Ceramic Submariner or Vacheron Constantin Overseas

[Chris B]

Not keen on the strap of that VC

[Psmith]

VC but non-chrono

The black dial version is high on my wishlist

[herbie911]

If I have to pick one to wear to work daily with my suit and tie, it will have to be VC. It is a beautiful watch which no one at work will be aware how much it cost.

The Sub on the other hand is beautiful and more recognisable. Even people who is not into watches will know you got a Rolex.

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by MrLee

Exactly, Spot on

Yeh it's a total stunner, and yeh it's evolution not revolution done perfectly by Rolex, the 911 analogy springs to mind. For me still the best looking dive watch in its class, but a lot tougher than the competition, try comparing an iwc, blancpain or an omega after a year of wear with the sub, they would all look like you have let a cat use them as a scratchpad. And the bracelet upgrades are fantastic, trumps the competition

If the 911 analogy were true, Porsche would still be using the exact engine they were using in the '80s

[highdiver]

VC for me as well its in diff league.

Well, at the end of the day, if you want your watch to be 'recognised' as 'expensive watch', go for sub c as most people will be able to identify that as an expensive watch. However, if you prefer exclusivity rather than bumping into 10 diff guys wearing same watch as you, it got to be VC. I like their overseas series.

[Bangel]

Both are great watches that would serve your intended purposes equally well (though in the swimming with great whites part I'm guessing the sub might have the edge being a diving watch?).

I agree with the sentiment that the VC is in a different league. It has the exclusivity factor and is unlikely to be recognized except by watch enthusiasts. I'd love to have one if I didn't have to pay for it. That not being the case, I'm perfectly content with my sub.

[beaglehusky]

Vc!

[Puffy]

something else

that VC doens't do it for me and the sub c is far too pedestrian

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

A very basic cosmetic change, taking the watch away from its roots, and the movement has been around longer than I have. It's hardly a big step forward, and competitors like Omega, Blancpain and IWC are all producing better watches. Where has the pioneering spirit that created the Submariner in the first place gone?

I know we all have our own opinions and preferences, but what, pray tell, does age of the movement have to do with anything? Were you around when the Zenith El Primero was introduced? What about the JLC calibre 920, used as the Vacheron calibre 1120 and the Audemars 2120? That was introduced in 1967 and is still considered, by many (including insiders at the various manufactures), to be amongst the finest automatic calibres made.

[FeelingTheBlues]

As mentioned several times, they're very different so I guess it will just depend on which one you prefer and your budget (as I believe they're not the same price). Having said that, I do prefer the Vacheron Constantin myself.

[landroverking]

VC hands down.

[travisb]

The VC is a really nice piece but for everyday, anywhere, anything - I'll take the SubC all day.

[Vincent65]

SUB - no question

[MrNanni]

I own a VC from the 60's, it's a coin watch, I'd buy something from that era and use the sub as the everyday do all watch. The vc are not designed in my mind to be an everyday watch, plus I think service turnaround on the rolex will be faster and less expensive.

[jimbones43]

Remember something: what your are getting here is nothing but each members personal opinions! Which mean absolutely nothing including mine. Filter out the negative comments on both watches as the are both great and will last a lifetime and bring you serious joy. YOU must form your own opinion and live with your decision.

Good luck whatever you decide!
Cheers
Jimc

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

I know we all have our own opinions and preferences, but what, pray tell, does age of the movement have to do with anything? Were you around when the Zenith El Primero was introduced? What about the JLC calibre 920, used as the Vacheron calibre 1120 and the Audemars 2120? That was introduced in 1967 and is still considered, by many (including insiders at the various manufactures), to be amongst the finest automatic calibres made.

Rolex is supposed to be the best - they like to emphasise that in their advertising, and that is the perception of the brand. With regards to the cal. 3135, most people in the know would argue that it is roughly equivalent to the ETA 2892 A2, and that's been around even longer than the cal. 3135. The issue I have with the lack of serious updates to the cal. 3135 is twofold:

1) It goes against Rolex's reputation as a brand that pushes boundaries. Previously, Rolex have always regularly updated their movements, refining them, increasing the beat rate and their reliability. Yet the progression has ground to a halt with their workhorse movement - one could argue that they have perfected it, yet Rolex's competition is proving that improvements can be made, which brings me on to part 2:

2) The competition is better. I will use the Omega cal. 8500 as my main example as that is where my depth of knowledge lies. With ETA cutting off supplies of ebauches, watch companies are being forced to become true manufacturers again, instead of basically being glorified case and bracelet makers. That means there's a lot of interesting new calibres emerging, with lots of interesting ideas, all looking to improve upon the benchmark laid down by the cal. 3135 and 2892 A2. Panerai, IWC, Omega, Breitling, all of Rolex's direct competitors are coming after them. Going back to the cal. 8500, it looks like Omega has taken every weakness that the cal. 3135 has and improved on it:

*New escapement technology - the Co-Axial escapement is the first serious alternative to the Swiss Lever escapement to be industrialised. It tackles the issues with stability and friction, making for better timekeeping over a longer period.

*Longer power reserve - 60 hours vs. 48 hours. As it uses dual barrels, the power delivery is smoother, so you won't get spikes in timekeeping near the bottom of its power reserve

*Longer service intervals - 5-7 years vs. 3-5 for Rolex. That seems to be a conservative estimate as well, Omega shot themselves in the foot by making the 10 year claim on the first version of the cal. 2500

*Better hairspring - silicon based hairsprings are more resistant to shocks than metallic hairsprings, as well as being completely impervious to magnetism.

*Better timekeeping - a more subjective category, but the reports of timekeeping for the cal. 8500 are impressive to say the least. Reports of timekeeping to within a second a day seem to be the norm, rather than the exception. The cal. 3135 has a reputation of being a solid, if unspectacular timekeeper

*Nicer finishing - again, subjective, but I have yet to find anyone who prefers the finishing of the cal. 3135 to the cal. 8500. It's the prettiest mass-produced movement out there

Throw in a substantial 4 year guarantee (double that of the Rolex), and a significantly lower price point for equivalent models fitted with the movement, and you have to ask yourself, other than the preference of looks and hedging your bets that it'll hold its value, there are very few reasons to choose the Rolex over the Omega.


Don't get me wrong, I love Rolex as a brand, what they've achieved in the past is incredible. But they've taken their most iconic model and done half the job - if they had equipped it with a bona-fide, next generation movement, it could have been utterly brilliant, untouchable. But they didn't - I think history will go on to remember the 116610 as a disappointment. We are entering an exciting new age of competition in this segment of the market, and unless Rolex does something to address that competition soon, that reputation they've worked so hard to build up over the past 40 years will begin to ebb away. Less marketing fluff please, Rolex, and create something to be truly proud of

Chris

[www777]

Ive owned both but now only have the sub. I don't think the vc has an in house movement but maybe that has changed. The sub is a great all around watch. Not sure if I would really go diving with the vc.

[Elementa]

Originally Posted by belk7

VC...I tried the Overseas Chrono and Dual Time on a few weeks ago, and both are extraordinary. I'm a big Rolex fan, but given the choice, I'll take that VC every time.

I agree. Once I tried on the VC, I was done. The blue dial chrono is next on the list for me.

[jimbones43]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

The VC is in a different league. The ceramic Sub isn't even best in class - there are far better alternatives out there, the new version of it is uninspired to say the least. If you want the best option for an every-occasion Rolex, you need to be looking at a GMT - its nearest competitor is the Explorer II, can be dressed up or down, and is a formidably good timekeeper. It's a bold design change from the previous GMT, and is as close as you can get to perfection in a luxury watch

Chris

So the GMT is a bold design change from its predecessor but the sub is uninspiring? Their respective changes are so similar I don't understand your comment. Also the GMT is a formidable timekeeper and what?.....the SubC isnt?? Every chance you get you bash the SubC, just curious of your agenda?

Cheers!!

[karmatp]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Rolex is supposed to be the best - they like to emphasise that in their advertising, and that is the perception of the brand. With regards to the cal. 3135, most people in the know would argue that it is roughly equivalent to the ETA 2892 A2, and that's been around even longer than the cal. 3135. The issue I have with the lack of serious updates to the cal. 3135 is twofold:

1) It goes against Rolex's reputation as a brand that pushes boundaries. Previously, Rolex have always regularly updated their movements, refining them, increasing the beat rate and their reliability. Yet the progression has ground to a halt with their workhorse movement - one could argue that they have perfected it, yet Rolex's competition is proving that improvements can be made, which brings me on to part 2:

2) The competition is better. I will use the Omega cal. 8500 as my main example as that is where my depth of knowledge lies. With ETA cutting off supplies of ebauches, watch companies are being forced to become true manufacturers again, instead of basically being glorified case and bracelet makers. That means there's a lot of interesting new calibres emerging, with lots of interesting ideas, all looking to improve upon the benchmark laid down by the cal. 3135 and 2892 A2. Panerai, IWC, Omega, Breitling, all of Rolex's direct competitors are coming after them. Going back to the cal. 8500, it looks like Omega has taken every weakness that the cal. 3135 has and improved on it:

*New escapement technology - the Co-Axial escapement is the first serious alternative to the Swiss Lever escapement to be industrialised. It tackles the issues with stability and friction, making for better timekeeping over a longer period.

*Longer power reserve - 60 hours vs. 48 hours. As it uses dual barrels, the power delivery is smoother, so you won't get spikes in timekeeping near the bottom of its power reserve

*Longer service intervals - 5-7 years vs. 3-5 for Rolex. That seems to be a conservative estimate as well, Omega shot themselves in the foot by making the 10 year claim on the first version of the cal. 2500

*Better hairspring - silicon based hairsprings are more resistant to shocks than metallic hairsprings, as well as being completely impervious to magnetism.

*Better timekeeping - a more subjective category, but the reports of timekeeping for the cal. 8500 are impressive to say the least. Reports of timekeeping to within a second a day seem to be the norm, rather than the exception. The cal. 3135 has a reputation of being a solid, if unspectacular timekeeper

*Nicer finishing - again, subjective, but I have yet to find anyone who prefers the finishing of the cal. 3135 to the cal. 8500. It's the prettiest mass-produced movement out there

Throw in a substantial 4 year guarantee (double that of the Rolex), and a significantly lower price point for equivalent models fitted with the movement, and you have to ask yourself, other than the preference of looks and hedging your bets that it'll hold its value, there are very few reasons to choose the Rolex over the Omega.


Don't get me wrong, I love Rolex as a brand, what they've achieved in the past is incredible. But they've taken their most iconic model and done half the job - if they had equipped it with a bona-fide, next generation movement, it could have been utterly brilliant, untouchable. But they didn't - I think history will go on to remember the 116610 as a disappointment. We are entering an exciting new age of competition in this segment of the market, and unless Rolex does something to address that competition soon, that reputation they've worked so hard to build up over the past 40 years will begin to ebb away. Less marketing fluff please, Rolex, and create something to be truly proud of

Chris

I just love your posts Chris. I think you open up some eyes for guys that are mesmerized by the name on the dial and make them think about what they are paying for.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by jimbones43

So the GMT is a bold design change from its predecessor but the sub is uninspiring? Their respective changes are so similar I don't understand your comment. Also the GMT is a formidable timekeeper and what?.....the SubC isnt?? Every chance you get you bash the SubC, just curious of your agenda?

Cheers!!

The GMT has had a fair going over on the transition from the 3185 to the 3186 - the gearing has changed on it, and yes, it does appear to be a better timekeeper than the 3135. The GMT has been evolving far more than the Sub during the same period, and the move to the 116710 was a radical change - it completely changed the look of the watch. Cosmetically, the Sub has just become less useful as a diving tool, whilst the GMT has increased in its versatility. In addition, the GMT is in a league of its own when it comes to GMT complication watches - no other watch can match it in terms of simplicity, durability and usability, with the exception of the Explorer II. The same cannot be said of the Sub. The bracelet is a great step forward for the Sub, but the thing that really makes the difference is the movement - why do we even bother with luxury watches if we're not fussed about the movement?

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by karmatp

I just love your posts Chris. I think you open up some eyes for guys that are mesmerized by the name on the dial and make them think about what they are paying for.

Thankyou, Trevor. I want people to be open minded when it comes to watches, the watch world isn't just confined to Rolex. Sometimes Rolex is the best choice, sometimes it isn't, and I'm here to provide people with the information they need to make an informed choice

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Thankyou, Trevor. I want people to be open minded when it comes to watches, the watch world isn't just confined to Rolex. Sometimes Rolex is the best choice, sometimes it isn't, and I'm here to provide people with the information they need to make an informed choice

Good on you Chris - I too enjoy your posts. I read so much nonsense about the relative 'toughness' of Rolex compared to other brands. In my own experience this is simply untrue i.e. I own/have owned several brands and not noticed any difference in this regard. I would hazard a guess that some of those who make these statements would not actually submit their watches to any kind of 'tough' treatment...

The Sub is a good watch, but imho Rolex should have made it a great one in the current iteration. Soon, its price will put it up against some more interesting and inspiring competition, so let's hope that the next generation is not decades away and will lead the pack rather than rely on old glories. After all, despite their conservative nature, Rolex are a forward-facing company who tend to eschew sentimentality and nostalgia

[improviz]

Originally Posted by MrLee

Exactly, Spot on

Yeh it's a total stunner, and yeh it's evolution not revolution done perfectly by Rolex, the 911 analogy springs to mind. For me still the best looking dive watch in its class, but a lot tougher than the competition, try comparing an iwc, blancpain or an omega after a year of wear with the sub, they would all look like you have let a cat use them as a scratchpad. And the bracelet upgrades are fantastic, trumps the competition

because the softer 904L doesn't scratch easier than the harder steel on the others?

Hardness of 904L: 70-90:
http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1022

Hardness of 316L: 95:
http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2382

[Hairdude1]

Vc

[Megalobyte]

My experience is that Sub C's and most new 3135 based sport watches are excellent time keepers.

I'll concede the 8500 is a nice, technologically advanced mvt.

But, you state only the Sub's weaknesses and the PO's strengths.

The PO has negatives too.

Fairly thick and bulky.

Zero clasp adjustment, as in, you need to get your tools and remove links, compare that to the Glidelock, this difference alone is more important and usable in real life than the technical merits of each movement.

Sloppy bezel feel compared to a Sub C.

Reports that Omega's matte ceramic scratches easier than the glossy version on the Sub.

The same thing that makes the 8500 interesting, could also be a negative, it's newness. Time will tell, literally, on that.

By most accounts, Rolex has better service.

And, QC. Sure, I've seen a new Rolex with a QC issue. But I have seen exactly 3 new 8500 PO's at different AD's, all 3 had an obvious QC issue. I've seen hundreds of Rolexes at AD's, I might recall a slightly misaligned bezel on one or 2.

The 3135 works. It has had a few minor tweaks, most recently the hairspring.

The fact is, my Sub C resists shock and magnetism better than any watch I've owned, and is the most accurate watch I've owned. For me, the proof is in the pudding. The current version of the 3135 is very reliable, accurate, anti magnetic and it resists shock. It simply does what it needs to do.

Yes, I wish it had a 72 hour PR, and a better bearing system for the rotor. :)

Much is made of the longer omega service intervals. What about the seals/gaskets?

[Trurolexer]

Sub Rule!!!

[Cabaiguan]

Originally Posted by karmatp

I just love your posts Chris. I think you open up some eyes for guys that are mesmerized by the name on the dial and make them think about what they are paying for.

X2.

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Rolex is supposed to be the best - they like to emphasise that in their advertising, and that is the perception of the brand. With regards to the cal. 3135, most people in the know would argue that it is roughly equivalent to the ETA 2892 A2, and that's been around even longer than the cal. 3135. The issue I have with the lack of serious updates to the cal. 3135 is twofold:

1) It goes against Rolex's reputation as a brand that pushes boundaries. Previously, Rolex have always regularly updated their movements, refining them, increasing the beat rate and their reliability. Yet the progression has ground to a halt with their workhorse movement - one could argue that they have perfected it, yet Rolex's competition is proving that improvements can be made, which brings me on to part 2:

2) The competition is better. I will use the Omega cal. 8500 as my main example as that is where my depth of knowledge lies. With ETA cutting off supplies of ebauches, watch companies are being forced to become true manufacturers again, instead of basically being glorified case and bracelet makers. That means there's a lot of interesting new calibres emerging, with lots of interesting ideas, all looking to improve upon the benchmark laid down by the cal. 3135 and 2892 A2. Panerai, IWC, Omega, Breitling, all of Rolex's direct competitors are coming after them. Going back to the cal. 8500, it looks like Omega has taken every weakness that the cal. 3135 has and improved on it:

[...]


Don't get me wrong, I love Rolex as a brand, what they've achieved in the past is incredible. But they've taken their most iconic model and done half the job - if they had equipped it with a bona-fide, next generation movement, it could have been utterly brilliant, untouchable. But they didn't - I think history will go on to remember the 116610 as a disappointment. We are entering an exciting new age of competition in this segment of the market, and unless Rolex does something to address that competition soon, that reputation they've worked so hard to build up over the past 40 years will begin to ebb away. Less marketing fluff please, Rolex, and create something to be truly proud of

Chris

You make some interesting, and fair, points, but you might as well speak about the Swiss watch industry as a whole, as opposed to just Rolex.

As you know, only Omega can use the co-axial escapement, since they have the rights to it. The rest of the industry, for their own reasons, rejected the chance to take it up - George Daniels had a heck of a time convincing anyone, including Patek, to use it, until Omega came along and took a gamble on it. Everyone else uses the Swiss lever escapement. Of course, one could go for the Audemars Piguet chronometer escapement, if one is prepared to pay the US$430,000 or so price tag for the Jules Audemars model that has this feature.

Silicon hairsprings, etc. - OK, but how many manufactures use these, or silicon components, like escape wheels, generally? You have to pay a premium for Patek's "Advanced Research" models, which I think were limited anyway. Same goes for other manufactures, which offer this, but on a very limited basis.

My only real point was that an old movement does not necessarily mean anything. You've mentioned on more than one occasion that the calibre 3135 is old. So what? Again, I say, so is the El Primero and the AP calibre 2120/VC calibre 1120. There are also some century old Victorin Piguet rattrapante movements out there, which are amongst the finest rattrapante movements made.

[Rashid.bk]

If I could even think of this as a choice, for me it wouldn't be a choice. Look at the VCs bracelet.....and the dial color, and the name Vacheron Constantin, just sounds so powerful....no competition.
Two very different decision making criteria, just as different as the watches.

That VC is grail territory.