ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

The Mantis · 16 March 2009, 07:17 AM

Are there any exceptions to the news Subs or are they all 40mm?

ijen0311 · 16 March 2009, 07:19 AM

Yes, unless you find them in the toilet

haakon59 · 16 March 2009, 07:32 AM

No, although the new Deep Sea model (which is sort of sub like) is 43mm and thicker (I can't remember how thick). My understanding is that the newer redesigned subs (they have only released them in gold so far, I have seen the white gold model) is also 40mm, but we'll have to see what they decide to do at Basel this year. 40mm used to be consider big when this model was first introduced 50 some years ago.

Rolex Lover · 16 March 2009, 07:39 AM

IMHO, the 40 MM is the minimum for me to accept as a diameter for a watch like the Sub.

train-time · 16 March 2009, 07:41 AM

I personally like the 40 mm size. It's comfortable for both casual and can be worn with a suit. I will not buy any watch over 42 mm. I have had 43 and 44 mm and eventually sold them because of their size.

The Mantis · 16 March 2009, 07:50 AM

So all the new 14060M only come in 40mm

The GMT Master · 16 March 2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mantis

So all the new 14060M only come in 40mm

That's correct

Psmith · 16 March 2009, 10:51 PM

I thought that the 14060s were 39mm?

I think the case is smaller in some way compared to the Sub Date

Cheers

The GMT Master · 16 March 2009, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psmith

I thought that the 14060s were 39mm?

I think the case is smaller in some way compared to the Sub Date

Cheers

They're the same as far as I know

Perhaps it's just an illusion due to the lack of date and cyclops?

padi56 · 16 March 2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psmith

I thought that the 14060s were 39mm?

I think the case is smaller in some way compared to the Sub Date

Cheers

I am sure that 1mm is neither here or there,they are both 20mm lug width, allthough the non date has a thinner case.But the difference is very very small indeed.

Psmith · 16 March 2009, 11:12 PM

According to the below chart, the 14060s (& 16600 Seadweller) are 39.5mm, and the Daytona is 39mm

½mm seems like a v small difference - in fact just ¼mm on either side, if you know what I mean...

Cheers

rolexgiants · 16 March 2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psmith

According to the below chart, the 14060s (& 16600 Seadweller) are 39.5mm, and the Daytona is 39mm

½mm seems like a v small difference - in fact just ¼mm on either side, if you know what I mean...

Cheers

great chart.....thank you for posting it!!!! would you happen to have a chart like this with all the weights of these watches

Psmith · 16 March 2009, 11:29 PM

Sorry, I don't have a weight chart. Here's the full size chart... probably a bit out of date...

(looks a bit small here - if you save a copy you can zoom in)

Cheers

stusrt · 16 March 2009, 11:38 PM

I tried on the new white-gold sub at my ad and compared it side-by-side with a regular sub.
They are both 40mm, but the WG seems bigger because of the lugs and case.
Just like the new GMT's seem bigger, even though still 40mm

AJF · 17 March 2009, 01:43 AM

I did not realise that the Daytona's were 39 mm case size. Although I had read elsewhere that the DJ's were in fact 35 mm and not the 36 mm as advertised.

Interestingly the OP Dates are 34 mm as advertised.

Thnks for posting!

AJF

Subexplorer · 17 March 2009, 01:55 AM

Psmith: very interesting chart, and very surprising to me to know this very little difference in diameter between variants of Sub.
Allways thought all of them were 40 mm, and though very very small, there is a difference I have never noticed.

By the way, as an old Sub user, I find its size an exact balance for a diver´s watch and professional tool like this Rolex.

IMHO I see no reason to make it bigger nor heavier than the classic Sub (date or no date). I use my Sub as a daily wearer, and also in sport diving activities.

I also own SD and DSSD, but only as a Rolex lover, but don´t find necessary the extra weight or bulk of these watches, though I fully recognize they are true marvels from the point of view of engineering, design and craftmanship.

Kind regards, Abel

postiff · 17 March 2009, 03:30 AM

IMO anything over 43mm you can eat dinner off of. I myself am partial to the 40mm with my dainty wrist. I just saw what looked like a pastry tin on a guys wrist last week and OMG…

The Mantis · 17 March 2009, 05:25 AM

I hear ya...its the reason why I returned my Planet Ocean 45.5....it had its own zip code but it also was stacked very high on my wrist.

16 March 2009, 07:17 AM	#1
The Mantis Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: PA Watch: Sub 14060 Posts: 50	Are all Subs 40MM? Are there any exceptions to the news Subs or are they all 40mm?

16 March 2009, 10:51 PM	#8
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	I thought that the 14060s were 39mm? I think the case is smaller in some way compared to the Sub Date Cheers __________________

16 March 2009, 11:12 PM	#11
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	According to the below chart, the 14060s (& 16600 Seadweller) are 39.5mm, and the Daytona is 39mm ½mm seems like a v small difference - in fact just ¼mm on either side, if you know what I mean... Cheers Attached Images __________________

16 March 2009, 11:29 PM	#13
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	Sorry, I don't have a weight chart. Here's the full size chart... probably a bit out of date... (looks a bit small here - if you save a copy you can zoom in) Cheers Attached Images __________________

17 March 2009, 01:55 AM	#16
Subexplorer 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Abel Location: Down South Watch: Rolex Submariner Posts: 2,234	Psmith: very interesting chart, and very surprising to me to know this very little difference in diameter between variants of Sub. Allways thought all of them were 40 mm, and though very very small, there is a difference I have never noticed. By the way, as an old Sub user, I find its size an exact balance for a diver´s watch and professional tool like this Rolex. IMHO I see no reason to make it bigger nor heavier than the classic Sub (date or no date). I use my Sub as a daily wearer, and also in sport diving activities. I also own SD and DSSD, but only as a Rolex lover, but don´t find necessary the extra weight or bulk of these watches, though I fully recognize they are true marvels from the point of view of engineering, design and craftmanship. Kind regards, Abel __________________ 50 Years of ROLEX Passion! Grail Rolex: 5508 c. 1959 "Bond" Sub.

16 March 2009, 07:19 AM	#2
ijen0311 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jen Location: Jax, FL Watch: Sea-Dweller Posts: 3,977	Yes, unless you find them in the toilet

16 March 2009, 07:32 AM	#3
haakon59 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,571	No, although the new Deep Sea model (which is sort of sub like) is 43mm and thicker (I can't remember how thick). My understanding is that the newer redesigned subs (they have only released them in gold so far, I have seen the white gold model) is also 40mm, but we'll have to see what they decide to do at Basel this year. 40mm used to be consider big when this model was first introduced 50 some years ago.

16 March 2009, 07:39 AM	#4
Rolex Lover Member Join Date: May 2008 Real Name: Ahmed Keraidy Location: Cairo,Egypt Watch: Submariner 16610 M Posts: 816	IMHO, the 40 MM is the minimum for me to accept as a diameter for a watch like the Sub.

16 March 2009, 07:41 AM	#5
train-time 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Plankton Location: US Watch: less Posts: 4,161	I personally like the 40 mm size. It's comfortable for both casual and can be worn with a suit. I will not buy any watch over 42 mm. I have had 43 and 44 mm and eventually sold them because of their size.

16 March 2009, 07:50 AM	#6
The Mantis Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: PA Watch: Sub 14060 Posts: 50	So all the new 14060M only come in 40mm

16 March 2009, 11:38 PM	#14
stusrt "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Motor City Watch: too many Posts: 1,114	I tried on the new white-gold sub at my ad and compared it side-by-side with a regular sub. They are both 40mm, but the WG seems bigger because of the lugs and case. Just like the new GMT's seem bigger, even though still 40mm

17 March 2009, 01:43 AM	#15
AJF Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Real Name: Ally Location: Surrey (UK) Watch: 15223 Posts: 638	I did not realise that the Daytona's were 39 mm case size. Although I had read elsewhere that the DJ's were in fact 35 mm and not the 36 mm as advertised. Interestingly the OP Dates are 34 mm as advertised. Thnks for posting! AJF

17 March 2009, 03:30 AM	#17
postiff Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Danny Location: Ca Watch: 116710LN Posts: 936	IMO anything over 43mm you can eat dinner off of. I myself am partial to the 40mm with my dainty wrist. I just saw what looked like a pastry tin on a guys wrist last week and OMG…

17 March 2009, 05:25 AM	#18
The Mantis Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: PA Watch: Sub 14060 Posts: 50	I hear ya...its the reason why I returned my Planet Ocean 45.5....it had its own zip code but it also was stacked very high on my wrist.

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