WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello,
I always wanted a submariner. I'm a tough guy and all my watches always get destroyed pretty soon. Yet my father always wore a submariner and it survived the same sort of fishing and diving activities my watches succumbed to. This Christmas none other than my mother in law presented me with one. But it was unrecognizable to me.What the hell was this? I thought it was a poor fake!. Looking around it turns out this is the new official version. I like almost everything about it except...the transition to the bracelet. This was the most impressive and fluid transition of any comparable watch around. It was a Rolex trademark. A milestone. No other watch parallel this feature. My favorite thing abut Rolexes. Now they've made it horrible with the thick lug. They sacrificed the beautiful fluid transition for the horrible thing competitors had to live with. They fail to see that competition did not sell better because they looked better, they only sold better because they were cheaper.
Will they keep all other improvements but reverse this one?
I'm stuck with this one. I tried to comment about it to my wife, but since she cannot notice the difference I've become the most ungrateful being on the planet and she hates me. AAAAAHHHHH!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,948 Posts
I've become the most ungrateful being on the planet and she hates me. AAAAAHHHHH!
Ordinarily, I would say that you're being too hard on yourself....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
Well, if you don't like your watch and want to get rid of it, allow me to mail you my personal info and have you send it over to me, heck I'll even cover the transportation costs.
 

·
Moderator
Rolex / Tudor
Joined
·
14,596 Posts
I think we are stuck with the fat-lugged bloated new models and Rolex is not going to look back. Most people seem to learn to live with this aspect, because of all the "improvements" (better bracelet, ceramic insert, etc.) I say why settle?? I don't see these things as improvements anyways.

contact someone like DavidSW on TRF and make a trade. You could easily trade your new ceramic Sub for a very nice 16600 Seadweller or 16610 sub and everyone is happy. Your mother-in-law will not know the difference, and you will have the look you want. :-!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,149 Posts
I think we are stuck with the fat-lugged bloated new models and Rolex is not going to look back. Most people seem to learn to live with this aspect, because of all the "improvements" (better bracelet, ceramic insert, etc.) I say why settle?? I don't see these things as improvements anyways.

contact someone like DavidSW on TRF and make a trade. You could easily trade your new ceramic Sub for a very nice 16600 Seadweller or 16610 sub and everyone is happy. Your mother-in-law will not know the difference, and you will have the look you want. :-!
Good advice - and who knows - you may grow to like the lugs after a while.

mike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I apologize for making anyone angry. What I wanted was feedback that would make feel better about my watch. Seeing that people like it enough to trade it makes me feel better. I'm going to give it a chance.
Still, apparently this design has been around a couple of years. Is there a way to know how well or bad it's been accepted? Does it sell more than before?
For me I like everything about it except the lugs. It's going to take some time to get this image out of my mind of a big fat pirate standing on a thin wooden leg...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
New sub is more masculine, which is why it's a great choice for a "tough guy" unless of course you have thin wrists. If your dad's older sub is still around, compare them size by side, you will see how much better the new sub is. It's a winner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
No thin wrist here. Needed no adjustment out of the box. My wife says it looks great on me. I think I'll get used to it. It's just that they changed the thing I liked the most about this watch unnecessarily and I think not for the better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,136 Posts
This a first world problem, no offence! Having said that, I know where you are coming from. I too like the older ones, I actually like the 1680 the best, with that beautiful plexi! Everything looked better in the 70's, for me it's what I grew up with.
I would embrace the new, it was a gift, so hard to move on. It is better in every way, except it looks a bit different. It is new and ready to last a lifetime, I would wear it. It will more than likely grow on you as you see it daily and begin to appreciate its detail. There is nothing wrong with picking up an older model later on, if you still desire it, that's the beauty of being a collector.
Wear it and enjoy it for what it is, a brand new Sub.
Rusty
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Personally, I love the thicker lugs. I have a 14060M but would trade you in a heartbeat. I like the more masculine look and the bracelet is a HUGE improvement over the 16610 and the 14060M. My only negative would be the ceramic bezel insert. That is all for show as I don't believe it to be an improvement over the aluminum inserts. And the fact that you paid ZERO for your watch should make the happiest guy in the world. The best Rolex in the world is a FREE Rolex.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,254 Posts
Count me in...love the lugs. Nice n beefy, masculine without trying to hard...still maintaining the understated look in the world of super sized sport watches
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,012 Posts
If the lugs really bother you, and you want to start feeling better about your watch, reading this forum may be a bad idea. There are a lot of people who love the new sub, but there are just as many who seem to really dislike it. Every negative opinion you read will make it harder for you to get past them.

Besides, if the fact that the watch was a gift and free can't help you get past the lugs, I don't think anything will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I suppose I also needed to unload. It caught me by surprise. Had I been at the store I would most likely had chosen differently. Not without a large amount of disappointment. I wonder why there cannot be both models in production?
But obviously this was a present and I'm loosing nothing but an illusion. In fact I'm winning a very wonderful watch. I'm learning to like it. It begins to look more familiar every day as I have not removed it from my wrist.
I don't feel for a moment that the old model was in any way more feminine nor smaller. In any case me being a man my eyes tend to drift towards curvy lines. Makes me wonder if we are suffering the need to compensate from a Rolex designer with a phallic handicap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,948 Posts
I suppose I also needed to unload. It caught me by surprise. Had I been at the store I would most likely had chosen differently. Not without a large amount of disappointment. I wonder why there cannot be both models in production?
But obviously this was a present and I'm loosing nothing but an illusion. In fact I'm winning a very wonderful watch. I'm learning to like it. It begins to look more familiar every day as I have not removed it from my wrist.
I don't feel for a moment that the old model was in any way more feminine nor smaller. In any case me being a man my eyes tend to drift towards curvy lines. Makes me wonder if we are suffering the need to compensate from a Rolex designer with a phallic handicap.
I really believe you're way overthinking this. The Sub-C was, along with the Deepsea, Rolex's response to the Wrist Frisbee Madness that all of the other companies - e.g. Omega, Blanpain, IWC, Breitling, et al - had embraced.

The Sub-C contours make it the biggest 40mm watch made, comparable to the 42mm PO in "wrist presence." It is neither better nor worse than the contours of the 16610 ... it's just different. And, having owned four Subs over the last 32 years, all I can say is, "Vive la différence!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Well my illusion was a strong one since it was a childhood illusion.
Yet, there are many ways to react to competition pressures. Like come out with a complete new watch. One by another name. Make as huge as you like. Look at it this way, everyone who likes the Sub. liked the Sub.. Now some who liked the Sub. do not like it anymore. How can this possibly be good for business?
I wonder if this may end up like the New Coke/Classic Coke fiasco.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Older people do not like change, that is the simplest answer I can give you in this old vs new Sub fiasco.

I am in my 30's and I do like both versions but I appreciate the new technology Rolex applied and that has gone into the current Submariner

YMMY depending on what generation you grew up in
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Well my illusion was a strong one since it was a childhood illusion.
Yet, there are many ways to react to competition pressures. Like come out with a complete new watch. One by another name. Make as huge as you like. Look at it this way, everyone who likes the Sub. liked the Sub.. Now some who liked the Sub. do not like it anymore. How can this possibly be good for business?
I wonder if this may end up like the New Coke/Classic Coke fiasco.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm with you on this one. The transition from lug to bracelet is awkward, imo. Perhaps by widening the bracelet, and shrinking the lug width, and thereby keeping the same overall dimensions, even that might work. The classic lines of the sub is seared into my mind, probably since childhood. I'm "trying" to like the SubC, but I may never will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I think I would be happy with that last idea of widening the bracelet to match. There were many alternatives. A new Sub-F (F for frisbee) or Sub-PF (PF for passing fad) I would have never been concerned with. But a sinister plan to keep the name and hope too fool good little old mothers in laws is rather cruel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top