Is the SubC really a Submariner?

[Gmt+10]

It's like your dad telling you that you're not the same person because you've gained weight. I don't agree with your friend's logic.

[Kyle3130]

It is indeed a Submariner because Rolex said it is. The newest Sub is jewelry with awkward proportions rather than a purpose built functional tool of previous iterations.

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

It is indeed a Submariner because Rolex said it is. The newest Sub is jewelry with awkward proportions rather than a purpose built functional tool of previous iterations.

Hate to rain on your parade...but all watches are now jewelry....new, old,cheap, expensive.
It’s 2018 and we have found a better way to do all functions. You need to come up with a better argument than that!

[s.m.b.]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

It is indeed a Submariner because Rolex said it is. The newest Sub is jewelry with awkward proportions rather than a purpose built functional tool of previous iterations.

Hmmm...

[UnicoJG]

Yes!

[Krash]

I would say a Sub C is absolutely still a Submariner.

A Sapphire sandwich is still a Speedmaster. Although you could make a good case that some of the other new variants aren't.

A Porsche 911 is still a Porsche 911, a Corvette is still a Corvette, and a Jeep Wrangler is still a Jeep Wrangler.

On the flip side, Ford introduced the Mustang II in 1974, and I would say that definitely was not a Mustang. The new Chevy Malibu is not really a Malibu, and new Coke wasn't really Coke.

My 2 cents...

[abozz]

Yes! The 116610 is the best Submariner ever made.

[wuyeah]

Well, there are also words out there. If 1911 were not done by Colt. They are mere copy. But people still call them 1911. World will not change by a few opinions.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

It is indeed a Submariner because Rolex said it is. The newest Sub is jewelry with awkward proportions rather than a purpose built functional tool of previous iterations.

"awkward proportions " is a highly subjective description.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Hate to rain on your parade...but all watches are now jewelry....new, old,cheap, expensive.
It’s 2018 and we have found a better way to do all functions. You need to come up with a better argument than that!

My G-Shock isn't jewelry, and fulfills functions that no cell phone can, if for no other reason than I can wear it. But overall, I agree with your point.

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

My G-Shock isn't jewelry, and fulfills functions that no cell phone can, if for no other reason than I can wear it. But overall, I agree with your point.

Fair point!

[debbs20]

Old or new a Sub remains a Sub as long as Rolex calls it so.

[frankfrazetta]

Oh come on. I guess with this logic the 1964 1/2 Mustang is the ONLY real Ford Mustang. I owned a 1967. All in all, compared to today it was literally a piece of garbage.

From now on the only true X is the very first iteration. ANY change of and kind means that it's garbage.

Really?

[AF_Rob]

Originally Posted by Dirt

It's certainly another way of putting it.

The Speedy has systematically lost a lot since the early days with the Pro Hesalite essentially remaining true to its key elements.

Rolex has evolved the Sub as with all the other models in the range and not kept the early design.
But i believe the SubC was a step way too far/fat. As a result an essential part of the essence of the watch was lost.
They could've thickened up the lugs a little, and implemented the ceramic bezel along with Chromalite lume and called it a day and not many would be offended with the result. But there would be no criticism either but it's easy to have 20/20 vision with the benefit of hindsight.

I think Rolex sort of admitted they made a mistake and went too far with the Maxi-case by pulling back on the proportions of the lugs and crown guards on all subsequent design alterations since.

At least there's an awful lot of scope for some heavy chamfers going forward now.
That should ease the pain of vintage Rolex Subs in the coming decades

I tend to agree. The Maxi case is a bit much, IMO. I’ve always liked the body lines of the SeaDweller over the Sub, with the thinner profile.

The OP’s friend’s statement is just drama. Of course it’s a Sub, geeze. SMH 🤦*♂️. I would say out of their lineup, they’ve kept the DNA of the Sub pretty true, with common sense improvements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MHB]

Is your friend also one of those people that likes to tell others what is and isn't "real music"?

Those kind of people are annoying.

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

"awkward proportions " is a highly subjective description.

Right, it’s just my OPINION and it’s nicer than saying it has fat lugs, hands/indices that are too big, and a clasp that is too long. In another thread awhile back, another member bashed me for saying it has cartoonish proportions. In my OPINION, it just looks funny.

[Prestige_Swiss]

Interesting logic but also the 100,000,000,000th thread I've read about it.



At the end of the day, buy the watch you want to wear. No one else here is picking up the tab for it. Unless its a giveaway

[wuyeah]

He prob doesn't remember how original submariner looks like. no crown guard, no Mercedes hands, no lolipop sec hand, no 4 lines of essay on dial....Submariner lineup continue to evolving. That is why there are folks collect only the sub. Every little changes matters.

[MARGARITATIME]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

You're absolutely right. I thought about this too. Take the 911 for example, it has changed so much. Is it recognizable still as a 911? Sure, so is the SubC. However, is it really the 911 in anything apart from name? Well, that is debatable. If one looks at a Singer 911, they go for more than any top of the line 911. It's not because it was better, but because it is as close to the original as possible.

That being said, my personal opinion is a SubC is still a Submariner BUT I can see the logic that some people do not believe it is.

Your logic on the 911 Singer is flawed. The Singer is a modded 911. It uses a 964 body while presents itself as a widebody pre 74 911. Buying a new 911 from a dealer today is more of a true 911 than a Singer.

As for the OP - yes the Subc is a submariner. Its a newer version, but still a submariner. Not even debatable.

[asiparks]

We still call the materially updated, wider, bigger version of this a "Submarine" ....

so, sure, why not ?

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by asiparks

We still call the materially updated, wider, bigger version of this a "Submarine" ....

so, sure, why not ?

[Justindo]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

His logic was Speedmaster Professional Hesalite vs. Sapphire Sandwich. Even though the Sapphire Sandwich had the better materials, the Hesalite was the more coveted watch

Not by me it's not. I doubt I'd own a Speedmaster if it had the hesalite crystal and I doubt I'd own a Submariner if it were the five digit version. There's a lot of charm to automobiles made in the early 1970s compared to modern automobiles but there's also a lot of lousy aspects to them compared automobiles made today.

[Kingfish01]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

So a friend and I were having a discussion. He mentioned he loves Submariners, but does not like the newer models. I asked him why, seeing that the 6 digit Subs are made with better materials.

His logic was Speedmaster Professional Hesalite vs. Sapphire Sandwich. Even though the Sapphire Sandwich had the better materials, the Hesalite was the more coveted watch.

He also pointed out that the SubC is not really a Submariner because the case design is entirely different - it no longer harkens back to the days of the old. He felt with the new case design, an element that is Rolex was lost.


Thoughts? Opinions?

Is this a joke, or do you have far too much time on your hands?

[frankfrazetta]

No. It's an alien from planet x. What's on with you? Or, on the other hand only the very first submariner is the only true one.