What is up with the Yachmaster?

[Brew]

“Yacht” is a state of mind.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Sebastian5]

Originally Posted by HONDABBQ

I’d be all over this if it ever came out. This is my Pepsi. Picture of SS YM with Oysterflex

That would be my dreamwatch if they decided to release it. I really like the Everose version but it's beyond my reach atm

[smym18]

Originally Posted by Brew

I hesitate to type this, given my left wrist, but I've yet to see a pic of a damaged platinum bezel. [note, haven't look too hard] I've been enjoying my YM since March (e.g., desk job, some fishing, hiking, running beach time, gym and swimming, etc.), and with an occasional scrub with a toothbrush and some dish soap, it still looks new.

Agree. I've had mine for just over a year now (just realized this actually) and I have a few scratches on it, but nothing different than what a Datejust or any non ceramic bezel would look like at this point.

Originally Posted by MrWeha

Have to agree with what others already said: it's just too feminine.

I've seen multiple people mention that in this thread and it never once crossed my mind that it was feminine. To each their own.

[HONDABBQ]

Originally Posted by Sebastian5

That would be my dreamwatch if they decided to release it. I really like the Everose version but it's beyond my reach atm

If I can repeat this summers side business sales, the everose YM will be mine this time next year. That is if the SS YM doesn't get released thus upcoming Basel

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by CaliBear

And even if I was interested in obtaining a watch that was at home in the water/sea, why would I choose the YM over a Submariner, which is and always will be the classic dive/sea watch, and does pretty much the exact same thing the Yacht-master does but with a much better depth rating.

Ahoy matey!

I have to disagree. A "Submariner" is about as appropriate for wear on a surface vessel as a pilot wearing a "'Chute Master" designed for skydivers. Wearing it carries the implication that you might need it.

If I'm on a boat, worst case my watch only needs a WR rating of the few feet I momentarily sink to after jumping overboard right before climbing into the life raft or while bobbing around in a vest trying not to have my lower half eaten by sharks. Staying right at Sea Level or a few feet above is the goal. Why anyone would want a watch for boating/sailing that has a 1,000' depth rating and a name that implies sinking plus going down with the ship is beyond me.

I will agree though that the name "Yachtmaster" sounds pretentious to the American ear because "yacht" is a word usually reserved for big-ass luxury boats, more often than not manned by a professional crew. But Rolex is Swiss and in other parts of the world even little, average pleasure craft a guy can park on a trailer next to his garage and tow to the nearest body of water on the weekend are commonly referred to (especially by their owners) as "yachts".

[CaliBear]

Originally Posted by CRM114

I have to disagree. A "Submariner" is about as appropriate for wear on a surface vessel as a pilot wearing a "'Chute Master" designed for skydivers. Wearing it carries the implication that you might need it.

If I'm on a boat, worst case my watch only needs a WR rating of the few feet I momentarily sink to after jumping overboard right before climbing into the life raft or while bobbing around in a vest trying not to have my lower half eaten by sharks. Staying right at Sea Level or a few feet above is the goal. Why anyone would want a watch for boating/sailing that has a 1,000' depth rating and a name that implies sinking plus going down with the ship is beyond me.

I will agree though that the name "Yachtmaster" sounds pretentious to the American ear because "yacht" is a word usually reserved for big-ass luxury boats, more often than not manned by a professional crew. But Rolex is Swiss and in other parts of the world even little, average pleasure craft a guy can park on a trailer next to his garage and tow to the nearest body of water on the weekend are commonly referred to (especially by their owners) as "yachts".

Good point on sailing vs. sinking. To me, the YM is an interesting watch, but the YM name itself (and the fact that it does not have the history of the sub or GMT) limits the watch to a more niche consumer audience of boating enthusiasts which accounts for its more limited sales.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by CaliBear

And even if I was interested in obtaining a watch that was at home in the water/sea, why would I choose the YM over a Submariner, which is and always will be the classic dive/sea watch, and does pretty much the exact same thing the Yacht-master does but with a much better depth rating.

Ahoy matey!

A. No one really chooses a watch based on a need for excessive WR, not really. They buy a look they prefer.

B. If they did buy based on WR then why do they need 300m? The Rolex submariner originally was only 100m. So basically it WAS a yacht master based on the WR criteria

This WR has gotten out of hand. Its WR for the sake of WR and isn't functionally practical...DSSD, SD in particular. Rolex watches are clearly more jewelry today than in the past and it is what it is. Excessive WR ratings are jewelry "bling" just as much as PCL, Ceramic bezels etc. None of it is useful, but its cool to have.

i like all these watches too... just saying

[mrricks]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

It's a beautiful watch, no doubt.

However, I've been told that one reason why it may not be that popular is that the bezel scratches easily and is very costly to replace since it's platinum.

Incidentally, the YM is rated to only 100m, whilst the Sub's rating is 300m, so the two are not directly comparable.

According to Jocke, the YM is good to 1220 meters.
I doubt Rolex would put in an inferior gasket.

Under second picture.

http://www.watchwallpapers.com/16622.htm

[Romeomikehotel]

Originally Posted by mrricks

According to Jocke, the YM is good to 1220 meters.
I doubt Rolex would put in an inferior gasket.

Under second picture.

http://www.watchwallpapers.com/16622.htm

I’d be surprised if the YM didn’t have the exact same WR as a sub by just marketed differently.

In reality it would likely cost them more money to have different WR than to homogenize.

If we’re placing bets, my moneys on them being exactly the same.

[TheWatchEnthusiast]

Originally Posted by DramaTurtle

100% the ubiquitous nature of the sub takes away from it. I've owned 3 and seriously considering selling my kermit for a YM myself!

Love my blue dial YM but I’ll trade you for your Kermit. Let me know.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by DramaTurtle

100% the ubiquitous nature of the sub takes away from it. I've owned 3 and seriously considering selling my kermit for a YM myself!

totally, the ubiquitous nature of the sub takes away from the sub. Its a great watch no doubt, but its almost standard issue in some places. If i want something a bit different, no way its a Sub. It goes both ways and its appealing to some too for that reason. Its really about the look you are going for. Its not as recognizable obviously and if thats good or bad depends on who you talk to

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by mrricks

According to Jocke, the YM is good to 1220 meters.
I doubt Rolex would put in an inferior gasket.

Under second picture.

http://www.watchwallpapers.com/16622.htm

If you read Jocke's description properly, the crown is good for 1,220m but the watch is only rated for 100m. The reason is that the case is not the same as the Sub's.

Here is the description of the YM from Rolex's website:-


MODEL CASE

Oyster, 40 mm, Oystersteel and platinum

OYSTER ARCHITECTURE

Monobloc middle case, screw-down case back and winding crown

DIAMETER

40 mm

MATERIAL

Rolesium - combination of Oystersteel and platinum

BEZEL

950 platinum bidirectional rotatable 60-minute graduated with raised numerals

WINDING CROWN

Screw-down, Triplock triple waterproofness system

CRYSTAL

Scratch-resistant sapphire, Cyclops lens over the date

WATER-RESISTANCE

Waterproof to 100 metres / 330 feet

[Highjinx]

Great watch. What dial. Shame it's a little more pricey. Does seem to have better availability too. Next on my list and may even swap my 16710 for one.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Highjinx

Great watch. What dial. Shame it's a little more pricey. Does seem to have better availability too. Next on my list and may even swap my 16710 for one.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

if people start looking at it like DJ bezels and that price difference (smooth bezel vs fluted) then the price difference between a YM and a Sub makes more sense.

A YM costs £2250 more than a sub and has a Pt bezel where as a DJ 41 fluted (white gold) bezel costs £1450 more than a smooth bezel. Platinum always costs more than gold in watches so the rest of the difference can be attributed to that and that its 950Pt vs 750 AU.

[mrricks]

Originally Posted by Singslinger

If you read Jocke's description properly, the crown is good for 1,220m but the watch is only rated for 100m. The reason is that the case is not the same as the Sub's.

Here is the description of the YM from Rolex's website:-


MODEL CASE

Oyster, 40 mm, Oystersteel and platinum

OYSTER ARCHITECTURE

Monobloc middle case, screw-down case back and winding crown

DIAMETER

40 mm

MATERIAL

Rolesium - combination of Oystersteel and platinum

BEZEL

950 platinum bidirectional rotatable 60-minute graduated with raised numerals

WINDING CROWN

Screw-down, Triplock triple waterproofness system

CRYSTAL

Scratch-resistant sapphire, Cyclops lens over the date

WATER-RESISTANCE

Waterproof to 100 metres / 330 feet

the sub description is identical, so wouldn't the depth rating be identical? 300 meters? just not advertised as a diver watch.

MODEL CASE
Oyster, 40 mm, Oystersteel
OYSTER ARCHITECTURE
Monobloc middle case, screw-down case back and winding crown
DIAMETER
40 mm
MATERIAL
Oystersteel
BEZEL
Unidirectional rotatable 60-minute graduated, scratch-resistant Cerachrom insert in ceramic, numerals and graduations coated in platinum
WINDING CROWN
Screw-down, Triplock triple waterproofness system
CRYSTAL
Scratch-resistant sapphire
WATER-RESISTANCE
Waterproof to 300 metres / 1,000 feet

[Romeomikehotel]

Originally Posted by mrricks

the sub description is identical, so wouldn't the depth rating be identical? 300 meters? just not advertised as a diver watch.

MODEL CASE
Oyster, 40 mm, Oystersteel
OYSTER ARCHITECTURE
Monobloc middle case, screw-down case back and winding crown
DIAMETER
40 mm
MATERIAL
Oystersteel
BEZEL
Unidirectional rotatable 60-minute graduated, scratch-resistant Cerachrom insert in ceramic, numerals and graduations coated in platinum
WINDING CROWN
Screw-down, Triplock triple waterproofness system
CRYSTAL
Scratch-resistant sapphire
WATER-RESISTANCE
Waterproof to 300 metres / 1,000 feet

Yes, it almost certainly is identical. It would cost Rolex more money to make them different.

Rolex will not advertise it as such though. There needs to be product differentiation.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Romeomikehotel

Yes, it almost certainly is identical. It would cost Rolex more money to make them different.

Rolex will not advertise it as such though. There needs to be product differentiation.

the sub has a thicker caseback. The rest of the case is functionally the same AFIAK. They are obviously different shaped oyster cases too, but that doesnt have anything to do with anything.

[Brew]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

the sub has a thicker caseback. The rest of the case is functionally the same AFIAK.

This was my understanding too.

[mrricks]

I guess we need Jocke to get out his micrometer and measure the case back thickness of both watches.

Unless there is a significant difference, I don’t think it matters regarding depth rating.

[Romeomikehotel]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

the sub has a thicker caseback. The rest of the case is functionally the same AFIAK. They are obviously different shaped oyster cases too, but that doesnt have anything to do with anything.

Not trying to argue with you but do you have a reference for this? I’ve seen people say it before too, just never any actual data.

If that happens to be the truth, then you could easily have a YM the same as a sub by swapping the case back?

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Romeomikehotel

Not trying to argue with you but do you have a reference for this? I’ve seen people say it before too, just never any actual data.

If that happens to be the truth, then you could easily have a YM the same as a sub by swapping the case back?

the sub wears different for sure, it sits higher. Pretty sure if someone has thickness specs it would show the Sub is thicker.

Not sure they are interchangeable anyway as if you look at the case they are different. Lug shape in particular.

[Romeomikehotel]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

the sub wears different for sure, it sits higher. Pretty sure if someone has thickness specs it would show the Sub is thicker.

Not sure they are interchangeable anyway as if you look at the case they are different. Lug shape in particular.

Lug shape has nothing to do with Water Resistance bud.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by mrricks

Unless there is a significant difference, I don’t think it matters regarding depth rating.

Originally Posted by Romeomikehotel

Not trying to argue with you but do you have a reference for this? I’ve seen people say it before too, just never any actual data.

Caseback thickness for a sub is 1.5mm. A GMT's is half that.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Romeomikehotel

Lug shape has nothing to do with Water Resistance bud.

case shape has to do with the shape of the case and things that are able to be attached to it like case backs potentially if the case dimensions are different...bud

rolex likes to make things non compatible for the sake of them being non compatible

[Romeomikehotel]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

case shape has to do with the shape of the case

Insightful.


So thanks to the guys with real information, interesting to know that the sub case-back is maybe more than twice as thick as the YMs and GMTs.

Still curious as to whether the Sub case-back would screw on to the YM or gmt.
I’d be surprised if it didn’t.

Any of our watchmakers/servicers want to chime in?

[Superburrito]

A YM was my first rolex. Had it for many years and loved it! Very understated, but supremely versatile. I went scuba diving with it, did alpine climbing, and wore it to my wedding.

That said, I think it is due for a refresh!

[Chas58]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

the sub has a thicker case back. The rest of the case is functionally the same AFIAK. They are obviously different shaped oyster cases too, but that doesnt have anything to do with anything.

Holding a sub (or even a GMT) with a YM, the Yacht is a noticeably thinner profile, and wears more comfortably on my wrist. Looking at the profiles, the YM case has a profile that looks to me to be more similar to the OP, rather than the Sub/GMT. As I recall the case back on the sub was a little thicker too.


For reference:
The sub and Milgauss are 13mm thick
The GMT is 12.4 mm (it looked to me like the same case as the SUB, but a slimmer case back).
The YM and the Date Just are 11.6 and 11.7mm thick

The water resistance thing is kind of funny. Yeah, in the 70’s I found the water proofness and accuracy pretty important, but these days I (and everyone) dive with a dive computer. I do take watches diving, but geeze, I’m not going down more than 60 feet…

For me the Sub is just to stale, too much of a cliché, and a bit too thick on the wrist. The YM really does need that black bezel though (aka rose gold bezel) I’m in the market for a blue dial YM if anyone wants to sell one. ;-)

[mrricks]

All other things being equal, I doubt that 1.5 mm thickness difference would affect water resistance.

My new YM that I got after retiring my Sub 1680.
I love it. I think it’s the most unique Rolex having platinum bezel, insert and dial, IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[VicLeChic]

Amazing shot, nicely done.

Originally Posted by Romeomikehotel

My first was a YM, I was a fool and switched it for a two-tone GMT.

Came back to my senses and don’t think I’ll ever get rid of it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I'm sure it helps you catching fish too! Fish-Catcher is it's real name.

Originally Posted by Brew

“Yacht” is a state of mind.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No way is the YM feminine!

Originally Posted by MrWeha

Have to agree with what others already said: it's just too feminine.
The 116655 is a winner though.

I knew I didn't need the SD43 on top of the YM. The YM is all the water resistant watch one needs. Ha!

Originally Posted by Singslinger

If you read Jocke's description properly, the crown is good for 1,220m...

[173rdabn]

I've always liked it. Came close a couple of years ago, sorry I didn't.