Is the Submariner overrated?

[Rexplorer214270]

I know this may be somewhat of a loaded question, and full disclosure I have a SubC Date, I absolutely love it. I thought of this while watching a Bark and Jack video where Adrian was making the case that the Glashutte Original SeaQ Panorama Q Date was better than the Sub/Sub Date. I also know some may argue the Oris 65 diver or the Blancplan 50 fathoms. So is the Submariner just getting by on reputation and perceived retained value as not only a dive watch but say as daily wearer as well?

[stmoore]

He should share these thoughts the next time he is scarfing down a free rolex dinner.

$9,000 on the Glashutte Original SeaQ? Nope. The Oris? Wow.

[ras47]

"Better"?? Maybe in the opinion of some blogger but not me. I prefer the Sub Date over all of those other watches. The Oris is ok, maybe a bit vanilla. The Glashutte imho is ugly. And the Fifty Fathoms is bland. I'd take the Sub Date over all three of those others together.

[Kube]

Best diver IMO and in most opinion is fifty fathoms around $10k. But submariner has oyster bracelet, strong aesthetic, broad notoriety, etc. So best is not one factor i.e. tech. Very good dive watches around but Rolex is a very strong balance of all the qualities in a luxury watch that make it desirable. Personally, I like the sub way better aesthetically than SeaQ Panorama Q Date or fifty fathoms. All equally as capable for my needs, certainly not lacking with the sub. And except for Omega seamaster undercutting competition with very quality pieces at competitive price point, I'd say sub is valued at MSRP comprable to what you get. And even with the seamaster, I like the sub better for bracelet, bezel, lack of gas escape valve...

[Hollie_Rollie]

At current market price, the whole Rolex line up is arguably overrated.

[JRell]

114060 best watch ever. Had many other watches/brands, always go back to it. So no.

[Calatrava r]

The "I absolutely love it" answered your question.

[Nidal]

The gmt took over in the past few years due to the interesting colors and variants.
When the plain black ceramic GMT and the ceramic sub came out ten years ago the sub was more of the all time classic Rolex.
Still an icon of course. I find it a bit more classy than the GMT that is more contemporary now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brny11]

At the price I got it 30-40% less than current market, I don’t think so. Would I pay 10-11... absolutely not. However, that’s the going price and I am sure they are moving off shelves.

Overrated is relative. It is the only Rolex I have owned that I am fully content with. It is one of most (if not the most) “popular” and debatably the most iconic.

If you think it is overrated, then based on your preferences, it is regardless what others think.

[Krash]

No. Not over-rated. It's my favorite watch.

I don't want to start a religious war, so I will refrain from listing all the "expensive" watches that I think are over-rated.

[interestedwatcher]

Originally Posted by stmoore

He should share these thoughts the next time he is scarfing down a free rolex dinner.

$9,000 on the Glashutte Original SeaQ? Nope. The Oris? Wow.

Ha - ain't that the truth.

[Etschell]

No.

[Marcjvr]

Yes

[amedman]

its a classic! That and the Omega Speedmaster

[RBradleigh]

I have a Sub and have tried on the SeaQ. The SeaQ is pretty piece and if one prefers it to the Sub then great for them. Yes, it’s nice having the see through case but really not necessary on a diver. Of course having the rotor takes away from the nicely decorated movement anyway.

Where the SeaQ “lacks” is it’s overall thickness, it is quite beefy. Beyond that I’d be a happy camper if someone were to give me the SeaQ. As an everyday watch I would choose my Submariner.

[RBradleigh]

Originally Posted by stmoore

He should share these thoughts the next time he is scarfing down a free rolex dinner.

$9,000 on the Glashutte Original SeaQ? Nope. The Oris? Wow.

Pretty sure I recently saw Takuya offer one up for ~ 7k and thought to myself someone is getting a great piece (Panorama on bracelet) for that price.

[macrowatch]

Neither over rated or under rated. It just is...

[Seaswirl]

The SEAQ big date and the BPFF are both almost 16mm in thickness and have diameters of 43 and 45mm, respectively. They are also quite a bit more expensive the a SubC Date. I like Subs as they are more reasonably sized. I never thought of them as “overrated”, just timeless.

[jamerson80]

It's OK. For what it is I think priced too high (as is every other Rolex), and in the dive category it resides in I find Omega's new titanium no date diver to be the nicest of the bunch.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

[MrGoat]

To me the Submariner is synonymous with the brand. I think Rolex when I think Submariner and Submariner when I think of Rolex.

This is just my bias opinion as someone who has dreamt of a submariner on their wrist for 25 yrs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[B.F. Pigeon]

Originally Posted by JRell

114060 best watch ever. Had many other watches/brands, always go back to it. So no.

Could not agree more!

[breitlings]

Lots of watches beat rolex on paper, few in reality. Great companies, the marketing aligns with reality.

[mmalek1]

This one has never failed to put a smile on my face.

[JChips]

Rated appropriately, in my option. For better or for worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lamontsanders]

The Sub is the archetype sports watch. It's not overrated. It's currently overpriced but it's not overrated.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Hollie_Rollie

At current market price, the whole Rolex line up is arguably overrated.

This is what it all boils down to.

And Rolex prepares for it in propping up Tudor.

[JRell]

The overprice thing I am not sure if I agree. If the value of the watch dropped significantly after purchase I might agree. Also look at the demand, even during a pandemic! Compared to Patek/AP, much lower entry point. I guess some of the PM models are priced high. If they drop the prices too low the perceived value of the brand could lower, thus the value of our watches. Anyways, I wish there was more supply, but the demand is sure there.

[Likestheshiny]

I'm inclined to say that all Rolexes are overrated. That doesn't make them bad -- in fact, they're fantastic watches. But the prices just keep going up, and without the Rolex heritage and reputation (partly earned, partly created through marketing), I doubt these watches would be considered worth their retail price. Would anyone buy a watch that was exactly the same as a Rolex but had "Watches by Fred" written on the dial instead? There's a sense in which the actual watch isn't keeping up with the the branding, which to me suggests the watch itself is overrated.

And even with the Rolex branding, there are $30k precious metal Rolexes that don't compete well with other watches in that price range.

[Dr.Smellody]

Nope.

[csaltphoto]

Just about any dive watch is overrated these days, given that there is no use for a mechanical dive watch in modern scuba/saturation diving/etc.; much less for one that costs more than all the rest of your gear combined. Sure, you can bring it with you diving (I do) but it has no more practical functionality than a sextant on a modern naval ship. It's the best buggy whip; a Dunhill lighter on a non-smoking flight.

However the Submariner was, and probably will be for the foreseeable future, the quintessential dive watch. And beyond that it is a really good watch; accurate, rugged and designed to outlast the owner. Combine that with a worldwide service network, reasonably priced service and long service intervals.

Pricing? Heck, mine has appreciated in value at least 30% since I bought it 2 years ago. There is price and there is value. And the market sees the value in the watch.