ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Fiery · 12 March 2014, 05:30 AM

I'm not sure how could you pick the Sub-C with the wide lugs without knowing that it had wide lugs. It's such a watch feature that is quite easy to recognize. It's not a hidden feature of the watch that you can only get to know after wearing it for a while. Or maybe you picked the Sub-C because you wanted a brand new watch? Anyway, that's spilled milk, so if you cannot live with the lugs, then it makes no sense to hang on to the Sub-C. Trade it in towards a previous generation model, they're just as iconic (if not more iconic) as the Sub-C, and if you go for a late 16610, you get almost the same set of features and the same movement as well. BTW, AFAIK finding a BNIB SD is not an easy task these days, so if you like that model, then I'd say go for it. The most important thing is to own a Rolex that you're fully satisfied with. BTW #2, have you considered a vintage model? E.g. 5513. Happy hunting

WyoWatch · 12 March 2014, 05:30 AM

This didn't occur to you before buying the watch?

psv · 12 March 2014, 05:41 AM

I used to be all miffed about the new proportions of the case, rant about how the SD16600 was all better but at the end, I think the new SubC design update is a successful one. I find the maxi dial and hands advantages far out-weighs any aesthetic concerns, as much so that I have a hard time enjoying my older Sub 16610 and I sold off the SD16600.

superdog · 12 March 2014, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psv

I used to be all miffed about the new proportions of the case, rant about how the SD16600 was all better but at the end, I think the new SubC design update is a successful one. I find the maxi dial and hands advantages far out-weighs any aesthetic concerns, as much so that I have a hard time enjoying my older Sub 16610 and I sold off the SD16600.

LOVE that watch.

Tridor · 12 March 2014, 06:03 AM

I had a GMT 16700 before I sold it to fund a SubC. The 16700 has a similar case and lug configuration to the 16610. When viewing the SubC on-line, I thought there was something "off" with the lugs as compared to the 16700; there was no tapering toward the bracelet as on the old model. Nonetheless, once I tried on a SubC in the store, I actually liked the beefier lugs, even if there was no tapering. That, coupled with all the great upgrades, sealed the deal for me. Also, I find the SubC to be much more comfortable to wear than the old style GMT. In the final analysis, you have to decide what's best for you. Certainly, going to a NOS SD is not a downgrade, and I would probably do that deal as opposed to buying a used 16610. Just follow your heart ... it will lead you in the right direction.

SaddleSC · 12 March 2014, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psv

I used to be all miffed about the new proportions of the case, rant about how the SD16600 was all better but at the end, I think the new SubC design update is a successful one. I find the maxi dial and hands advantages far out-weighs any aesthetic concerns, as much so that I have a hard time enjoying my older Sub 16610 and I sold off the SD16600.

Fantastic pic!

Jack T · 12 March 2014, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bangel

When I hold up pictures of the 16610 and the 116610 and ask my wife which one looks better, she'll take a glance and say "they look the same."

My wife says that about my Sub and my Planet Ocean, for crying out loud.

Jack T · 12 March 2014, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psv

I used to be all miffed about the new proportions of the case, rant about how the SD16600 was all better but at the end, I think the new SubC design update is a successful one. I find the maxi dial and hands advantages far out-weighs any aesthetic concerns, as much so that I have a hard time enjoying my older Sub 16610 and I sold off the SD16600.

Hard to argue against that watch

Roller07 · 12 March 2014, 06:09 AM

Sorry to hear you don't like your SubC.

That means more new Subs for us who do like it.

I hope you can find something you like better.

threemonkeys · 12 March 2014, 06:11 AM

I think the older sub would looks better on my chicken wrist. It was the new bracelet and ceramic that won me over.

bayerische · 12 March 2014, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Presa canary

Trading a sub for a sd in my mind is certainly not down grading... Op, I'd make that trade in a second...

+1, me too!

stockae92 · 12 March 2014, 06:16 AM

I think you are doing the right thing. If you don't like the Sub C, trade it in for a SD and stop worrying about the fat lugs on the Sub C.

To me, the Sub C is a revolution, not a evolution. So I look at it as a completely different watch than the previous Sub. And I am fine with it. :)

LFFL · 12 March 2014, 06:36 AM

14060M with the new glidelock bracelet would be my dream watch

MP5 · 12 March 2014, 06:57 AM

I agree 1000% with the OP and it's the only reason I don't have a new Sub preferring the older classy lugs. Even Rolex went back to the swoop lug on the EII. The only reason I don't have the new Omegas are the clownish height of the new cases and dumb display back

rainbowmax · 12 March 2014, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bangel

Very well said.

The wider lugs is what made me baulk about getting the sub c. I did anyway and got used to the lugs to the point where I thought it looked better. Then I would see someone wearing a 16610 and my initial reservations resurface. In the end, I prefer everything else about the sub c so I'm happy.

As Evan pointed out, the difference is subtle to everyone except the Rolex enthusiast. When I hold up pictures of the 16610 and the 116610 and ask my wife which one looks better, she'll take a glance and say "they look the same."

Your wife si very wise

Dr. Robert · 12 March 2014, 07:23 AM

Bah humbug...get a 14060, 16610 or 16600.
It's an upgrade.

rmfnla · 12 March 2014, 07:55 AM

Do a search of the ham-handed polishing jobs ranted about here on TRF; one of those guys could probably reduce those fat suckers for you in no time...

ronricks · 12 March 2014, 08:14 AM

Sub C has a far superior bracelet and clasp and the Ceramic bezel looks and wears much better than the cheap aluminum bezels.

busytimmy · 12 March 2014, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psv

I used to be all miffed about the new proportions of the case, rant about how the SD16600 was all better but at the end, I think the new SubC design update is a successful one. I find the maxi dial and hands advantages far out-weighs any aesthetic concerns, as much so that I have a hard time enjoying my older Sub 16610 and I sold off the SD16600.

Way to end the discussion

AK797 · 12 March 2014, 08:41 AM

Why did you buy it then? Not like the lugs suddenly grew once you got home.

nauticajoe · 12 March 2014, 08:49 AM

No sense holding on to a watch that doesn't make you smile.

Do the trade. Can't wait to see the SD.

landroverking · 12 March 2014, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronricks

Sub C has a far superior bracelet and clasp and the Ceramic bezel looks and wears much better than the cheap aluminum bezels.

Those cheap bezels been doing the job a long time. As far as the bracelet time will tell, plus how many put a bond like NATO on.

Robbyman · 12 March 2014, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK797

Why did you buy it then? Not like the lugs suddenly grew once you got home.

I wanted new, to have the latest, the new ceramic bezel and updated clasp and I tried to look past the lugs but they have got the best of me.

Wesley Crusher · 12 March 2014, 09:02 AM

Ultimately, you have to go with what your heart tells you. If you like the older style more, make the trade. You'll be a lot happier in the long run.

Robbyman · 12 March 2014, 09:03 AM

I forgot to mention my first child was born in 2013 and I wanted a Rolex to pass on to celebrate the birth from that year, hence why I tried to look past the fat lugs.

Coubs · 12 March 2014, 11:18 AM

If you don't like the SubC and have the opportunity to trade for SD don't wait.

Wesley Crusher · 12 March 2014, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbyman

I forgot to mention my first child was born in 2013 and I wanted a Rolex to pass on to celebrate the birth from that year, hence why I tried to look past the fat lugs.

Have you thought about keeping the SubC and saving up for an older Sub or SD? Once you get your new watch, you can put the SubC away until your son is old enough.

lmcgbaj · 12 March 2014, 11:33 AM

I will admit that the lugs bothered me a bit in the beginning but I love everything about the SubC now. It's just perfect for me. If it bothers you that much, trade it. That is the beauty of the Sub. You don't lose your pants on the trade. Be happy it was not a PO or something similar. You would have lose half of your money.

Dalton1 · 12 March 2014, 11:41 AM

Make the trade and don't look back. I feel the same way about the fat lugs. Now if they would make the bracelet wider I'd be headed to the AD tomorrow...

mrallen13 · 12 March 2014, 11:55 AM

The lugs on the SubC are not my favorite, but the rest of the watch makes up for them in my opinion. I find that the lugs are not a deal breaker for me and it's the one watch I never really consider selling. If they are a deal breaker for you though, then you should go with the SD. We each have our own things that are most important to us and if the thinner lugs is yours, then you'll never be happy with a SubC.

12 March 2014, 05:30 AM	#31
Fiery "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Europe Watch: Sub-C 116610LN Posts: 2,649	I'm not sure how could you pick the Sub-C with the wide lugs without knowing that it had wide lugs. It's such a watch feature that is quite easy to recognize. It's not a hidden feature of the watch that you can only get to know after wearing it for a while. Or maybe you picked the Sub-C because you wanted a brand new watch? Anyway, that's spilled milk, so if you cannot live with the lugs, then it makes no sense to hang on to the Sub-C. Trade it in towards a previous generation model, they're just as iconic (if not more iconic) as the Sub-C, and if you go for a late 16610, you get almost the same set of features and the same movement as well. BTW, AFAIK finding a BNIB SD is not an easy task these days, so if you like that model, then I'd say go for it. The most important thing is to own a Rolex that you're fully satisfied with. BTW #2, have you considered a vintage model? E.g. 5513. Happy hunting __________________ "In an age of obsolescence and gimmickry, this simple classic virtue of a Rolex is indeed a rarity." (Rolex ad from 1974)

12 March 2014, 06:16 AM	#42
stockae92 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Socal Posts: 4,964	I think you are doing the right thing. If you don't like the Sub C, trade it in for a SD and stop worrying about the fat lugs on the Sub C. To me, the Sub C is a revolution, not a evolution. So I look at it as a completely different watch than the previous Sub. And I am fine with it. :) __________________ 135 ├┼┼╕ 246 R

12 March 2014, 07:23 AM	#46
Dr. Robert 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Bob Location: U.S.A. Watch: 1655 Posts: 64,280	Bah humbug...get a 14060, 16610 or 16600. It's an upgrade. __________________ Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

12 March 2014, 07:55 AM	#47
rmfnla "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: Richard Location: Los Angeles, CA Watch: TT DJ Posts: 4,456	Do a search of the ham-handed polishing jobs ranted about here on TRF; one of those guys could probably reduce those fat suckers for you in no time... __________________ Today, I believe my jurisdiction ends here... Lug Hole Lover®

12 March 2014, 11:33 AM	#58
lmcgbaj "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Real Name: G Location: Canada Watch: es are FUN!!! Posts: 1,979	I will admit that the lugs bothered me a bit in the beginning but I love everything about the SubC now. It's just perfect for me. If it bothers you that much, trade it. That is the beauty of the Sub. You don't lose your pants on the trade. Be happy it was not a PO or something similar. You would have lose half of your money. __________________ "Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive.* "*

12 March 2014, 05:30 AM	#32
WyoWatch "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: Chad Location: USA Watch: 1675 GMT and Sub C Posts: 1,443	This didn't occur to you before buying the watch?

12 March 2014, 05:41 AM	#33
psv 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: USA & France Posts: 11,078	I used to be all miffed about the new proportions of the case, rant about how the SD16600 was all better but at the end, I think the new SubC design update is a successful one. I find the maxi dial and hands advantages far out-weighs any aesthetic concerns, as much so that I have a hard time enjoying my older Sub 16610 and I sold off the SD16600.

12 March 2014, 06:03 AM	#35
Tridor "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: The Ozone Watch: DD, DJ, SubC Date Posts: 1,666	I had a GMT 16700 before I sold it to fund a SubC. The 16700 has a similar case and lug configuration to the 16610. When viewing the SubC on-line, I thought there was something "off" with the lugs as compared to the 16700; there was no tapering toward the bracelet as on the old model. Nonetheless, once I tried on a SubC in the store, I actually liked the beefier lugs, even if there was no tapering. That, coupled with all the great upgrades, sealed the deal for me. Also, I find the SubC to be much more comfortable to wear than the old style GMT. In the final analysis, you have to decide what's best for you. Certainly, going to a NOS SD is not a downgrade, and I would probably do that deal as opposed to buying a used 16610. Just follow your heart ... it will lead you in the right direction.

12 March 2014, 06:09 AM	#39
Roller07 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: GMT -5 Watch: HulkPepsiCoke Posts: 2,364	Sorry to hear you don't like your SubC. That means more new Subs for us who do like it. I hope you can find something you like better.

12 March 2014, 06:11 AM	#40
threemonkeys "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Real Name: Craig Location: Seattle-ish, USA Watch: GMTIIc, AK, LVc Posts: 7,022	I think the older sub would looks better on my chicken wrist. It was the new bracelet and ceramic that won me over.

12 March 2014, 06:36 AM	#43
LFFL "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Submarine Posts: 376	14060M with the new glidelock bracelet would be my dream watch

12 March 2014, 06:57 AM	#44
MP5 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: ATX Posts: 2,886	I agree 1000% with the OP and it's the only reason I don't have a new Sub preferring the older classy lugs. Even Rolex went back to the swoop lug on the EII. The only reason I don't have the new Omegas are the clownish height of the new cases and dumb display back

12 March 2014, 08:14 AM	#48
ronricks 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: ATL Watch: 126610LV Posts: 2,753	Sub C has a far superior bracelet and clasp and the Ceramic bezel looks and wears much better than the cheap aluminum bezels.

12 March 2014, 08:41 AM	#50
AK797 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Neil Location: UK Watch: ing ships roll in Posts: 59,369	Why did you buy it then? Not like the lugs suddenly grew once you got home.

12 March 2014, 08:49 AM	#51
nauticajoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Joe Location: PA Posts: 14,774	No sense holding on to a watch that doesn't make you smile. Do the trade. Can't wait to see the SD.

12 March 2014, 09:02 AM	#54
Wesley Crusher "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Real Name: Wes Location: Holosuite Posts: 6,345	Ultimately, you have to go with what your heart tells you. If you like the older style more, make the trade. You'll be a lot happier in the long run.

12 March 2014, 09:03 AM	#55
Robbyman "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Blighty (England) Watch: Daytona/Pepsi/Sub Posts: 1,517	I forgot to mention my first child was born in 2013 and I wanted a Rolex to pass on to celebrate the birth from that year, hence why I tried to look past the fat lugs.

12 March 2014, 11:18 AM	#56
Coubs "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: New Hampshire Watch: 116710 Posts: 305	If you don't like the SubC and have the opportunity to trade for SD don't wait.

12 March 2014, 11:41 AM	#59
Dalton1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: USA Posts: 9	Make the trade and don't look back. I feel the same way about the fat lugs. Now if they would make the bracelet wider I'd be headed to the AD tomorrow...

12 March 2014, 11:55 AM	#60
mrallen13 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Real Name: Matt Location: Austin, TX USA Watch: SDc, PO Posts: 200	The lugs on the SubC are not my favorite, but the rest of the watch makes up for them in my opinion. I find that the lugs are not a deal breaker for me and it's the one watch I never really consider selling. If they are a deal breaker for you though, then you should go with the SD. We each have our own things that are most important to us and if the thinner lugs is yours, then you'll never be happy with a SubC.

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