to be bolder and look larger.

in the future if triangle makes a watch stand out they would probably go there...after 1 million years.

[TSts]

The newer designs appear to be of a bolder look, more masculine.

[exxondus]

Originally Posted by TSts

The newer designs appear to be of a bolder look, more masculine.

def agree. esp when when placed side by side, the sub C has a bigger presence

[GradyPhilpott]

I hope they're as boxy as they are going to get and that the trend is toward less boxy.

The new DJ is more boxy, but it is to a far less extreme than other watches, I'm pleased with it.

As far as some of the rest, I'm just not very impressed with the changes.

[Speed]

Boxy Indeed!

The new Explorer II!

[steubi1]

The new design is definitely more boxy, just to follow the trend for larger watches. Unfortunately, it is not really "square" looking at it, it is more a kind of rectangular. Thank god Rolex has not increased the diameter of the case!

From certain angles, and I know what I am talking about because I own the new SubC for 2 months now, you only see these damned wide lugs!

I really tried to like it, but after seven weeks I had to be honest to myself: It is not the design I can ever like, so no more new Rolexes (The same thing happened to me with my GMT II c, it has gone already).

This is the reason why my new SubC gets no more wrist time, I seriously think of flipping it.

Most wrist time gets my "old" Sea-Dweller 16600 and my Sub classic 16610!

These watches are SEXY!

Regards from Switzerland
Tom

[Clay]

Can't stand the new design myself.....But to each his own...

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by Clay

Can't stand the new design myself.....But to each his own...

[andy tims]

I think the newer designs starting with the DSSD are all less elegant than the models they replace.

Rolex seem to just be getting on the "bigger is better" bandwagon & they are about 5 years behind the curve.

Of course bigger needn't mean bulky / clumsier designs.

[Danand]

I quite like the new look. Didn't think I would from photos but in the flesh and on the wrist I really like it. ( of cours I voted with my money and love the subc!). To each his own.

[Watch Professor]

The new design works better on the GMT IIC. I don't know exactly why, but in my opinion the new Sub doesn't look as coordinated as on the GMT. Perhaps it's the bezel (GMT bezel is larger) or the polished center links. The new Sub looks unbalanced. I would love to replace the bracelet on my 16610 with the new Glide Lock bracelet, or at least the clasp.

[level]

Boxy and maxy!

[AdrianT]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I hope they're as boxy as they are going to get and that the trend is toward less boxy.

The new DJ is more boxy, but it is to a far less extreme than other watches, I'm pleased with it.

As far as some of the rest, I'm just not very impressed with the changes.

Hear hear... my sentiments exactly as I was wearing my SD but the exception imo is the new Datejusts as the more chunkier lugs make it appear visually larger but not too large.

[AdrianT]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I hope they're as boxy as they are going to get and that the trend is toward less boxy.

The new DJ is more boxy, but it is to a far less extreme than other watches, I'm pleased with it.

As far as some of the rest, I'm just not very impressed with the changes.

Hear hear... just my sentiments as I wore my SD but with exception is the new DJ as the chunkier lugs make it appear larger without making it look too big.

[kelly23]

Originally Posted by Watch Professor

The new design works better on the GMT IIC. I don't know exactly why, but in my opinion the new Sub doesn't look as coordinated as on the GMT. Perhaps it's the bezel (GMT bezel is larger) or the polished center links. The new Sub looks unbalanced. I would love to replace the bracelet on my 16610 with the new Glide Lock bracelet, or at least the clasp.

I agree! except for the PCLs (not my bag)

[steubi1]

Originally Posted by Watch Professor

The new design works better on the GMT IIC. I don't know exactly why, but in my opinion the new Sub doesn't look as coordinated as on the GMT. Perhaps it's the bezel (GMT bezel is larger) or the polished center links. The new Sub looks unbalanced. I would love to replace the bracelet on my 16610 with the new Glide Lock bracelet, or at least the clasp.

Owning both, an interesting detail: The lugs of the new Sub are even a little bit wider than those of the new GMTII; this may be the reason why the case of the new Sub seems to be too clumsy!

Tom

[exxondus]

Originally Posted by steubi1

Owning both, an interesting detail: The lugs of the new Sub are even a little bit wider than those of the new GMTII; this may be the reason why the case of the new Sub seems to be too clumsy!

Tom

does it really look that clumsy

[BH13GMT]

looking at my GMTC, the tranistion between the links on the bracelet and the lugs is not as smooth as the older style Sub, SD etc. Its as if Rolex designed the new case and stuck the old bracelet on (i know its a new clasp etc) but at the business end near the lugs the caselooks chunkier with a greater rightangle area caused by the wider lugs. personally they should have widened the SEL's by 1-2mm to reduce the effect of the wider case. I think that increase in width would easly be tapered back to the std clasp without too much effort

just my 2 cents

[Casey VP-26]

I studied the two different shapes on a recent post 16613 Vs 116613 and have used the word sleeker to discribe the older look, referred to dial and case and should have included Bezel. IMHO

[Ebruner]

I am in the camp who cannot warm up to the new look. I got rid of the new GMT after about a year. I strongly prefer the classic models. I do like the DSSD though, but I use it strictly underwater.

-Eddie

[Eric88]

I wanted to bump this old thread based on similar comments in this review

http://100percent-rolex.blogspot.com...eview.html?m=1

[drainaps]

Originally Posted by Clay

Can't stand the new design myself.....But to each his own...

Same here.... Too macho and too trendy. What marketeers would call "statement" objects. They are made to be noticed. I hate that.

Good thing is I'm not touching new models, bad thing is..... I'm digging deeper and deeper into vintage.

I wonder if there will ever be a new model I'll want to buy. I guess the current ceramics are here to stay for quite some more time, and I'm sure the vintage /revival territory is reserved to Tudor exclusively.....

[joe100]

I think the reason Rolex chose to widen the proportions and square-off their designs was to make the watches seem larger without increasing diameter. The AirKing was the first watch to be super cased and the results were fantastic. Large diameter watches are a fad and he larger, more chunky cases cater to this crowd without offending the purists.

[mikelprz]

Don't like the new shape designs.. I prefer the older shape. Hence, why i have kept with the models previous to the change. I thought the new shape would grow on me, but negative. I hate the new shape.

[Ravager135]

It's all about proportion rather than sheer size for me. Part of the reason I purchased the Explorer II is that despite it's 42mm size, it seems to have figured out the proportion issue that sort of plagues the SubCs and GMTIICs for me. In fairness to ceramic Sub and GMT owners, there are numerous upgrades that make these watches still pieces I am chasing after however the case is quirky to say the least. If I could put a glidelock bracelet/clasp on my 16610 and +/- on the ceramic bezel I would probably have a dream watch. Same could be said for the previous generation GMT. Size can be increased but the proportions should be tweaked as well.

[AK797]

Let the old die... BRING ON THE NEW!

[T. Ferguson]

I guess I'm in the minority and I suppose I don't look at it as closely as many of you, but to me the difference between the old and new Subs (most models for that matter) is actually fairly subtle, more evolutionary than revolutionary. More wrist presence indeed, but imho true to the natural progression of the Sub's (and the other models) design changes over the decades.

I have an old Sub and a new GMT and I like them both. The new Sub is on my radar (or perhaps more appropriately, on my sonar) but I just don't think they are all that different that I would consider only one and not the other. For those that love the old Sub but can't stand the looks of the new one, I just don't see it. But that's me, YMMV. I appreciate everyone's taste is different.

That said, I doubt I would be thinking of getting a SubC if I didn't plan on giving my 16610 to my son for graduation. Again, maybe I hold a minority view, but the new Sub isn't that radically different looking to me that I'd flip my old one to get a ceramic model. Similarly, I see no reason to have both. But I like them both.

[Flyfisher]

Probably not, I think they just wanted the Submariner to stand out - and it has, love it or hate it.

The Exp II & YM redesign / refresh did not emphasize the squared off lugs and they came after the Sub redesign.

[al_bongo]

Originally Posted by aksing

Let the old die... BRING ON THE NEW!

Yeah, like this thread.