Submariner GMT Ceramic Comparison Photo

[flumazenil]

I'm thinking about ordering a Submariner from Alan Furman to add to my collection. I have a GMT ceramic and was wondering how it compares to the Submariner in size. None of my AD's have one in stock. I was wondering if anyone had both watches and would be kind enough to post some side by side comparison shots.

Thanks,

Henry

[BuffaloRolex]

The bezel sizes are the same, but the GMT IIc wears and looks larger because of its supercase.

I know Mike had some nice comparison shots of the GTM IIc against other models...

[Robb]

I will post some as soon as I get home. I took a few of my GMT-c beside my LV

[mike]

Don't have a side by side of the black sub and GMT IIc (I'll work on that).

Here's some of the GMT and LV, and SD,

[Robb]

These are not as good as Mike's but here ya go!!!!

[robbyrolex]

What do ya'll think the reason for creating a super case are?

It looks a bit beefier, was there a need to strengthen an already strong case?

The curves on the lugs seem less curved on the super, does that change the fit at all?

Even the crown guards are more substantial looking.

The

[Texsubmariner]

The reason for the new supercase is most likely the recent trend to wear big watches. This depends on your personal taste. I am not aware of the need to strengthen the old case.

[JBat]

The crowns on both watches are exactly the same, the TripLock crown.

For you guys that have both, I'd be interested to hear how differently the two watches wear. It's hard to tell just from pics if the fit would be much different, because really they aren't all that much different case diameter wise. The GMT IIc is definitely a substantial watch, but it wears fine on my rather slender wrist.

Just curious.

[fear]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the new Milgauss is a supercase right? Look's more streamlined than the new GMTs. I'm ok with that on a new Sub.

[flumazenil]

Thanks for the excellent pictures. It does look like the Sub has more taper in the case and it looks like it would wear smaller than the GMT II ceramic.

[ROGERB]

I guess it's just me but I find the super case width to not look as "finished" as the Submariner because of the strap width......seems to fit the Sub better IMHO
R

[robrtx]

I alternate between a TT GMT IIc and Sub LV. The GMT feels beefier and a bit heavier but not bulky because it actually seems to sit lower on the wrist. The Sub feels lighter and not as sturdy compared to the new style GMT bracelet. Just my opinions.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by robbyrolex

What do ya'll think the reason for creating a super case are?

It looks a bit beefier, was there a need to strengthen an already strong case?

The curves on the lugs seem less curved on the super, does that change the fit at all?

Even the crown guards are more substantial looking.

The

On the contrary. The GMT IIc is the most comfortable Rolex I have ever worn. The low positioned caseback contributes to the great fit.

[Baptistman]

And yet the new GMT is only guaranteed waterproof for 100m

[Robb]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

On the contrary. The GMT IIc is the most comfortable Rolex I have ever worn. The low positioned caseback contributes to the great fit.

I agree. The GMT-c is the most comfortable watch I have ever had!!

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by Baptistman

And yet the new GMT is only guaranteed waterproof for 100m

Yes, officially it is only waterproof to 100 metres, but having a Triplock crown which is rated to be able to withstand depths of up to 1,220 metres, POTENTIALLY the GMT IIc should be able to hold water at much greater depths than just the standard 100 metres that Rolex guarantees.

I guess the reason why Rolex does not state it can go further down is that the GMT II is not a officially a diver's watch.

[Trurolexer]

Welcome back Mike. Do you already back from vacation?

[mike]

Originally Posted by fear

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the new Milgauss is a supercase right? Look's more streamlined than the new GMTs. I'm ok with that on a new Sub.

The Milgauss is certainly thick. Due in part to the use of the faraday cage.

[flumazenil]

Thanks for the excellent photos and comments.

[skilldiver]

I just bought a GMT IIc last week and have had a Sub for around 4 years. I wouldn't say one was a great difference from the other feel wise. Unless I think about the differences they feel quite similar. Also, when I look down at the GMT I don't think "damn that's a lot bigger than the old one". The size difference is not noticeable unless they are side by side. The GMT is more comfortable if I am being critical and I think it is because the Sub sits noticeably higher off of my wrist. My GMT is a bit heavier but it also isn't noticeable when wearing because it is closer fitting. On the sub you can almost see the caseback and on the newer design the case almost touches your wrist. These of course are only my observations and these watches might fit you differently.

[Ed Rooney]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

Yes, officially it is only waterproof to 100 metres, but having a Triplock crown which is rated to be able to withstand depths of up to 1,220 metres, POTENTIALLY the GMT IIc should be able to hold water at much greater depths than just the standard 100 metres that Rolex guarantees.

I guess the reason why Rolex does not state it can go further down is that the GMT II is not a officially a diver's watch.

The thickness of the caseback and crystal are also contributing factors.

[JBat]

Originally Posted by skilldiver

I just bought a GMT IIc last week and have had a Sub for around 4 years. I wouldn't say one was a great difference from the other feel wise. Unless I think about the differences they feel quite similar. Also, when I look down at the GMT I don't think "damn that's a lot bigger than the old one". The size difference is not noticeable unless they are side by side. The GMT is more comfortable if I am being critical and I think it is because the Sub sits noticeably higher off of my wrist. My GMT is a bit heavier but it also isn't noticeable when wearing because it is closer fitting. On the sub you can almost see the caseback and on the newer design the case almost touches your wrist. These of course are only my observations and these watches might fit you differently.

Good info. Thanks.

[RolexADinFL]

A stainless Sub from AF is only discounted $150 and this is a gray watch probably not even from US???

Why not give the business to a US dealer, you could probably even find one to match that price.

[vjb.knife]

They don't wear very differently, it's really just the lug area at the bracelet and the crown guards that are thicker. I wish they had widened the bracelet to 22mm at the case. and 20mm at the clasp but overall the bracelet is 100% better on the new GMT than the Sub.

[Texsubmariner]

The GMT IIc is heavier than the Sub (almost like the SD), but it sits lower on the wrist, making it easier to wear under cuffs. Looking at the wrist, though, the GMT is noticeably wider/larger than the Sub due to the supercase.

Vince, Great pics!

[Texsubmariner]

Originally Posted by SPACE-DWELLER

Yes, officially it is only waterproof to 100 metres, but having a Triplock crown which is rated to be able to withstand depths of up to 1,220 metres, POTENTIALLY the GMT IIc should be able to hold water at much greater depths than just the standard 100 metres that Rolex guarantees.

I guess the reason why Rolex does not state it can go further down is that the GMT II is not a officially a diver's watch.

Well, the crown is only one component of waterproofness. The caseback of the 2 watches are different, and I believe this also contributes to the different depth rating. The Sub caseback is signifiantly thicker than the GMT, and the SD's caseback is thicker than the Sub's. I think someone posted a review of the GMT and Sub comparison, and mentioned that the GMT IIc's caseback is more flexible than the Sub's.