ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

vtsnowplow · 20 July 2011, 05:55 AM

This watch is going to give some Rolex owners including me something to think about . At 42mm its perfect and a very classic looking diver.

mjm800 · 20 July 2011, 05:57 AM

I'd rather have a Sub C.

mtl514 · 20 July 2011, 05:58 AM

Beautiful!!

vtsnowplow · 20 July 2011, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjm800

I'd rather have a Sub C.

I had one, and traded it back for a vintage Sub.

subtona · 20 July 2011, 06:04 AM

it is a good looking watch, i like the broken numbers and the edging on the bezel.

but, without a metal bracelet it wouldn't work for me as a daily wear.

My sub goes to "1,000" feet, beating out the JLC by a cool "16" feet

Onikage · 20 July 2011, 06:09 AM

I like it but the crownguards need fattening up a bit!

landroverking · 20 July 2011, 06:10 AM

I don't thing so & I am not a SS Sub fan.

kcmo · 20 July 2011, 06:24 AM

I think the Sub is much better looking personally.

Gerardus · 20 July 2011, 06:26 AM

Congratz

and a perfect brand..... but for me personally I prefer the SubC & the new model Breitling Superocean more.
Each his own as we say

Mr. K · 20 July 2011, 06:26 AM

Very sharp watch, but ill still stick with the sub.

texex91 · 20 July 2011, 06:26 AM

Not. Sub-C is much nicer IMHO.

dddrees · 20 July 2011, 06:27 AM

Still like the Sub a lot better.

jay_man2 · 20 July 2011, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dddrees

Still like the Sub a lot better.

+1

mjclark32 · 20 July 2011, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. K

Very sharp watch, but ill still stick with the sub.

x2

SaddleSC · 20 July 2011, 06:34 AM

I find the hands on that watch very difficult to read at a quick glance. They should fatten up the hands a bit and offer the watch on a bracelet.

The JLC is nice enough, but I would take the Sub C any day of the week.

rolexsweep · 20 July 2011, 06:41 AM

That looks cool, though u can't beat the sub... Just an absolute classic

wrxsti · 20 July 2011, 06:51 AM

very nice jlc! i like the special edition navy seals versions that they have. I like it more than a sub!

ManUtd · 20 July 2011, 06:55 AM

To each his own, I prefer the SubC.

p_mcgee · 20 July 2011, 06:57 AM

JLC divers (except the Polaris tribute) fit like a tank. I tried 1 on at the AD...no way I could wear that comfortably for any length of time

I'm excited to try the Breitling SuperOcean Heritage in the new 42mm size. Obviously not as nice as a sub-c, but a nice option at only $3K.

Doctorsti · 20 July 2011, 06:57 AM

SubC for me. Nice but id rather have other divers first.

Sixxgrand1 · 20 July 2011, 06:59 AM

I thought it was a Breitling at first glace...stick with the Sub...a 14060 non COSC for me!

drgleeds37 · 20 July 2011, 06:59 AM

I do like the look of the JLC better than the Sub C but have to agree that without a bracelet it would lose to the Sub if I were in the market for a new diver.

-Daniel

nauticajoe · 20 July 2011, 07:06 AM

The SubC's got my vote.

mrbill2mrbill2 · 20 July 2011, 07:14 AM

It's nice. But, I prefer a 16610.

Grumpy Badger · 20 July 2011, 07:15 AM

I looked at one of these when I bought my 14060m.

I MUCH preferred it compared to the Sub C.

(but, obviously, not over the 14060m!

)

apeogre · 20 July 2011, 07:16 AM

I like it! Certainly no where near as common as the ever present everywhere you go black sub. Cheers to your new toy.

jrbar-on · 20 July 2011, 07:21 AM

vtsnowplow,

I use to have that JLC but traded it for a LV V-series Sub and couldn't be happier. Don't get me wrong, the JLC is a great watch but I felt that it wore larger than 42mm and the Sub fits my 6.5" wrist a lot better.

I have other 42mm watches (e.g. Vacheron Overseas) and they seem to fit me better that the JLC ever did. I believe that the reason for this has to do with the fact that this JLC is more like a 42mm disk that is 14mm thick. The Sub (and other watches such as the 40mm Blancpain 50 Fathoms) tend to taper down quite a bit towards the back of the case so that for me, they sit better on my wrist. I'm willing to be that if the JLC was thinner or its side tapered to a thinner back that I would still have it.

Regardless, I'm glad you enjoy your watch but for me, the Sub is better.

Cheers,

Jonathan.

Saxon007 · 20 July 2011, 07:24 AM

Its a good looking watch, not a fan of the size though.

Burswood · 20 July 2011, 07:54 AM

I really like the look of the JLC but I prefer my sub c.

Watch Professor · 20 July 2011, 08:01 AM

It can't replace the Sub, but I wouldn't mind having it in addition to the Sub Date.

20 July 2011, 05:55 AM	#1
vtsnowplow "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: US Posts: 345	Giving a Sub a run for its money! This watch is going to give some Rolex owners including me something to think about . At 42mm its perfect and a very classic looking diver.

20 July 2011, 05:57 AM	#2
mjm800 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: USA Posts: 1,950	I'd rather have a Sub C. __________________

20 July 2011, 06:04 AM	#5
subtona "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: gus Location: East Coast Watch: APK & sometimes Y Posts: 26,601	it is a good looking watch, i like the broken numbers and the edging on the bezel. but, without a metal bracelet it wouldn't work for me as a daily wear. My sub goes to "1,000" feet, beating out the JLC by a cool "16" feet __________________

20 July 2011, 06:09 AM	#6
Onikage "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: England Watch: 16710, 16628 Posts: 7,757	I like it but the crownguards need fattening up a bit! __________________ GMT II 16710 TRADITIONAL ( D- Serial #) ROLEXFANBOY P-Club Member #4

20 July 2011, 06:26 AM	#9
Gerardus "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Gerardus Location: often in the air Watch: ♕ Posts: 12,142	Congratz and a perfect brand..... but for me personally I prefer the SubC & the new model Breitling Superocean more. Each his own as we say Attached Images __________________ ♕126610 ♕126333 ♕116300

20 July 2011, 05:58 AM	#3
mtl514 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Real Name: Adam S Location: montreal Posts: 344	Beautiful!!

20 July 2011, 06:10 AM	#7
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	I don't thing so & I am not a SS Sub fan.

20 July 2011, 06:24 AM	#8
kcmo "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Karis Location: USA Posts: 19,377	I think the Sub is much better looking personally.

20 July 2011, 06:26 AM	#10
Mr. K "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Mark Location: Seattle-ish Posts: 6,078	Very sharp watch, but ill still stick with the sub.

20 July 2011, 06:26 AM	#11
texex91 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: . Posts: 17,898	Not. Sub-C is much nicer IMHO.

20 July 2011, 06:27 AM	#12
dddrees "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: Dan Location: USA Watch: This N That Posts: 34,253	Still like the Sub a lot better. __________________ When it captures your imagination, that's when you know you have found your passion. Loyal Foot Soldier of The Nylon Nation. Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

20 July 2011, 06:34 AM	#15
SaddleSC "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Charles B Location: GMT -7 Watch: Hulk 116610LV Posts: 6,131	I find the hands on that watch very difficult to read at a quick glance. They should fatten up the hands a bit and offer the watch on a bracelet. The JLC is nice enough, but I would take the Sub C any day of the week. __________________ Hulk 116610LV + GMT II 126710 BLNR + Explorer 124270 + Air King 126900 + Submariner 16613LB

20 July 2011, 06:41 AM	#16
rolexsweep "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Australia Watch: RG DD40 Posts: 1,149	That looks cool, though u can't beat the sub... Just an absolute classic __________________ "Did you get that at retail?"

20 July 2011, 06:51 AM	#17
wrxsti "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Earth Posts: 1,695	very nice jlc! i like the special edition navy seals versions that they have. I like it more than a sub! __________________ PP Geneva

20 July 2011, 06:55 AM	#18
ManUtd "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Eric Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 1,613	To each his own, I prefer the SubC.

20 July 2011, 06:57 AM	#19
p_mcgee "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,150	JLC divers (except the Polaris tribute) fit like a tank. I tried 1 on at the AD...no way I could wear that comfortably for any length of time I'm excited to try the Breitling SuperOcean Heritage in the new 42mm size. Obviously not as nice as a sub-c, but a nice option at only $3K.

20 July 2011, 06:57 AM	#20
Doctorsti "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Kevin Location: Delaware Watch: 116660 Posts: 586	SubC for me. Nice but id rather have other divers first.

20 July 2011, 06:59 AM	#21
Sixxgrand1 Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Canada Watch: EXP I & II Posts: 825	I thought it was a Breitling at first glace...stick with the Sub...a 14060 non COSC for me!

20 July 2011, 06:59 AM	#22
drgleeds37 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Daniel Leeds Location: Suburbs of DC Watch: Rolex,AP,PAM,etc.. Posts: 306	I do like the look of the JLC better than the Sub C but have to agree that without a bracelet it would lose to the Sub if I were in the market for a new diver. -Daniel

20 July 2011, 07:06 AM	#23
nauticajoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Joe Location: PA Posts: 14,774	The SubC's got my vote.

20 July 2011, 07:14 AM	#24
mrbill2mrbill2 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Mr. Bill Location: South Florida Watch: 16610 Posts: 6,148	It's nice. But, I prefer a 16610. __________________ Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of the Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons - ID # 13

20 July 2011, 07:15 AM	#25
Grumpy Badger "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: Mark Location: Bonny Scotland Watch: 14060M Sub (cosc) Posts: 5,280	I looked at one of these when I bought my 14060m. I MUCH preferred it compared to the Sub C. (but, obviously, not over the 14060m!) __________________ Don't mind me. I'm full of scotch, bitterness and impure thoughts! "You have enemies? Good! That means you stood up for something, sometime in your life." Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS.

20 July 2011, 07:16 AM	#26
apeogre "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: No Clue Posts: 586	I like it! Certainly no where near as common as the ever present everywhere you go black sub. Cheers to your new toy.

20 July 2011, 07:21 AM	#27
jrbar-on 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 803	Just let that JLC go last week ... vtsnowplow, I use to have that JLC but traded it for a LV V-series Sub and couldn't be happier. Don't get me wrong, the JLC is a great watch but I felt that it wore larger than 42mm and the Sub fits my 6.5" wrist a lot better. I have other 42mm watches (e.g. Vacheron Overseas) and they seem to fit me better that the JLC ever did. I believe that the reason for this has to do with the fact that this JLC is more like a 42mm disk that is 14mm thick. The Sub (and other watches such as the 40mm Blancpain 50 Fathoms) tend to taper down quite a bit towards the back of the case so that for me, they sit better on my wrist. I'm willing to be that if the JLC was thinner or its side tapered to a thinner back that I would still have it. Regardless, I'm glad you enjoy your watch but for me, the Sub is better. Cheers, Jonathan.

20 July 2011, 07:24 AM	#28
Saxon007 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,002	Its a good looking watch, not a fan of the size though. __________________ Licensed to kill time.

20 July 2011, 07:54 AM	#29
Burswood Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Ireland Posts: 20	I really like the look of the JLC but I prefer my sub c.

20 July 2011, 08:01 AM	#30
Watch Professor "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Myron Location: New York Watch: GMT IIC; Sub Date Posts: 3,166	It can't replace the Sub, but I wouldn't mind having it in addition to the Sub Date. __________________

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