Model Comparison

[Gerry62]

Submariner of course

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Different cases, different lugs, different movements, one has a date the other doesn't, one has a 24 hr hand the other doesn't, different bezel markings/operation/function, one can display 3 time zones at once the other can display only 1, different bracelets....

But yeah, apart from those obvious 6 or 8 functional and/or aesthetic differences, same watch.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get what's going on under the hood if one is a professional pilot or seafaring treasure hunter.

But no one uses them that way. They're male fashion jewelry. And as such, from 3 feet away either on a wrist or in a display case, to the average person it's the same look- one has a splash of color and one doesn't. Having both a Sub and a GMT in a collection is redundant, you pick the one that fits your fashion and your lifestyle the most.

I spend my days in boardrooms as an executive and my weekends in SUV's as a soccer dad, the Submariner works with a business suit or a t-shirt. The GMT and it's fanciful bezel colors doesn't work in the boardroom, can clash if I'm wearing the wrong color t-shirt. I need my watches to work with any and all attire; the GMT takes too much coordination to pull off each day.

[Perpetual888]

Functionally... I prefer the GMT. Aesthetically... the Sub wins.

[Scapegoat]

Sub no date for the win!

[ming the merciless]

Sub for me. The extra hand on the GMT makes it look to fussy to my eye. Especially if you don't actually need it.

I spend all in my time in either England or Spain. I can subtract and add the hour difference.

[ajas]

Sub, classic, always hot

[MoonExplorer]

If you were to have just one, Sub for me.

But having just one is boring. Buy the GMT as well, among others.

[jrs146]

GMT for me. Great 24 hour complication!

[masyv6]

Originally Posted by mailman

Whichever one you like better.

I agree. Don't listen to what random guys on the internet say. You should go try them both on and decide which one you like more.

That being said, go with the Sub. I'm biased though... *checks time on no-date SubC*

[Big Jay]

For me it was the sub. You can see why by my avatar. Try both on and see which you fall in love with.

[RobJordan]

I put together a comparison between the Sub Date and GMT2 recently. I would probably go with GMT only because I would actually use the GMT function for travel. Functionality is also helpful if you work with clients in other timezones and want to know what time it is when you call, etc.

[forgedblades]

I have both. Both are great watches and I would be in a tight spot if I were to have to pick between the two. In the end, I would keep my 16610 LV but it was between a standard sub(black dial, black bezel) I would keep the GMT II no question.

[mtgjr]

Originally Posted by speedolex

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get what's going on under the hood if one is a professional pilot or seafaring treasure hunter.

But no one uses them that way. They're male fashion jewelry. And as such, from 3 feet away either on a wrist or in a display case, to the average person it's the same look- one has a splash of color and one doesn't. Having both a Sub and a GMT in a collection is redundant, you pick the one that fits your fashion and your lifestyle the most.

I spend my days in boardrooms as an executive and my weekends in SUV's as a soccer dad, the Submariner works with a business suit or a t-shirt. The GMT and it's fanciful bezel colors doesn't work in the boardroom, can clash if I'm wearing the wrong color t-shirt. I need my watches to work with any and all attire; the GMT takes too much coordination to pull off each day.

If you own the 16710 pictured, you can simply pick up the black bezel insert for around $100, and a 2-minute DIY swap makes the point above moot. For this reason, I'd argue it's the GMT that is most versatile. Three watches in one, and all that. Don't get me wrong, I love the Sub too. I just wouldn't select it over the GMT for the reason of maximun versatility.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by mtgjr

If you own the 16710 pictured, you can simply pick up the black bezel insert for around $100, and a 2-minute DIY swap makes the point above moot. For this reason, I'd argue it's the GMT that is most versatile. Three watches in one, and all that. Don't get me wrong, I love the Sub too. I just wouldn't select it over the GMT for the reason of maximun versatility.

Not my watches pictured, but I was on the fence at one point about picking up a 16710 just as a Submariner changeup on weekends, would have gone Pepsi as it goes with jeans and casual attire nicely. But in the end, photos like this one punctuated just how identical the two watches are in appearance, it isn't a good use of my fun money to tie up six large in a redundant watch.

Even though I am a world-traveler, I never need to know more than what time it is back home, so multiple zones and the 24 hour hand don't really mean anything to me, they just clutter up the dial and bezel beyond my liking.

A Submariner can also function decently as a second timezone watch; by turning the noon triangle to the hour differential (ie if home is 6 hours behind move from 12 to 6 position) you can visualize the hour it is back home, the minute hand is read verbatim.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by speedolex

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get what's going on under the hood if one is a professional pilot or seafaring treasure hunter.

But no one uses them that way. They're male fashion jewelry. And as such, from 3 feet away either on a wrist or in a display case, to the average person it's the same look- one has a splash of color and one doesn't. Having both a Sub and a GMT in a collection is redundant, you pick the one that fits your fashion and your lifestyle the most.

I spend my days in boardrooms as an executive and my weekends in SUV's as a soccer dad, the Submariner works with a business suit or a t-shirt. The GMT and it's fanciful bezel colors doesn't work in the boardroom, can clash if I'm wearing the wrong color t-shirt. I need my watches to work with any and all attire; the GMT takes too much coordination to pull off each day.

The 16610 Sub Date you've pictured is not the modern Sub ref the OP's asked about, the 114060. If you're going bother to do a visual comparison and claim "same watch" at least find photos of the correct ref(s) for each.

The Sub the OP referred to (unlike the one you pictured) has no date function/cyclops. On the other hand, every GMT Master has a date/cyclops. The case/lug differences (thicker/blockier/fatter) of modern version Subs vs older versions, and vs GMTs old and new are not merely noticeable, but obvious.

Harping about "festive colors" (and the supposed trouble of coordinating them with clothes or situation) as a big factor in decision-making is an error you've been informed about but seem to always forget; for the last 40+ years GMT Masters/Master IIs have been available with all-black, LN bezels. The modern, standard 116710 comes with an all-black LN bezel. The idea that one must buy a GMT Master II with a colored "festive" bezel is 100% wrong. It becomes a false premise and therefore a fallacy to ignore this easy and obvious availability when urging someone to make a decision based-on such undisputable wrongness.

As for "under the hood", the ability for a watch to DISPLAY 2 or 3 time zones simultaneously is precisely why the GMT Master was invented. To call a readily-visible display capability "under the hood" is utterly oxymoronic. You may as well say having the date feature is also "under the hood".

Contrary to your notion that your Sub is "fashion jewellery" because you've personally found it's inherent functional, dive watch forte' (superior WR rating) useless to your own life and therefore fashion is the only reason you wear one, not everyone else finds a date and/or extra time zone display features of a GMT Master useless to theirs.

It seems you're on a quest to assign everyone else your own superficial motivation for wearing a Sub in order to ignore the watches' different physical characteristics and capabilities. One certainly don't have to be a professional pilot to enjoy or find the forte' of the GMT Master useful on a day-to-day basis no matter how many times you repeatedly declare, with absolutely no authority, that "Nobody uses them that way". Belabour your idea of the "sameness" between GMT and Sub all you want in your effort to equate fashion motivation/wearing something that's tool aspect is useless to you with everyone else's, when the reality of differences in form, function, and usefulness of timekeeping display features for anyone not wearing flippers or outside your own head is much different.

The funny thing is, the one thing where they are the same (color of bezel due to LN bezel option for GMTs) is the one thing you keep insisting is the only difference worthy of supposedly being a great factor in decision-making between the two.

[1William]

As a simple classic watch without anything else but the time going on the Submariner 114060 is the watch. If you like the PLC's, bezel and time functions the GMT would be for you. I have owned both and the 114060 is the foundation of my collection.

[perryj]

If chose a 5 digit gmt, I'm not a fan of the green hand on the gmtc

[sgmgolf]

I own both.....although my Submariner is a little different than most!



BUT if I am choosing between modern SUB and GMT I pick this:

[samson66]

I prefer the GMT for appearance and usefulness of the GMT hand when traveling. However the Sub has two things over the GMT in my book. One is the brushed center links and the other (and more important one) the glide lock clasp. If I were buying a new one I think I'd go Sub for the clasp alone even though I prefer the look of the GMT

[mfer]

First one.....then the other!

[japenney]

Both for me. 114060 for a clean clean watch (no date no color). Gmt for functionality and a splash of color. Both belong in a collection together .

[dabbotjordan]

Gmt II
I own both.

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by CRM114

The 16610 Sub Date you've pictured is not the modern Sub ref the OP's asked about, the 114060. If you're going bother to do a visual comparison and claim "same watch" at least find photos of the correct ref(s) for each.

The Sub the OP referred to (unlike the one you pictured) has no date function/cyclops. On the other hand, every GMT Master has a date/cyclops. The case/lug differences (thicker/blockier/fatter) of modern version Subs vs older versions, and vs GMTs old and new are not merely noticeable, but obvious.

Harping about "festive colors" (and the supposed trouble of coordinating them with clothes or situation) as a big factor in decision-making is an error you've been informed about but seem to always forget; for the last 40+ years GMT Masters/Master IIs have been available with all-black, LN bezels. The modern, standard 116710 comes with an all-black LN bezel. The idea that one must buy a GMT Master II with a colored "festive" bezel is 100% wrong. It becomes a false premise and therefore a fallacy to ignore this easy and obvious availability when urging someone to make a decision based-on such undisputable wrongness.

As for "under the hood", the ability for a watch to DISPLAY 2 or 3 time zones simultaneously is precisely why the GMT Master was invented. To call a readily-visible display capability "under the hood" is utterly oxymoronic. You may as well say having the date feature is also "under the hood".

Contrary to your notion that your Sub is "fashion jewellery" because you've personally found it's inherent functional, dive watch forte' (superior WR rating) useless to your own life and therefore fashion is the only reason you wear one, not everyone else finds a date and/or extra time zone display features of a GMT Master useless to theirs.

It seems you're on a quest to assign everyone else your own superficial motivation for wearing a Sub in order to ignore the watches' different physical characteristics and capabilities. One certainly don't have to be a professional pilot to enjoy or find the forte' of the GMT Master useful on a day-to-day basis no matter how many times you repeatedly declare, with absolutely no authority, that "Nobody uses them that way". Belabour your idea of the "sameness" between GMT and Sub all you want in your effort to equate fashion motivation/wearing something that's tool aspect is useless to you with everyone else's, when the reality of differences in form, function, and usefulness of timekeeping display features for anyone not wearing flippers or outside your own head is much different.

The funny thing is, the one thing where they are the same (color of bezel due to LN bezel option for GMTs) is the one thing you keep insisting is the only difference worthy of supposedly being a great factor in decision-making between the two.

Again, you're noodling in the deep-details and that wasn't my point.

My point is that if the OP is simply looking for a nice Rolex sport model and is not a diver or a pilot and merely wants a nice looking wristwatch, from 5 feet away the difference between the Submariner and the GMT is that the GMT offers colorful bezels if one is inclined to find them a good differentiator. My Lord, the amount of time you GMT people spend debating blue vs. burgundy bezels, yellowed vs. white markers, Oyster vs. Jubilee bracelets, "Coke" vs. "Batman". If 90% of your time is spent discussing styling, well, there's the reason the GMT has that perception as the "colorful stylish Submariner".

If one ignores the feature differences it's a matter of styling, no different than comparing a Pepsi GMT to a Coke GMT. For those who just want a colorless bezel, the bonus of a black Submariner over a black GMT is a far less busy bezel and a far less busy dial.