ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

adzman808 · 4 November 2014, 05:06 AM

The subC is actually about 40.5mm

It's fine how it is, maybe even drop to 39 (just to be different)

floater156 · 4 November 2014, 06:08 AM

42 mm would be a great option alongside the 40.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

aleeboy · 4 November 2014, 06:08 AM

It's already big enough.

what else will be the next "big" thing. Belt buckles?

Rashid.bk · 4 November 2014, 06:10 AM

Well I think I've answered this same question about 35 other times in the threads I decided to peek in out of the 60 that ask this same question just this year alone, I may have even answered it in this thread already for all I know......
No bigger size, 40mm is the magic spot. Not to big not to small.

AK797 · 4 November 2014, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierra11b

I imagine it would be similar to the Exp42 which I thought wore a little more balanced than any Maxi case. I don't think the maxi case is uncomfortable and think it's fine the way it is.

I found the Exp2 to wear too big and wide but imagine the sub's ceramic bezel would make it wear smaller and more balanced on me but would need to see it to know.

Bruins7 · 4 November 2014, 06:40 AM

40 mm is perfecto!

Psmith · 4 November 2014, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capote

Finally somebody is thinking outside the box. I have read a 500 threads with people wanting it bigger but this is a first. I say 37 mm!

So what we really need is a Sub in three sizes: S, M and L

Perfect - something for everybody

Dvenus11 · 4 November 2014, 07:33 AM

i would for sure

Seaswirl · 4 November 2014, 09:01 AM

I hope not, but think it's a very real possibility. The masses want bigger and Rolex had been delivering.

esdeezy · 4 November 2014, 09:16 AM

40mm is perfect for small-average size wrists. But I can understand people with over 7" wrists would might want a 42mm sub.

Me, I'm happy with 40mm. The DJII should have been only 40mm too.

ltmgeller · 4 November 2014, 09:31 AM

How about a submariner II or Gmt iii in 44 mm with all the precious metal trimmings. Just saying.

submariner123 · 4 November 2014, 09:51 AM

No! I don't like any watch over 40mm.

kamek · 4 November 2014, 10:02 AM

Came into this thread just to vote "no."

sportsmaven20 · 4 November 2014, 11:51 AM

The 40mm size is fine, but if the lugs were more tapered, it would be THE perfect watch!

Hairdude1 · 4 November 2014, 11:57 AM

I love my 116718 at 40mm however I would be interested in a 42mm sub

nathaniel · 4 November 2014, 01:00 PM

40mm is perfect.

redsubby · 4 November 2014, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capote

Finally somebody is thinking outside the box. I have read a 500 threads with people wanting it bigger but this is a first. I say 37 mm!

Umm.....it's a diver, not a dress watch...

Jeffa32 · 4 November 2014, 02:27 PM

All comes down to personal taste. The sub is dive watch and the general trend for dive watches is they are bigger than 40mm, hence the interest in a 42mm sub. I have recently flipped my 114060, didn't like the lugs and but the key reason was the size of the dial not the overall case. I prefer large watches. My favourite is the DJII due to the thinner bezel and larger dial. Just discussing case size alone is too simplistic as case width to height ratios play a part. For instance I love my 46mm 8500 planet ocean but can't get on with the DSSD.

I would have like to have seen the SD4000 at 42mm.

Rogdogg · 4 November 2014, 02:48 PM

In the past I would have said definitely but since getting my blnr I don't think I care anymore.

People say it wears like a 42 thanks to the big lugs, which many people out there don't like. Do you think people would like a 42mm if they were to bring the lug size down again?
Say similar to the new SD but with a slightly larger dial?

Joearch · 4 November 2014, 03:26 PM

Perfect is perfect. Leave

well enough alone.

mrallen13 · 4 November 2014, 04:02 PM

I would love it with the thinner lugs. And dome that sapphire while they're at it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ruud Van Driver · 4 November 2014, 05:36 PM

I really don't understand the fascination with big watches and it's not something I can get bent out of shape over.

The Sub doesn't need to be any bigger. What exactly is the point of it (and any other watch for that matter), to tell the time with or park stealth bombers on?

travisb · 4 November 2014, 07:54 PM

As is for me!

RICHARD_LEWIS · 4 November 2014, 10:52 PM

No

zama · 5 November 2014, 06:37 AM

I voted no because if it does come out, then this thread will be replaced by twice as many threads of people with 5in wrists asking does this look to big on me. Let me answer that now YES!!!! Role does divers in 40 and 44 either are good choices!

Majin Buu · 5 November 2014, 06:50 AM

Hi there!

41.5 mm is a good compromise...

Cheers

MB

View Poll Results: Would you like to see Rolex make a 116610LN model that's 42MM?
Yes, I would jump on it.	46	23.47%
No thanks, it's perfect as it is.	150	76.53%
Voters: 196. You may not vote on this poll

4 November 2014, 06:08 AM	#32
floater156 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Real Name: Chris Location: Wisconsin Watch: Rolex Posts: 2,984	42 mm would be a great option alongside the 40. Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk __________________ Lead by example through production.

4 November 2014, 11:57 AM	#45
Hairdude1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Real Name: Alex Location: Chicago Watch: AP,PP, Rolex Posts: 37,156	I love my 116718 at 40mm however I would be interested in a 42mm sub __________________ Instagram: @Hairdude Watches in Collection 5070R, 5522A, 214270 MK1, 228238 16750, 26401, 5711, 116718, 116710LN, 116300, 16710"Coke", 372, 15300, 15703 (All Flipped) Official Member "Perpetual 30" Las Vegas GTG 2016 Official Member "WIS-CON" Las Vegas International GTG 2017 Official Member 'WIS-CON' Las Vegas Int'l GTG 2018

4 November 2014, 01:00 PM	#46
nathaniel "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Real Name: Can you guess? Location: Texas Watch: 116610LV Posts: 409	40mm is perfect. __________________ "Comparison is the thief of joy." Theodore Roosevelt 116710LN 116610LV

4 November 2014, 02:27 PM	#48
Jeffa32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Real Name: Jeff Location: Singapore Watch: Datejust II Posts: 426	All comes down to personal taste. The sub is dive watch and the general trend for dive watches is they are bigger than 40mm, hence the interest in a 42mm sub. I have recently flipped my 114060, didn't like the lugs and but the key reason was the size of the dial not the overall case. I prefer large watches. My favourite is the DJII due to the thinner bezel and larger dial. Just discussing case size alone is too simplistic as case width to height ratios play a part. For instance I love my 46mm 8500 planet ocean but can't get on with the DSSD. I would have like to have seen the SD4000 at 42mm. __________________ Omega Speedmaster, Breitling Steelfish, Datejust II, IWC Portofino Chronograph, Planet Ocean Liquidmetal XL, BLNR, IWC Portuguese 7 day

4 November 2014, 05:06 AM	#31
adzman808 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Porto and the UK Watch: 114060 Posts: 176	The subC is actually about 40.5mm It's fine how it is, maybe even drop to 39 (just to be different)

4 November 2014, 06:08 AM	#33
aleeboy "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Russel Location: N/A Watch: N/A Posts: 755	It's already big enough. what else will be the next "big" thing. Belt buckles?

4 November 2014, 06:10 AM	#34
Rashid.bk "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas Watch: 12800ft = 3900m Posts: 11,173	Well I think I've answered this same question about 35 other times in the threads I decided to peek in out of the 60 that ask this same question just this year alone, I may have even answered it in this thread already for all I know...... No bigger size, 40mm is the magic spot. Not to big not to small.

4 November 2014, 06:40 AM	#36
Bruins7 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: LA Watch: Rolex(4),15400 Posts: 1,105	40 mm is perfecto!

4 November 2014, 07:33 AM	#38
Dvenus11 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Real Name: Sunny Location: Los Angeles Watch: GMT Master 2 Posts: 941	i would for sure

4 November 2014, 09:01 AM	#39
Seaswirl "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: NYC Posts: 1,761	I hope not, but think it's a very real possibility. The masses want bigger and Rolex had been delivering.

4 November 2014, 09:16 AM	#40
esdeezy "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Canada Posts: 97	40mm is perfect for small-average size wrists. But I can understand people with over 7" wrists would might want a 42mm sub. Me, I'm happy with 40mm. The DJII should have been only 40mm too.

4 November 2014, 09:31 AM	#41
ltmgeller 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Real Name: Mike Location: New York Watch: Rolex Posts: 22,591	How about a submariner II or Gmt iii in 44 mm with all the precious metal trimmings. Just saying.

4 November 2014, 09:51 AM	#42
submariner123 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Real Name: Thomas Location: England Watch: 116610LN Posts: 643	No! I don't like any watch over 40mm.

4 November 2014, 10:02 AM	#43
kamek "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Real Name: Brian Location: NYC Posts: 534	Came into this thread just to vote "no."

4 November 2014, 11:51 AM	#44
sportsmaven20 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Randy Location: USA Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,925	The 40mm size is fine, but if the lugs were more tapered, it would be THE perfect watch!

4 November 2014, 02:48 PM	#49
Rogdogg 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Bangkok Posts: 6,124	In the past I would have said definitely but since getting my blnr I don't think I care anymore. People say it wears like a 42 thanks to the big lugs, which many people out there don't like. Do you think people would like a 42mm if they were to bring the lug size down again? Say similar to the new SD but with a slightly larger dial?

4 November 2014, 03:26 PM	#50
Joearch 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Real Name: Joe Location: Los Angeles Watch: Daytona + GMT BLNR Posts: 4,855	Perfect is perfect. Leave well enough alone.

4 November 2014, 04:02 PM	#51
mrallen13 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Real Name: Matt Location: Austin, TX USA Watch: SDc, PO Posts: 200	I would love it with the thinner lugs. And dome that sapphire while they're at it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

4 November 2014, 05:36 PM	#52
Ruud Van Driver "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Real Name: Chopped Liver Location: S. Wales Valleys Watch: Mickey Mouse Posts: 9,926	I really don't understand the fascination with big watches and it's not something I can get bent out of shape over. The Sub doesn't need to be any bigger. What exactly is the point of it (and any other watch for that matter), to tell the time with or park stealth bombers on?

4 November 2014, 07:54 PM	#53
travisb 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Travis Location: FL / NYC Watch: Yes.. Posts: 33,500	As is for me!

4 November 2014, 10:52 PM	#54
RICHARD_LEWIS "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: London Watch: 116610LV Posts: 482	No

5 November 2014, 06:37 AM	#55
zama "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Craig Location: Sydney Watch: 4 Broken glass Posts: 5,808	I voted no because if it does come out, then this thread will be replaced by twice as many threads of people with 5in wrists asking does this look to big on me. Let me answer that now YES!!!! Role does divers in 40 and 44 either are good choices! __________________ Day Date 118206, Daytona 116509 & 116505, AP 25859ST Gone but not forgotten and genuinely missed..... Root Beer GMT, Sub, TT Daytona, YG DD Bark, Datejust(2 his & hers), AP RO, PP Aquanaut, Lange 1, Heuer Monza, Piaget Altiplano, GP Chrono, Seamaster, Tudor Sub, Tudor Chrono, Tudor Black Bay Bronze

5 November 2014, 06:50 AM	#56
Majin Buu "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Real Name: Joe Location: Planet Earth Watch: Datejust now Posts: 928	Hi there! 41.5 mm is a good compromise... Cheers MB

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