ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

blue lion · 1 May 2013, 10:07 AM

is there a noticeable weight difference? I have a 2006 Sub and tried on a 2006 GMT II today at a reputable store. I was surprised how much lighter the GMT was. I'm sure it's authentic and I guess this is normal? Is the Sub's extra weight due to the thickness of the case and its diving ability?
Thanks.

Armyguy03 · 1 May 2013, 10:08 AM

It is lighter. I am unsure of what the weight difference is, but I notice a difference between my Sub Date, Sub, and GMT. From heaviest to lightest in that order.

pp763 · 1 May 2013, 10:12 AM

I owned a 16610 and a 16710 and the only difference I noticed was when I bought a sea dweller 4000 which was like a tank compared to the other 2

mrhy · 1 May 2013, 10:17 AM

yes

Roller07 · 1 May 2013, 10:19 AM

Yes GMT-II is lighter than a Sub.

My Z serial GMT II weighs 127 grams.
My Z serail sub weighs 135 grams.

It's also like that with the new ceramic models.

My G serial "Hulk" weighs a whopping 160 grams.
I dont have a GMT IIc to compare it to................yet.

springer · 1 May 2013, 10:20 AM

The Submariner might feel heavier due to the weight of the heavier 93150 bracelet compared to the 78360 Oyster and Jubilee bracelets which came on most GMT's.

nauticajoe · 1 May 2013, 10:20 AM

The GMT is definitely lighter than the Sub.

SUBversive · 1 May 2013, 10:21 AM

The gmt is lighter as it was designed for use in airplanes.

Victory07 · 1 May 2013, 10:25 AM

I've had both and yes, the GMTIIc is lighter than the Subc.

landroverking · 1 May 2013, 10:37 AM

The Subs I have had were TT and 18kf gold so yes the SS GMT was much lighter.

T. Ferguson · 1 May 2013, 11:21 AM

The GMT is lighter. Not by much in terms of actual grams, but you can feel the difference. I think it's mainly due to the slightly beefier case used on the Sub to attain the higher WR.

AK797 · 1 May 2013, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landroverking

The Subs I have had were TT and 18kf gold so yes the SS GMT was much lighter.

427shark · 1 May 2013, 12:12 PM

Yup had the gmtIIc and now subc. Sub is heavy and just feels so much more substantial IMO. Not sure the exact weight but was shocked at the heft my new dj2 tt has. I guess from the gold?

fishingbear · 1 May 2013, 12:19 PM

I have both the 16710 GMT and the 16610 Sub and the GMT in not only lighter in weight, it also wears different with a noticeable lower profile.

tfduff723 · 1 May 2013, 12:30 PM

I own both and as already stated, yes the 16710 is lighter.

I believe the combo of the caseback and bracelet is the reason. Here is a great reference link:

http://minus4plus6.com/sub.htm

swils8610 · 1 May 2013, 12:31 PM

Sub is heavier.

dba · 1 May 2013, 02:21 PM

Can't say as I've never paid any attention to it. I just put one on and go.

sea-dweller · 1 May 2013, 02:41 PM

The older GMT 16750's are even lighter. They have an acrylic crystal.

1 May 2013, 10:07 AM	#1
blue lion "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Florida State! Watch: It's just a watch. Posts: 1,463	If you've owned/worn a GMT II and a Sub... is there a noticeable weight difference? I have a 2006 Sub and tried on a 2006 GMT II today at a reputable store. I was surprised how much lighter the GMT was. I'm sure it's authentic and I guess this is normal? Is the Sub's extra weight due to the thickness of the case and its diving ability? Thanks.

1 May 2013, 10:08 AM	#2
Armyguy03 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: DM[V] Watch: 16710 \| 16600 Posts: 3,546	It is lighter. I am unsure of what the weight difference is, but I notice a difference between my Sub Date, Sub, and GMT. From heaviest to lightest in that order. __________________ Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

1 May 2013, 10:20 AM	#6
springer 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: jP Location: Texas Watch: GMT-MASTER Posts: 17,319	The Submariner might feel heavier due to the weight of the heavier 93150 bracelet compared to the 78360 Oyster and Jubilee bracelets which came on most GMT's. __________________ Member of NAWCC since 1990. INSTAGRAM USER NAME: SPRINGERJFP Visit my Instagram page to view some of the finest vintage GMTs anywhere - as well as other vintage classics.

1 May 2013, 11:21 AM	#11
T. Ferguson "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Left Coast Posts: 7,025	The GMT is lighter. Not by much in terms of actual grams, but you can feel the difference. I think it's mainly due to the slightly beefier case used on the Sub to attain the higher WR. __________________ *Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.*

1 May 2013, 12:19 PM	#14
fishingbear 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: George Location: Alabama Watch: GMTsSubLVEx2SDDayt Posts: 4,549	I have both the 16710 GMT and the 16610 Sub and the GMT in not only lighter in weight, it also wears different with a noticeable lower profile. Last edited by fishingbear; 1 May 2013 at 12:20 PM.. Reason: typo

1 May 2013, 10:12 AM	#3
pp763 Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: U.K Watch: 116610LN Posts: 121	I owned a 16610 and a 16710 and the only difference I noticed was when I bought a sea dweller 4000 which was like a tank compared to the other 2

1 May 2013, 10:17 AM	#4
mrhy "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: new york Watch: Pepsi GMT Posts: 2,383	yes

1 May 2013, 10:19 AM	#5
Roller07 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: GMT -5 Watch: HulkPepsiCoke Posts: 2,364	Yes GMT-II is lighter than a Sub. My Z serial GMT II weighs 127 grams. My Z serail sub weighs 135 grams. It's also like that with the new ceramic models. My G serial "Hulk" weighs a whopping 160 grams. I dont have a GMT IIc to compare it to................yet.

1 May 2013, 10:20 AM	#7
nauticajoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Joe Location: PA Posts: 14,774	The GMT is definitely lighter than the Sub.

1 May 2013, 10:21 AM	#8
SUBversive Banned Join Date: May 2011 Location: ri Watch: Sun Dial Posts: 14,346	The gmt is lighter as it was designed for use in airplanes.

1 May 2013, 10:25 AM	#9
Victory07 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: U.S. Posts: 118	I've had both and yes, the GMTIIc is lighter than the Subc.

1 May 2013, 10:37 AM	#10
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	The Subs I have had were TT and 18kf gold so yes the SS GMT was much lighter.

1 May 2013, 12:12 PM	#13
427shark "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Real Name: JD Location: Jersey Watch: Dj2 tt, 126610LV Posts: 772	Yup had the gmtIIc and now subc. Sub is heavy and just feels so much more substantial IMO. Not sure the exact weight but was shocked at the heft my new dj2 tt has. I guess from the gold?

1 May 2013, 12:30 PM	#15
tfduff723 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Michigan USA Watch: Rolex & Omega 4 Me Posts: 1,685	I own both and as already stated, yes the 16710 is lighter. I believe the combo of the caseback and bracelet is the reason. Here is a great reference link: http://minus4plus6.com/sub.htm

1 May 2013, 12:31 PM	#16
swils8610 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Real Name: shannon Location: usa Posts: 9,211	Sub is heavier.

1 May 2013, 02:21 PM	#17
dba 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Real Name: David Location: Gardnerville, NV Watch: 16710 Posts: 2,706	Can't say as I've never paid any attention to it. I just put one on and go.

1 May 2013, 02:41 PM	#18
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	The older GMT 16750's are even lighter. They have an acrylic crystal.

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