Vintage Subs vs. New Sub-Cs

[jk88]

I've been saving for awhile to expand my Rolex collection with a tool watch. I'm looking for something to wear every day and ease the burden placed on my two Datejusts.

Because I'm looking for a tool watch, I dive and I lead a generally active lifestyle, I think the Submariner is the best fit for me. I don't need the hour complication of the GMT Master/Explorer II and I find the Milgauss a bit nerdy ().

My dilemma is one I admit I'm happy to have:

Do I buy a new, robust Sub-C (LV, if it matters) for daily wear and make my own stories or do I buy an older Sub, save a ton of cash and keep a classic going?

I'm keen on saving almost $5k but I'm somewhat worried an older Sub's bracelet will be more prone to failure (really the pins). Is this a sound bother?

cheers

[luvsub]

Within the budget, I will buy a LV.

[capote]

Its only a choice based on taste. I don't think the C is more robust or that the older bracelets would fail.

[Sir Larry Wildman]

Personally I would go LV, but I like new everything - watches, cars, etc.

[Mystro]

The older Submariner are tough, reliable and established. You will never loose any money on them. The newer Subs are too polarizing to many and that makes them a risky for long term desirability. The jury is still out if they will ever be held to the same high level as the models they replaced. Personally, the cost of a ceramic bezel is a smart money making racquet for Rolex.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by capote

Its only a choice based on taste. I don't think the C is more robust or that the older bracelets would fail.

Have to agree and there are far more of the older subs around than any ceramic watch and many are 30 plus years old.Myself have not heard of any major failures with the older sub bracelets, but there have been a few failures with some ceramic watch clasp bracelets.And some of my non ceramic subs and SD watches have had quite a hard life used as working tools, and spent well over 600 hours underwater fresh and salt and never a problem with bracelets or any part of the watches.

[jk88]

Originally Posted by Mystro

The older Submariner are a established and you will never loose any money on them. The newer Subs are too polarizing to many and that makes them a risky for long term desirability.

I wasn't sold on the Sub-Cs until I saw the LV and I'm not looking at this like an investment -- heck, I own two DJs, one of which I bought new... that thing depreciated quicker than a Range Rover.

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree and there are far more of the older subs around than any ceramic watch and many are 30 plus years old.Myself have not heard of any major failures with the older sub bracelets, but there have been a few failures with some ceramic watch clasp bracelets.And some of my non ceramic subs and SD watches have had quite a hard life used as working tools, and spent well over 600 hours underwater fresh and salt and never a problem with bracelets or any part of the watches..

I assumed the glide-lock would be stronger than the older stamped clasp.

[Presa canary]

I almost always buy preowned. And I like the older style sub better then a ceramic. Have fun choosing

[Mystro]

That is sooo true. You hear of how good and "solid" the newer bracelets are but they have yet to develop the robustness of the older bracelets. There is the reality of strength and durability and then there is the perception of durability. Rolex will make more money in 10 years on the later "perception" of robustness.

Originally Posted by padi56

Myself have not heard of any major failures with the older sub bracelets, but there have been a few failures with some ceramic watch clasp bracelets..

[dysondiver]

older gets my vote , simple no date and a saphire crystal ,, good all rounder ,
but its very personal .
lder if bought well certainly wont loose value anything like as fast as a new one.
pluss less likely to worry about the odd mark here and there.
much as i like solid ends etc , the old bracelet was light for a reason ,, just swap out the spring bars for a couple of new ones and your elected , or go nato , and you can stand a spring bar failure without a loss.

[james1787]

I like the looks of the older non-C watches myself.. it's all a matter of preference. You can't really go wrong with either.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by jk88

I wasn't sold on the Sub-Cs until I saw the LV and I'm not looking at this like an investment -- heck, I own two DJs, one of which I bought new... that thing depreciated quicker than a Range Rover.



I assumed the glide-lock would be stronger than the older stamped clasp.

I would doubt if its any stronger in normal wearing the more complicated with more parts the more can go wrong. There have been a few weld failures with the new clasps.Even the older type Oyster bracelets have been stress tested and will take 525 lbs pressure before breaking and that's enough to seriously damage your wrist.

[dysondiver]

Originally Posted by padi56

I would doubt if its any stronger in normal wearing the more complicated with more parts the more can go wrong. There have been a few weld failures with the new clasps.Even the older type Oyster bracelets have been stress tested and will take 525 lbs pressure before breaking and that's enough to seriously damage your wrist.

didnt know that ,,, quarter of a ton ,,, enough to lift a fully kitted diver out of the water ,,, thats got to make your eyes water.
useful fact though

[landroverking]

One word "vintage"

[Brandon(phila)]

Originally Posted by padi56

I would doubt if its any stronger in normal wearing the more complicated with more parts the more can go wrong. There have been a few weld failures with the new clasps.Even the older type Oyster bracelets have been stress tested and will take 525 lbs pressure before breaking and that's enough to seriously damage your wrist.

Exactly...don't been fooled by the weight or that it rattles a little....it won't break on you. I remember over 10 years ago someone posted pictures on one of the forums of some sort of machine press thing.....trying to see how much it would take to break an older oyster bracelet....it was A LOT...so no worries.

If you have $5000 saved that should be able to get you a less than 10 year old non C Sub. Look here in the sales corner...plenty in that range.

I like the SubC but if you are truly using it for diving and high activity(I will refrain from the word "beater") I would probably go with a 10 year old or less Sub or SD.
Not sure I would go vintage for what you are looking for.

[LA_LEC]

I would get the classic LV sub so you get the best of BOTH worlds!

[HL65]

Originally Posted by landroverking

One word "vintage"

2 words "vintage sub"

[jk88]

Originally Posted by Brandon(phila)

If you have $5000 saved that should be able to get you a less than 10 year old non C Sub. Look here in the sales corner...plenty in that range.

I like the SubC but if you are truly using it for diving and high activity(I will refrain from the word "beater") I would probably go with a 10 year old or less Sub or SD.
Not sure I would go vintage for what you are looking for.

Nah, I've got enough on hand to buy a new Sub outright. The $5k figure was mentioned as possible savings that I could use for, well, a new Riffe.

I like the idea of the sapphire crystal over the acrylic for my application. I spend about 2 hours flicking through the classified every week... maybe I ought to just pull the trigger.

[kilyung]

Get the 16610LV

[dysondiver]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Get the 16610LV

cant go wrong with that advice

[stevedssd]

Got my LVc on today, love the watch. I still prefer the simplicity of my oldie sub though! :)

[jk88]

Originally Posted by stevedssd

Got my LVc on today, love the watch. I still prefer the simplicity of my oldie sub though! :)

pics...

[enginerd]

Considered the SD? 16660 or 16600...Sub on steroids and THE diver's tool watch, IMO.

[jk88]

Originally Posted by enginerd

Considered the SD? 16660 or 16600...Sub on steroids and THE diver's tool watch, IMO.

Well, I don't dive THAT deep...

[enginerd]

Originally Posted by jk88

Well, I don't dive THAT deep...

I don't dive at all, but I love my 16600. The SEL 93160 bracelet blows the 93150 out of the water (no pun intended)...the watch just feels so much more substantial and secure. The spring bars are enormous!

Also, I can't stand the cyclops but I love a date function, and tritium & sapphire crystal is my favorite combo!

[Rolexitis]

Get what you like most. You are in a win win scenario.

[jk88]

Just left my AD... Empty handed for now, but not for long

[drjfc62]

Good luck in your discernment. I don't think you'll regret whichever way you go...and hey, I don't think the Milgauss is nerdy, BTW

[tinger]

5512, 5513.
If I were to start over again, I would not own any 'modern' rolex.

[jhcam8]

I've started over more than once.