Can you think of anything that would improve the Sub C?

[speedo]

Originally Posted by capote

I can't really understand this opinion. Do you want Rolex to stop with their research and development? Would you prefer if Rolex still used Valjoux movements for the Daytona line? I would prefer a movement that was even tougher, more accurate, with a greater power reserve etc than the current one. If you leave the development to Omega before you know it people will say "I don't want to pay Omega prices for a Rolex"

I think Rolex would cease to exist eventually if they stopped their R&D. As much as I don't agree with much of Omega's marketing strategy, or the fact that they released the first co-axial movement without a sufficient quality control, the new generation of PO is the way to update a watch IMO. Smaller design changes and larger movement changes, not the other way around like Rolex has done with the GMT-c and Sub-c.

In the end development benefits the consumer, we will get better products no matter if we choose Rolex or Omega, or something equal)

One picture to illustrate why you can't rely on old "sufficient" products.

i must have expressed myself bad, sorry for that.

i guess the parallelism with the typewriter is top notch. both machines are relics of a different age though for some reason we do have an emotional attachment towards the mechanical watch and we have abandoned our typewriters for the modern word processing computers. that is the reason that talking about development in case of a practically redundant construction is anachronistic.

what do we develop? the precision? is the co-axial more precise than the 3135? the service interval? does the coaxial need less maintenance? is the power reserve significantly longer? yes, a bit. is the coaxial more durable? we don't know yet, but the signs are worrying. omega has had so many flops in the last few decades that i cannot count now. and rolex? i can't really recall any.

and the reason for that in my opinion is easy: mature r&d instead of marketing gimmicks. for some reason i wouldn't have doubts with a brand new rolex movement but i guess for that it is necessary to test those movements which takes time. if rolex wants to preserve its fame, it shouldn't market half ready products since people buy rolex to have them for decades.

hope it makes some sense.

[00Seven]

Originally Posted by CAPDSSD

I was introduced to Subs through Ian Fleming's books and researched from there, but never paid attention to the movement designation.

I don't think the Sub was ever in the original books...

[amani]

Capote, i am totally with you on this one. We all need to move on. I totally agree that newer not necessary better, but thats the whole point of innovation and R&D, fail and improve. We improve ourselves from faliure. The old VW beetle engine and Windows 98 are both very reliable and as bulletproof as they could be but didn't mean there were no need for improvement. I do like to see innovation even not necessary good. I guess there are always 2 groups of crowds, love the good old days and expecting the tomorrows. AND I do love to have a red sub myself.

[speedo]

Originally Posted by amani

Capote, i am totally with you on this one. We all need to move on. I totally agree that newer not necessary better, but thats the whole point of innovation and R&D, fail and improve. We improve ourselves from faliure. The old VW beetle engine and Windows 98 are both very reliable and as bulletproof as they could be but didn't mean there were no need for improvement. I do like to see innovation even not necessary good. I guess there are always 2 groups of crowds, love the good old days and expecting the tomorrows. AND I do love to have a red sub myself.

for some reason i'd be really disappointed if i picked a "fail" watch, car etc.
thoughtful r&d would be my choice, just like rolex does it.
and i do love the modern rolexes.

[CAPDSSD]

Originally Posted by 00Seven

I don't think the Sub was ever in the original books...

Actually you have a point there. I know in one of the books he wore a Rolex and once took it off to put around his fingers, brass knuckle style, in preparation for a fight. I don't remember if a Submariner was specified.

Still, those books introduced me to, and set my interest toward, Rolex and the iconic Sub.

[moby33]

Originally Posted by masterserg

maybe a fully gradated bezel

That's what I would do...I like the bezel on my DSSD better due to the fully graduated aspect.

Also, I like the DSSD Glidelock better in that I can make the micro-adjustments without taking the watch off. So I would put that clasp on the SubC and it would be perfect IMO.

[Eric88]

Agreed on less bulky lugs and add some sexy chamfers plus a brushed silver date wheel and crystal that stands taller above the bezel ala SD.

[amani]

Originally Posted by speedo

for some reason i'd be really disappointed if i picked a "fail" watch, car etc.
thoughtful r&d would be my choice, just like rolex does it.
and i do love the modern rolexes.

well, only time will tell, when the recent movement first came out, no one knows it will still be around for so long. and of course thoughtful r&d would be everyones choice, but nobody can tell whether it will be a failure or not, unless the product remains in the stage of development for 20 years before comming out. I guess I misinterpret myself, i do have a modern rolex and just love to have a red sub, all i am trying to say is the time does move forward but there is always room for the past.

[Explorertwo]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Inspired by this thread, I told my wife I was making a list of ways she too could subtly improve herself.

Now I'm single.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by sleddog

Stipends!!

We all got ours in early January

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

Once an enabler always an enabler.

You know I was thinking of you when I typed it

[masterserg]

Originally Posted by mike

Secondly, if other makers can put superluminova in the insert why won't Rolex?

This would be interesting to see, though I like the platinum too much!