Not all ceramic bezel inserts are created equal

[jnkay]

I have long thought that the GMT-IIc bezel insert has a glossier, wetter looking shine than the ceramic bezel inserts on the subs. Not that the materials are different, but there is something about the shape of the insert that seems to reflect light differently. It probably has something to do with having more inset numbers cut into it, but what exactly I don't know.

Well, today I held a SS sub-c next to my GMT-CC in several different lighting conditions, and it was no contest: the GMT insert has the classic "wet shine" that concept cars exhibit at international car shows, while the sub just doesn't. Shiny, reflective yes, but not the same quality of reflection as the GMT.

Anyone else notice this or care to disagree?

[ersnyder]

I don't have a GMT with a ceramic bezel, so I can't compare it side by side. But, I've not noticed any significant difference when looking at them in the AD's showroom. I'll be certain to take a closer look next time.

[London Gent]

Agreed,

I am biased however, I love the GMT so much more....

[Speed]

Imagine the Sub's bezel is less shiny so as not to scare the fish when doing all that diving.

[clock]

Originally Posted by Speed

Imagine the Sub's bezel is less shiny so as not to scare the fish when doing all that diving.

Now I'm curious how shiny the bezel on the DSSD is vs the GMT and Sub.

Will get at the truth if a shiny bezel really scares fish.

[NMS75]

I have the GMTIIc but my Sub is a 16610. Maybe I can use this as a good excuse to go to my nearest AD wearing my GMT and compare the two

M

[axecollector65]

anything shiny underwater acts more like a lure, so less shiney underwater is better. As for on dry land, I was hoping it acted as a lure for the opposite sex.

[t e x]

Originally Posted by Speed

Imagine the Sub's bezel is less shiny so as not to scare the fish when doing all that diving.

i'd think you'd become the bait

[RolliePollie]

Hmmm... That's interesting. I never noticed a difference in the polish. Only the difference between the design, obviously. I am sure the polishing technique between the two different models are the same, but I will surely look more carefully next time. Thanks for bringing up the topic.

[exxondus]

Originally Posted by axecollector65

anything shiny underwater acts more like a lure, so less shiney underwater is better. As for on dry land, I was hoping it acted as a lure for the opposite sex.

sadly, it dint work out for me on dry land. Hence, I sold the GMTIIc and got a SubC instead

on a side note, the insert on the GMTIIc is definitely more shiny that that of the Sub C.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Speed

Imagine the Sub's bezel is less shiny so as not to scare the fish when doing all that diving.

Well less shiny so the big fish don't scare the diver.

[hacampbell1360]

I think the Sub c is not shiny so it won't disturb the great white sharks when they are feeding!!!

[Kiddodoc]

Funny this thread came up. I have been wondering the same about the Ceramic Sub. I have the GMTIIc and the Deep Sea and they do have a brilliant sheen to them but when I looked at the sub, it didn't look the same to me. I thought it was just me! It won't stop me from acquiring one but I have noticed it.

[jnkay]

Originally Posted by kiddodoc

Funny this thread came up. I have been wondering the same about the Ceramic Sub. I have the GMTIIc and the Deep Sea and they do have a brilliant sheen to them but when I looked at the sub, it didn't look the same to me. I thought it was just me! It won't stop me from acquiring one but I have noticed it.

whew, glad to know it's not just me