I love my Sub C but.....

[Robbyman]

I know many will disagree but here is my take on my Sub C....

Just before the New Year I picked up a new Sub C. Inconic piece to me and I had always wanted a Rolex Submariner. I went for new at my AD and it was a great experience and I love the watch. It is exceptional with the dial, bezel etc.

I love the look, the dial, the bezel everything apart from one thing that I cannot get my mind around...those lugs just look plain stupid and have ruined the design of a truly inconic piece for me.

Each time I look, which is pretty often I have to say my eyes are drawn to the fat Breitling inspired case that Rolex jumped on the big watch bandwagon and copied right at the height of the overseized watch fad.

Why could they not just make the lugs a little smaller, keep the design closer to the original?

I have a choice now whether to trade the Sub C for the previous model Sub or a SD. A local shop has a BNIB SD with the stickers etc so I may do a deal, other than that I am thinking of flipping for a previous model (and to me a proper Sub!).

Apologies to those who have been offended but to me Rolex have messed up big style. The Sub C is just fantastic in everyway...apart from those lugs!

[1995akcoop]

I understand completely where you're coming from. i was so excited when i got a subc last year but something was off. Anyhow, i sold it and got an v-serial 16610 from davidsw. It's been about a year since i down graded and i have no regrets at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Presa canary]

Trading a sub for a sd in my mind is certainly not down grading... Op, I'd make that trade in a second...

[superdog]

Good for you that you know what you want.

As I'm sure ur aware, maybe far prefer the new model. I'm one of them.

Thankful that there are so many to choose from.

[Invictus Maneo]

No offense taken! If the Sub C's lugs don't appeal to you go with the SD or a 16610. That's what I have but I love the Sub C and would love one of those as well. You seem to have identified your displeasure so make the trade and get what is going to please you! One of the great things about Rolex is that there are many varieties with minute detail differences that can appeal to so many. Be sure to let us know if there is an "incoming" thread in the works!

[Invictus Maneo]

Originally Posted by Presa canary

Trading a sub for a sd in my mind is certainly not down grading... Op, I'd make that trade in a second...

X2
Definitely NOT a down grade, just different!

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Robbyman

those lugs just look plain stupid and have ruined the design of a truly inconic piece for me.

Sell asap and get the one you believe is the best.

[travisb]

It's not for everyone.
I love the new case.
Good thing we have so many options.

[sampelligrino]

I love my SubC but I can understand where you are coming from. The problem for me is that even with the bigger lugs, the build quality, sleek ceramic bezel, and glidelock clasp all seal the deal for me over the prior models. As a result, I wear my SubC much more than my 16710.

[Keith1]

Originally Posted by superdog

Good for you that you know what you want.

As I'm sure ur aware, maybe far prefer the new model. I'm one of them.
Thankful that there are so many to choose from.

+1 I also like the many other "upgrades" with the new ceramic ones.

[salty_snack]

I was in the same boat as you. I hated the look of the new lugs and swore off the subc. After quite some time wearing it, however, I've grown to like them quite a lot. It gives the watch some heft, like a tool watch should have and not dainty thin lugs (not that there was anything wrong with the previous sub).

Originally Posted by Robbyman

my eyes are drawn to the fat Breitling inspired case that Rolex jumped on the big watch bandwagon and copied right at the height of the overseized watch fad.

Ummmm I don't understand this comment at all. The subc, by any measure, would not be considered as "fat" or "big" and is certainly at 40 mm not "oversized".

[SaddleSC]

I currently own (3) Submariners. One old style 16613 and two new 116610/116619 Sub Cs. I have found after getting accustomed to the updates, especially the maxi dial, solid link bracelet and Glidelock that it is very hard to go back.

When I try to wear my 16613, it usually doesn't stay on the wrist very long because I prefer the beefier feel of the newer models. It is personal preference and what you are used to, but you will notice the overall lighter feel and I personally would really miss the Glidelock in the summer.

[tkerrmd]

Originally Posted by travisb

It's not for everyone.
I love the new case.
Good thing we have so many options.

agree

[illiguy]

No one can fault you for going after the watch you want. Good luck and, whatever it is, wear in good health!

[Jack T]

Regardless of the lugs, the ceramic bezel and the new bracelet and clasp are terrific upgrades to the Sub. Never the less, for that kind of money, you have to love it.

[Rashid.bk]

So you have an opinion, cool. The new Submariner is not ruined(as you say) by it's upgrades. In fact I wouldn't even consider a pre ceramic Sub, except for an LV or vintage which is something else.
But that's my opinion, and guess what, we can both be happy, and I'll take the ceramic Sub any day and to me it in fact is a proper Sub.

Get the old one and be done with it, no one here will object.

[eeh100773]

It's your watch. If you don't like it, trade it for something you do like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[landroverking]

I would consider trading any Modern Sub for a SD an upgrade.

[Ravager135]

I have to agree, the lugs are my only point of contention with the new Submariners. The bracelet and ceramic bezel are all pretty obvious upgrades. I could take or leave the maxi dial. If you view the new "maxi-case" Subs and GMTs from the back it makes the lugs look ridiculous when compared to the taper of the bracelet.

If you look at the Explorer II (which in fairness is not everyone's cup of tea either) you will see a nice tapered case even if it is larger at 42mm. I get that the "maxi-case" was a compromise for people that want larger watches and Rolex's reluctance to go bigger than 40mm. I for one would have liked the Sub to keep the exact same proportions as the 16610 and added the new features previously discussed.

In the long run it's really not a big deal. What we are fussing over is subtle design preference. It all comes down to what you are looking for and willing to live with in your watch. There are other new models out there that don't have the "maxi-case." They aren't the Sub but then again I think people should look to other Rolex offerings. The Datejust (II) and the Explorer are two of the most overlooked models. They will do anything 99% of most Submariner buyers will require of them.

[Robbyman]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

So you have an opinion, cool. The new Submariner is not ruined(as you say) by it's upgrades. In fact I wouldn't even consider a pre ceramic Sub, except for an LV or vintage which is something else.
But that's my opinion, and guess what, we can both be happy, and I'll take the ceramic Sub any day and to me it in fact is a proper Sub.

Get the old one and be done with it, no one here will object.

The only thing I am commenting on is the lugs, in every other way the Sub C is great!

[Robbyman]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

I have to agree, the lugs are my only point of contention with the new Submariners. The bracelet and ceramic bezel are all pretty obvious upgrades. I could take or leave the maxi dial. If you view the new "maxi-case" Subs and GMTs from the back it makes the lugs look ridiculous when compared to the taper of the bracelet.

If you look at the Explorer II (which in fairness is not everyone's cup of tea either) you will see a nice tapered case even if it is larger at 42mm. I get that the "maxi-case" was a compromise for people that want larger watches and Rolex's reluctance to go bigger than 40mm. I for one would have liked the Sub to keep the exact same proportions as the 16610 and added the new features previously discussed.

In the long run it's really not a big deal. What we are fussing over is subtle design preference. It all comes down to what you are looking for and willing to live with in your watch. There are other new models out there that don't have the "maxi-case." They aren't the Sub but then again I think people should look to other Rolex offerings. The Datejust (II) and the Explorer are two of the most overlooked models. They will do anything 99% of most Submariner buyers will require of them.

Agree 100%

[applebook]

It's too late to call oversized watches a "fad" now. Fads don't last over a decade and continue going. That being said, I do like the new Oyster cases even though I have a slight preference for the older designs.

[Ravager135]

My two cents: if there's something you don't like about a model, consider something else. Rolex watches are pricey. Why buy something that's going to bother you? If you are dead set on a Rolex then please go back and take a second look at other models and narrow down what is really practical for you. All of them are built like tanks and will take whatever you throw at them.

[Cru Jones]

the never-ending lugs saga.... ;-)

[Rashid.bk]

^

[Furbo]

I like subc.
I also like people who buy them and get tired of them soon, sell them and make them cheaper for us. :D

[Bangel]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

I have to agree, the lugs are my only point of contention with the new Submariners. The bracelet and ceramic bezel are all pretty obvious upgrades. I could take or leave the maxi dial. If you view the new "maxi-case" Subs and GMTs from the back it makes the lugs look ridiculous when compared to the taper of the bracelet.

If you look at the Explorer II (which in fairness is not everyone's cup of tea either) you will see a nice tapered case even if it is larger at 42mm. I get that the "maxi-case" was a compromise for people that want larger watches and Rolex's reluctance to go bigger than 40mm. I for one would have liked the Sub to keep the exact same proportions as the 16610 and added the new features previously discussed.

In the long run it's really not a big deal. What we are fussing over is subtle design preference. It all comes down to what you are looking for and willing to live with in your watch. There are other new models out there that don't have the "maxi-case." They aren't the Sub but then again I think people should look to other Rolex offerings. The Datejust (II) and the Explorer are two of the most overlooked models. They will do anything 99% of most Submariner buyers will require of them.

Very well said.

The wider lugs is what made me baulk about getting the sub c. I did anyway and got used to the lugs to the point where I thought it looked better. Then I would see someone wearing a 16610 and my initial reservations resurface. In the end, I prefer everything else about the sub c so I'm happy.

As Evan pointed out, the difference is subtle to everyone except the Rolex enthusiast. When I hold up pictures of the 16610 and the 116610 and ask my wife which one looks better, she'll take a glance and say "they look the same."

[Joearch]

I am lucky in that my first Rolex was a Sub C. Coming from Panerai I always thought the older Sub was too dainty. So I love my Sub C and GMT II. Great size.

[subtona]

Go get that SD

[DCgator]

I much prefer the 16610LV..... the maxi dial is definitely a plus for me!

I wouldn't mind owning an SD if I didn't already have a DSSD.....