ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

TheVTCGuy · 1 February 2012, 04:46 AM

I can hear the purists banging on me right now...

But, think about this practically for a moment.

Rolex has shown they at least want to enter the "big" watch market by introducing the DSSD and the EX II 42, now that the components are there, why not offer some of the other sport models in 42? The submariner is designed to be used diving, obviously visability is limited underwater and legibility would be increased with a bigger face. The GMT is a no-brainer, they already have the movment (it's used in the EXP II), all they would need is a new dial and bezel.

Isn't it at least... Possible?

nch209 · 1 February 2012, 04:50 AM

I think in time, 42mm is quite possible...

FX44 · 3 February 2012, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nch209

I think in time, 42mm is quite possible...

agree

padi56 · 1 February 2012, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I can hear the purists banging on me right now...

But, think about this practically for a moment.

Rolex has shown they at least want to enter the "big" watch market by introducing the DSSD and the EX II 42, now that the components are there, why not offer some of the other sport models in 42? The submariner is designed to be used diving, obviously visability is limited underwater and legibility would be increased with a bigger face. The GMT is a no-brainer, they already have the movment (it's used in the EXP II), all they would need is a new dial and bezel.

Isn't it at least... Possible?

Its the case thats slightly bigger the dial size are around the same as the 40mm models.And the movement in the new Explorer11 would fit in the old Explorer 11 much like the cal 3135 thats in the DSSD fits in the DJ, Sub,YM etc.

karmatp · 1 February 2012, 05:09 AM

My fingers are crossed for a 42mm Sub. It would be different than the Sub Date and just a perfect watch.

42mm case with a man's sized crown, perfect.

Cru Jones · 1 February 2012, 05:55 AM

Are there that many people holding off on buying these two models because they're 40 and not 42 mm?

brownbear · 1 February 2012, 06:16 AM

personally, I am not crazy about the mega watches..
To me, they seem trendy..
I know Invicta puts out a bunch of these mega beasts and I am not interested.

padi56 · 1 February 2012, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownbear

personally, I am not crazy about the mega watches..
To me, they seem trendy..
I know Invicta puts out a bunch of these mega beasts and I am not interested.

Hardy mega we are talking about just a few mm and less than a ounce in weight difference.

Gagebuilder · 1 February 2012, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

Hardy mega we are talking about just a few mm and less than a ounce in weight difference.

Funny, the first thought I had when reading the title was ...

Why stop at 42?

But I'd rather see the ceramic pepsi.

Yeah, it could be 42 ...

brownbear · 1 February 2012, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

Hardy mega we are talking about just a few mm and less than a ounce in weight difference.

I still do not like it.

michigander · 2 February 2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownbear

personally, I am not crazy about the mega watches..
To me, they seem trendy..
I know Invicta puts out a bunch of these mega beasts and I am not interested.

Invictas are monsters!

blackreplica · 2 February 2012, 05:50 PM

I personally would jump on a 42/44mm case ceramic GMT but honestly I don't think it will happen for at least another 5-10 years, if at all

sam florio · 1 February 2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Are there that many people holding off on buying these two models because they're 40 and not 42 mm?

Yes ....me

rolexnewbie2 · 1 February 2012, 07:54 AM

That would be awesome or even a 44'' model

capote · 1 February 2012, 07:59 AM

If you listen carefully you will hear my head banging

Seriously. I will never understand the big watch trend. Without going into details that would ban me, lets just say smaller - and by smaller I mean 40 mm or less -will always look more refined. Big watches just looks...you know.

DDG · 1 February 2012, 08:03 AM

I love Explorer ll's, but I took one look at that 42 & decided it was too big for me to adjust to. I'm a normal sized person, but the old model fits me just perfect. I'm going to zero in on a new GMT now I guess, while it's still the right size.

Perdu · 1 February 2012, 11:42 AM

In Rolex time they have just bought out a new GMT and new Sub. They aren't going to change them anytime soon.

opaline460 · 1 February 2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perdu

in rolex time they have just bought out a new gmt and new sub. They aren't going to change them anytime soon.

x2

dddrees · 1 February 2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perdu

in rolex time they have just bought out a new gmt and new sub. They aren't going to change them anytime soon.

x3

HL65 · 1 February 2012, 08:40 PM

Don't hold your breath...

Oyster Junkie · 1 February 2012, 08:44 PM

Not gonna happen.

mike · 2 February 2012, 02:56 PM

There's more to the thought than simply expanding a reference to 42MM. People seem to be quick to think it's all about looks.

When the new EXP II made it's debut it was reported the increase in size was due to the slightly larger 3187 movement. The increase in size had to do with a different shock absorbing system. This would indeed be in line with the historical significance of the the EXP II.

Early Rolex advertizing refered to the Explorer II as the "Hard Rolex". No doubt to the use of a fix bezel as opposed to the rotating GMT insert--one less thing to go wrong. While both references have shared the same movement (untill now). Rolex does what it does to keep references seperate for their intended purpose.

Could a larger GMT or Sub come about? Sure. But, I'll bet there will be more to the watch than just expanding the size.

Not everything is about "market pressure".

GradyPhilpott · 3 February 2012, 02:52 AM

To me the difference between 40mm and 42mm is significant and affects the proportions of the entire watch.

What if they upped the cases for the Sub and the GMT to 42mm and scaled back the lugs to a less grotesque proportion?

Well, maybe, as long as they don't put "super hands" on them.

The fact is, though, that I have all the Rolex watches that I'm likely to ever own, so where Rolex goes stylistically is immaterial to me. I have mine!

Now, there is this certain 40mm Patek that has caught my eye, but it could take me five years to get the money to buy one outright, so....

Well, you never know!

GradyPhilpott · 3 February 2012, 02:55 AM

Actually, thinking about it a little more, I think that watches will shrink and keep shrinking until they are simply a digital LCD screen imbedded in a contact lens, powered by the heat of your body and the motion of your eye.

htc8p · 3 February 2012, 06:45 PM

no i wont want to change the size of the classic rolex. its the only thing i can hold on to that wont change.

besides the gmt can and should be used as a formal watch so 40mm is the right size.

1 February 2012, 04:46 AM	#1
TheVTCGuy Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Paul Location: San Diego Watch: 126619LB Posts: 21,540	It's not going to happen, but why not a 42 GMT/Sub? I can hear the purists banging on me right now... But, think about this practically for a moment. Rolex has shown they at least want to enter the "big" watch market by introducing the DSSD and the EX II 42, now that the components are there, why not offer some of the other sport models in 42? The submariner is designed to be used diving, obviously visability is limited underwater and legibility would be increased with a bigger face. The GMT is a no-brainer, they already have the movment (it's used in the EXP II), all they would need is a new dial and bezel. Isn't it at least... Possible?

1 February 2012, 04:50 AM	#2
nch209 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Nathan Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 2,775	I think in time, 42mm is quite possible... __________________ nch209

1 February 2012, 05:09 AM	#5
karmatp "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Real Name: Trevor Location: Arizona Posts: 5,740	My fingers are crossed for a 42mm Sub. It would be different than the Sub Date and just a perfect watch. 42mm case with a man's sized crown, perfect. __________________ My grails:

1 February 2012, 11:42 AM	#17
Perdu "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Gary Location: GMT-6 Watch: GMT Posts: 3,350	In Rolex time they have just bought out a new GMT and new Sub. They aren't going to change them anytime soon. __________________ Omega Seamaster 300M GMT Noire Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 8500 Benson 1937 Sterling Silver Hunter

1 February 2012, 08:40 PM	#20
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 64,006	Don't hold your breath... __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

1 February 2012, 05:55 AM	#6
Cru Jones 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Paris, France Posts: 35,299	Are there that many people holding off on buying these two models because they're 40 and not 42 mm?

1 February 2012, 06:16 AM	#7
brownbear "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Real Name: Danny Location: georgia Watch: it Bub Posts: 1,334	personally, I am not crazy about the mega watches.. To me, they seem trendy.. I know Invicta puts out a bunch of these mega beasts and I am not interested.

2 February 2012, 05:50 PM	#12
blackreplica Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: 35,000ft Watch: GMT II C Posts: 29	I personally would jump on a 42/44mm case ceramic GMT but honestly I don't think it will happen for at least another 5-10 years, if at all

1 February 2012, 07:54 AM	#14
rolexnewbie2 Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: STL Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 89	That would be awesome or even a 44'' model

1 February 2012, 07:59 AM	#15
capote "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: Sweden Watch: 16570 Posts: 7,315	If you listen carefully you will hear my head banging Seriously. I will never understand the big watch trend. Without going into details that would ban me, lets just say smaller - and by smaller I mean 40 mm or less -will always look more refined. Big watches just looks...you know.

1 February 2012, 08:03 AM	#16
DDG Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Dennis Garrett Location: Land of Oz Watch: Rolex Explorer II Posts: 405	I love Explorer ll's, but I took one look at that 42 & decided it was too big for me to adjust to. I'm a normal sized person, but the old model fits me just perfect. I'm going to zero in on a new GMT now I guess, while it's still the right size.

1 February 2012, 08:44 PM	#21
Oyster Junkie Banned Join Date: Oct 2011 Real Name: Barry Location: Yosemite Nat.Park Watch: Idiot Savant Posts: 731	Not gonna happen.

2 February 2012, 02:56 PM	#22
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	There's more to the thought than simply expanding a reference to 42MM. People seem to be quick to think it's all about looks. When the new EXP II made it's debut it was reported the increase in size was due to the slightly larger 3187 movement. The increase in size had to do with a different shock absorbing system. This would indeed be in line with the historical significance of the the EXP II. Early Rolex advertizing refered to the Explorer II as the "Hard Rolex". No doubt to the use of a fix bezel as opposed to the rotating GMT insert--one less thing to go wrong. While both references have shared the same movement (untill now). Rolex does what it does to keep references seperate for their intended purpose. Could a larger GMT or Sub come about? Sure. But, I'll bet there will be more to the watch than just expanding the size. Not everything is about "market pressure".

3 February 2012, 02:52 AM	#23
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,460	To me the difference between 40mm and 42mm is significant and affects the proportions of the entire watch. What if they upped the cases for the Sub and the GMT to 42mm and scaled back the lugs to a less grotesque proportion? Well, maybe, as long as they don't put "super hands" on them. The fact is, though, that I have all the Rolex watches that I'm likely to ever own, so where Rolex goes stylistically is immaterial to me. I have mine! Now, there is this certain 40mm Patek that has caught my eye, but it could take me five years to get the money to buy one outright, so.... Well, you never know! __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

3 February 2012, 02:55 AM	#24
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK050 Posts: 34,460	Actually, thinking about it a little more, I think that watches will shrink and keep shrinking until they are simply a digital LCD screen imbedded in a contact lens, powered by the heat of your body and the motion of your eye. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

3 February 2012, 06:45 PM	#25
htc8p "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Bert Location: philippines Watch: 116710 ln Posts: 3,472	no i wont want to change the size of the classic rolex. its the only thing i can hold on to that wont change. besides the gmt can and should be used as a formal watch so 40mm is the right size.

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