Would you get a Sub-C if you already have a 16610?

[tomallen]

I did, I went for a Sub C to complement my TT black Sub. I like the TT look and today I got a screaming deal on a TT GMTII C. Two watches in three weeks, I am out of control, the next thing I know I will be running with scissors, I better go lie down now.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by tomallen

I did, I went for a Sub C to complement my TT black Sub. I like the TT look and today I got a screaming deal on a TT GMTII C. Two watches in three weeks, I am out of control, the next thing I know I will be running with scissors, I better go lie down now.

would those be tt scissors.
sounds like a fun three weeks

[Chipmunk]

No.

[timeisfathaoftruth]

If you have not already done so, you should try to see the green ceramic sub in person.
I think that it would be a fine stable mate for your 16610 and I think that you might love the green when seen live.

[franksremote]

I would get it. I don't think I'm the only one with very similar watches that are very close in appearance and it never hurts to have another watch to pick from in the mornings. Personally, though I'd wait a bit and find one that's been pre-loved to lessen the financial blow as "used" ones are already showing up at less than MSRP/new w/ discount prices.

[Jason71]

I would do it, if the watch looked like this

(borrowed pic)

[TempoKing]

If you already have a sub ?....Your second Rolex should be a GMT or Explorer

[walds11]

Maybe. I have a Sub Date 16610. I would consider adding the green Sub-C to my collection.

[NutNut]

Agree with walds11 I have a 16610 and would love to add the Green SubC to my collection.

[α-ψ!]

not me!

[CoopJr]

Yes I would...I have both.

[FLB03TT]

No

[Mirx]

I would . . . . and I did.

I love the 16610 and will defo keep it. Indeed, perhaps the most iconic and, arguably, beautiful sports/professional watch ever made.

However, 11610LN is in my eyes a considerablly different watch. It appears more masculine, modern, sporty, feels more substantual, solid and although a little heavier (around 15gr.) is more comfortable on the wrist.

Admittedly, I was shocked at how much difference there is between the two and only fully appreciated it when comparing them 'in person'. I wish I did compare them earlier as the only thing that kept me away from considering buying a Sub-C was a perceived lack of geometrical harmony where the maxi case joins the bracelet judged by the photographs I came accross. What is interesting is that on the photographs the watch indeed appears 'too square' or the lugs too wide and yet when you hold it, or when on the wrist, it looks geometrically perfect. Anybody else experienced this?

How about if you take a good look at one (or two, the 116610LN and 116610LV) and compare it with your 16610? See where that takes you . . .

[EchoBlueUK]

I'd 100% flip the old model for the new model but i wouldn't hold both.

[dnagwhogas]

Originally Posted by EchoBlueUK

I'd 100% flip the old model for the new model but i wouldn't hold both.

I agree, I'd flip the old for the SubC

[sappie66]

Thanks to you guys, been the Green Sub is starting to be more of a consideration. I will look at it again this week. Gotta rotate the dif ADs so they don't get too annoyed with me.

Mirx, it is interesting to hear that the new Sub is more comfortable than the 16610, because the 16610 is my most comfortable watch -- it just disappears from the wrist.

Also interesting that the square lugs look better in person than in pics -- I happen to agree with that -- I thought it was an illusion at first .

I understand the posters that say I should flip the 16610 for the new one, but this is not a consideration.... yet. If I decide to get the green sub-c, I definitely won't. If I get the black sub-c, that might be a consideration, but only after I experience both watches for a time and see if I can do without the other.

But I am very resistant on getting rid of the 16610. It just speaks to me like no other.

So why do I "need" a new sub? Well, you know.....

I might, however, do as franksremote suggests..... wait a bit for a pre-loved one at any rate. Will save me some $ and make the hunt more interesting too.

[dligg72]

I see no point in spending so much $$ to have both. If you want another Rolex I would get something completely different. Maybe a GMT II or Explorer II. I have a SS Sub-C and SS Datejust with a jubilee bracelet and I love how different they are.

[Jannal]

Yes, only if I'm into collecting divers watches.

I'm looking to get a Sub Date 16610 (already have the LV version) then a Sub C 116610, black dial.

Recently sold the Sub No Date 14060M, perfer a watch with a date on it.

[roadie1]

If I had a 16610, I wouldn't get the sub - c. I miss my 16610:(

[manuu]

I wouldn't.
I looked at both and finally decided on the 16610 couple of weeks back... just looked better to me.
My next rolex will definitely be the 39mm explorer. But before that I have to satiate my yearning for an IWC IW3714-01 Portuguese ( will get it this summer ).

[dalip]

I saw a lot of new sub c's whilst traveling recently... A lot! They looked fantastic on. I have the 16610lv and DSSD but would still consider adding the new C if i were after another rolex. They are different enough. But I'd rather wait for the new expII next year and get another PAM in the meantime. The subC does not have enough draw for me.

I also don't think you'll find them too similar once on. Whilst subtle the differences are broad and significant enough to make having both a good option.

[htc8p]

its an overlap in terms of function but as a whole, the new sub is an overhaul.

[jnkay]

I might do it. I complimented my 16610 with a SSGMT-IIc, but would also own a SS Sub-C.

[SS Oyster]

I've got both ... love them both. Both LV's actually, but put black bezel insert on 50th LV to provide options.

[playingolf]

not me. i don't have either sub and wouldn't buy both. i'm interested in the sub c, but haven't pulled the trigger yet, because it looks very similar to my gmtllc.