Direct Comparison between SubC and BLNR

[scoot4nat]

Are there any differences in the dials of these two watches except the model number writing?

What about the hands (except the GMT obviously)

[travisb]

Other than the text on the dials, they are the same.

[HogwldFLTR]

Some difference in the movements I'd say. I believe case thickness is different as well. Are you discussing Sub C or Sub C Date, BTW?

[AK797]

On the dials only what you can see, just go for the one that pleases your eye the most if functions are not an issue.

[Jef_]

The Sub is significantly thicker than the GMT to accomodate the higher pressure, besides that, the writing and extra hand (and calibre) they're almost exactly the same.

Mind you though that the Sub has the slidelock clasp that some people really like. On the other hand, the GMT has the easylink clasp which works also.

[KBM]

The sub is about 12.5mm thick, does anyone have the spec for the GMT?

[Mr DateJust]

The dials are the same except the text as far as I know. I think the hour hand is a slightly different thickness. The lugs of the GMT are slightly less square and the case back is thinner so making the watch overall less thick and sit closer to the wrist. Plus obviously different bracelet and clasp.

[Jef_]

Originally Posted by kauebm

The sub is about 12.5mm thick, does anyone have the spec for the GMT?

The GMT is about 10mm thick

[Rogdogg]

I also think the bubble on the seconds hand is a different size between the two also. It looks smaller on the Sub than the GMT

[KBM]

Originally Posted by Jef_

The GMT is about 10mm thick

Wow, didn't realize the difference was so substantial!

[Golflife2]

I have had both in my collection and I beleive the GMTII is a bit thicker.

[live1]

Crown guards and lugs are completely different shape and thinner on the gmt2 compared to a sub c

[JRT]

Originally Posted by Jef_

The GMT is about 10mm thick

It is the case thickness, isn't it? Have you counted the thickness of caseback?

[Bfd70]

Originally Posted by Golflife2

I have had both in my collection and I beleive the GMTII is a bit thicker.

Nope

[sickened1]

Also GMT bezel is bi-directional and on the sub it's uni-directional.

[jjnd08]

Originally Posted by JRT

It is the case thickness, isn't it? Have you counted the thickness of caseback?

It has to be thicker than that with the case back.

This article says somewhere between 12-13mm: https://www.minus4plus6.com/116710.htm

[Sub/GMT]

Originally Posted by Golflife2

I have had both in my collection and I beleive the GMTII is a bit thicker.

I don't know where you did get your GMT II from, but the Sub is thicker. GMT is more flat on the wrist

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by kauebm

The sub is about 12.5mm thick, does anyone have the spec for the GMT?

Originally Posted by Jef_

The GMT is about 10mm thick

i think the GMT is between 12 and 12.5. it's only ever so slightly thinner than the sub. some, though, list both at 13.

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by kauebm

Wow, didn't realize the difference was so substantial!

It's not...

GMT IIc: 11.9 mm

Sub C: 12.53 mm


In fact the middle case of the GMT is thicker than that of the Sub, but the Sub's deeper caseback mikes it slightly thicker overall.

[KBM]

Originally Posted by Psmith

It's not...

GMT IIc: 11.9 mm

Sub C: 12.53 mm


In fact the middle case of the GMT is thicker than that of the Sub, but the Sub's deeper caseback mikes it slightly thicker overall.

Great info, thanks!

[Sub/GMT]

Cases look very similar but not the same. Here are the differences:

1. Submariner's lugs are wider. GMT has slightly thinner lugs.
2. Submariner's crown guards are more muscular. GMT's crown guards are a little thinner.
3. Submariner's middle case is thinner due to no GMT hand. GMT's middle case is thicker.
4. Submariner's case back sits higher. GMT's case back is flat to the middle case. (Thickness is very similar with both watches.)

[anothernewphone]

The original post is asking about the dial and the hands, and everyone is posting about everything else around the watch.

[bman36]

Hands and hour markers seem larger on the GMT IIC. Also, there is no depth rating on the dial of the GMT IIC. GMT IIC has a slightly thinner case.

[Jef_]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

i think the GMT is between 12 and 12.5. it's only ever so slightly thinner than the sub. some, though, list both at 13.

I actually just measured my GMT with a thickness meter.. And it was only 10-10.5mm. this was with the caseback but without the magnifier. Maybe mine wasn't built right.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by anothernewphone

The original post is asking about the dial and the hands, and everyone is posting about everything else around the watch.

I know, right?

OP: to answer your question, except for the obvious differences such as the lettering and GMT hand, they're pretty much the same.

[Etschell]

other than them both being oyster perpetual sport watches they are vastly different watches.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by scoot4nat

Are there any differences in the dials of these two watches except the model number writing?

What about the hands (except the GMT obviously)

It's a strange question...

Except for the indices and ticks and overall look, (which are pretty much the same on all watches) they are completely different dials and hands and they are not interchangeable.

GMT dials have a larger hole to accommodate the bigger hand stack post and the hands have larger holes to fit that hand-stack

[Rashid.bk]

The OP asked about the dial and off it went into everything but. Larry answered as best as can on the issue of the dials. The subject of the cases for the watches has been discussed ad nauseam here in the past as well.
Here's Mike's measurements:

Originally Posted by kilyung

I was bored last night and measured the cases...

Lug end width of GMTIIc... 3.2mm
Lug end width of SubC... 3.6mm

Lug thickness of GMTIIc... 5.5mm
Lug thickness of SubC... 5.2mm

Thickness of GMTIIc.... 11.7mm
Thickness of SubC... 12.2mm

Width of case from 9 to 3 (including crown)... 44mm on both
Width of case from lug to lug... 47.7mm on both

Here's the thread where all manner of proof and discussions were had to clarify this mystery.

http://rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=301202

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Psmith

It's not...

GMT IIc: 11.9 mm

Sub C: 12.53 mm


In fact the middle case of the GMT is thicker than that of the Sub, but the Sub's deeper caseback mikes it slightly thicker overall.

Yeah that sounds about right, barely notice any difference on mine.

[eonflux]

Dials markers are the same. Dial diameter same.
Minute hand is the same.
Hour hand is wider on the GMT.
Thinner hour hand on the SubC same as that used on the Yachtmaster and SDC.
But DSSD has wider hour hand (same as GMT).