Sub versus GMT II

[Mr. Sam Patek]

I have finally decided to buy my first Rolex and have narrowed to the SS Sub (Date) versus the GMT II. In a nutshell, the GMT does have appeal as I travel overseas regularly but the Sub is 300 meters resistant even though I do not plan to dive with it!

The issues I was uncertain about was a) comparison of movements in terms of durability, b) are the bands comparable or is the Sub unique with the micro adjustment, c) is one more or less susceptible to scratching than the other, d) if the GMT II more under the radar (preferable). Any and all comments would be appreciated. This would be strictly an everyday/sports watch as I am set for the levels of dress beyond jeans and shorts and G-Shocks work great as a backup to my dive computer.

[threemonkeys]

GMT tends to be a bit blingy as the center links are polished.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam Patek

I have finally decided to buy my first Rolex and have narrowed to the SS Sub (Date) versus the GMT II. In a nutshell, the GMT does have appeal as I travel overseas regularly but the Sub is 300 meters resistant even though I do not plan to dive with it!

The issues I was uncertain about was a) comparison of movements in terms of durability, b) are the bands comparable or is the Sub unique with the micro adjustment, c) is one more or less susceptible to scratching than the other, d) if the GMT II more under the radar (preferable). Any and all comments would be appreciated. This would be strictly an everyday/sports watch as I am set for the levels of dress beyond jeans and shorts and G-Shocks work great as a backup to my dive computer.

If you are not diving with it then the extra WR is a non-issue. If you will use the GMT function, that is a distinct plus.

A) Both are proven quality Rolex movements, so no worries there either way.

B) Both have oyster bracelets, the difference is in the clasp. The Fliplock clasp on the Sub does allow finer on the fly adjustment without tools, but is significantly wider than that on the GMT. The GMT utilizes an easylink, that allows about a 1/3 link adjustment without tools. The clasp does allow adjustment similar to the old Sub bracelet by pushing out a pin and sliding to a new position.

C) The PCLs on the GMT will show scratches more.

D) The GMT is more under the radar in terms of fewer people will know what it is, though those that don't know what it is will still identify it as a Rolex because they will think it's a Sub. On the other hand, the PCLs do make it pop a bit more.

Both are great, iconic watches. Your choice. Best of luck.

[beshannon]

If those were my choices and requirements I would take the GMT for the extra complication.

[mruhland31]

I've always loved dive watches. Ever since I was young they've held my fancy so when I bought my first Rolex it was the Sub C Date and the decision was an easy one. Further more I really don't travel that much. I mention my experience purely so you can see what helped form my choice. You mentioned right off the bat that you do travel so I think that should strongly play into your decision. They are both great watches. My brother actually has both and wears the GMT more as he travels a lot. I think the post above makes a great point that the GMT does have that extra complication. Personally I don't care for the polished center links but a lot of people really do. I wouldn't worry about the water resistance as you're not going to drown the GMT in the pool or shower. Just my thoughts. Can't go wrong either way. Good luck, welcome to TRF, and please post pics when you decide
Cheers

[Rashid.bk]

Water resistance is a non issue unless you are a very serious diver.
Both movements are durable.
The clasp on the Sub is better.
The GMT2 is more comfy by a hair since its a bit thinner.
I grew to love my GMT's pcls some don't like it, I love them.
You'll get more use out of the GMT2 since you're a traveler.
The GMT2 can be casual but equally dresses up a bit better than the Sub.
Yes the GMT2 has pcls and they show a bit more swirls and scratches but after a while they'll all blend in and the watch will look normal.
I think because of the pcls the GMT2 attracts more attention if any, as the Sub just passes as another ss watch to the casual observer, both are Rolexes so those who know, will know.

In your case, get the GMT2, it's the clear choice.

[kilyung]

Sounds like you want the sub.

[Tools]

I always have trouble with these sort of questions.. It does not appear that you have any plans to use either watch as it was intended or you would not have this sort of question.. they are completely different as to function as you have pointed out..

You should always get the watch that you want to put on each morning and fits your lifestyle - or the lifestyle that you want to identify with.


Never-the-less:
a. Both watches and their movements have been doing fine since the early 1950's
b. Only the Sub and DSSD have a glidelock clasp, the GMT has EZ-link
c. Both are the same stainless steel. The GMT has more shiny surfaces that will show scratches.
d. The GMT is now a Disco-in-your-face nightclub watch and is no longer true to it's roots. The Sub is more casual.

I'm sure that you will be happy with either..

[brandrea]

GMT a disco watch I don't think so ... But to each his own

[Urosfan]

Either way it's a win win situation

[swils8610]

I have both. The GMT get a lot more wrist time. I happen to really like the PCL's.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jvo300]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Sounds like you want the sub.

Yep.

[Bobcat09]

I prefer the GMT but you can't go wrong either way.

[improviz]

GMT had plenty of bling available in its previous iteration with the Jubilee bracelet, which IMO is quite a bit more blingy than a PCL Oyster, so a bit of bling is not new to this line:


However OP if your decision hangs on that, be advised that lots of folks here have gotten center links brushed on their GMTs and love it. I'd say get the one that sings to you the most, unless the multi-timezone feature of the GMT manes it more practical for you since you travel.

[Coubs]

From what I have read here the pearl on the Sub is somewhat vulnerable and costly to repair.

[Mr. Sam Patek]

Wow, this forum really rocks. Appreciate the input, I need to check on the polished links as I really want to be as non-blingy as possible.

[peacemaker1ps]

Go check them out in person and try them on.

I had my heart set on GMT II and ended up with SUB.

[mailman]

Both are great watches and you can't go wrong with either one. I really tried to love the GMT for my everyday watch...twice. Both times I went with the Sub

[zion_rasta]

It sounds like your heart is set on the Sub even though you said you want a low profile watch.

Your requirements are the definition of a GMT. I loved my sub, but hated it when I traveled since it does nothing for time zones.

I always go with my motto. Your first rolex should be a Sub. Then once you get past that phase, go get what you really need.

[imperio]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam Patek

I have finally decided to buy my first Rolex and have narrowed to the SS Sub (Date) versus the GMT II. In a nutshell, the GMT does have appeal as I travel overseas regularly but the Sub is 300 meters resistant even though I do not plan to dive with it!

The issues I was uncertain about was a) comparison of movements in terms of durability, b) are the bands comparable or is the Sub unique with the micro adjustment, c) is one more or less susceptible to scratching than the other, d) if the GMT II more under the radar (preferable). Any and all comments would be appreciated. This would be strictly an everyday/sports watch as I am set for the levels of dress beyond jeans and shorts and G-Shocks work great as a backup to my dive computer.

b) Bracelet on the sub is better - I adjust it approx twice a day while at work (usually after lunch)

c) Scratches are inevitable and will show more on the GMT.

d) GMT is less under the radar as it is more reflective due to the PCL and is more of a dress watch, not really an "everyday/sports watch".

Hope that helps.

[Investr]

Easy question for me- SUB! I personally don't like the bezel on the GMT at all with all the numbers.

[HL65]

Sub for me but either way you can't lose.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by improviz

GMT had plenty of bling available in its previous iteration with the Jubilee bracelet, which IMO is quite a bit more blingy than a PCL Oyster, so a bit of bling is not new to this line:

That's a great picture I love previous generation GMT's on a Jubilee I see the Sub is on one too which I think is a great look

[Vivalas]

I was going sub (hulk) but after trying it on I bought the GMT11 (batman) yesterday and I love it!

[improviz]

Originally Posted by mailman

That's a great picture I love previous generation GMT's on a Jubilee I see the Sub is on one too which I think is a great look

Thanks! Wish I could claim credit for taking it, lol! I agree that the previous GMTs on Jubilee look great, very classy!

[rouxeny]

I recently had both on my wrist at an AD. Sub is slightly heavier and thicker, gmt seemed more comfortable. Honestly, they seemed very similar.

Personally I'd pick the gmt, as the complication would actually be useful to me.

[eeh100773]

Sub. And if you can, go for a 114060 or 14060. Better looking watch IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robbyman]

The GMT is not a Sub.

Iconic, legendary, subtle, no polished links, it just is what it is and for me beats the GMT hands down.

The GMT is cheaper second hand so see that whichever way you will.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Broker Boy]

+1

[AboutTime]

I asked myself exactly the same question recently and, despite the fact that my wife and I travel frequently, I chose the Sub. Although I am not a diver, I prefer the appearance and function of the Sub's bezel and the uniformly brushed appearance of the Sub's bracelet.