Can Rolex improve this baby any further?

[swatty]

Originally Posted by Jocke

Maybe they can build in a wrist shaver? I know a guy that need it.

Good thinking Jocke

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

As much as I love the Super Jubilee bracelet, I think this watch still looks best on the Oysterlock.

JJ

Absolutely!

[Safetrends]

Maybe JJ's letters engraved on the watch????


:r ofl:

[scl6118]

Originally Posted by Macro80

I personally struggle with a watch that is not waterproof to at least 300m.

It's a good thing it's equipped with the triplock crown, which IS waterproof to 300m. For some reason, Rolex just hasn't changed the rating.

[scl6118]

Originally Posted by submariner16610

very nice watch.. how about a 43mm gmt2c?

The size right now is perfect, as the bezel gives the appearance of more than 40mm. I'm a good size guy and I wouldn't want any bigger.

[rfknauss]

JJ, that is a beautiful Rolex! I would love to own a GMT.
Very classy, yet very sporty also.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by scl6118

It's a good thing it's equipped with the triplock crown, which IS waterproof to 300m. For some reason, Rolex just hasn't changed the rating.

The TRIPLOCK is not enough to justify a 300 m waterproof rating.

The caseback is not as thick as that of the Sub, nor is the crystal......so this watch still qualifies for a 100 m rating only.

JJ

[imono]

Very nice. Striking colors too - the whites and whites in your hand!

[Skullring]

That is a beauty JJ. It is perfect like it is but I would like to see a ceramic pepsi bezel.

[CPTL]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

The TRIPLOCK is not enough to justify a 300 m waterproof rating.

The caseback is not as thick as that of the Sub, nor is the crystal......so this watch still qualifies for a 100 m rating only.

JJ

Spot on, JJ--but I'll bet that baby will still safely go beyond 100m. Of course, even certified divers don't go that deep in a typical holiday dive.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by CPTL

Spot on, JJ--but I'll bet that baby will still safely go beyond 100m. Of course, even certified divers don't go that deep in a typical holiday dive.

Yes, it will..............'cause Rolex watches are tested to 125% of their stipulated rating......so this baby could safely go down to 125 m - another mm and you're dead ducks!!

[sleddog]

JJ,you can't improve on perfection!!!!

The only possible update IMO would be to the newer style Sub buckle(clasp) but not needed as the current buckle works just fine for me and is super comfortable.......Just my !!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by sleddog1000

JJ,you can't improve on perfection!!!!

The only possible update IMO would be to the newer style Sub buckle(clasp) but not needed as the current buckle works just fine for me and is super comfortable.......Just my !!

Once you get the hang of adjusting the EASY LINK to best suit your wrist size, it becomes a very comfortable bracelet.

JJ

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Jocke

Maybe they can build in a wrist shaver? I know a guy that need it.

You might need a lawnmower for that wrist!

[Safetrends]

Originally Posted by JBat

You might need a lawnmower for that wrist!

[Mosco]

I do think it can be improved with a TRUE quick-set date.

[JBat]

Just out of curiosity, how is the current Sub's date change feature different from a true quick-set date?

[Ebruner]

The Date on a GMT is Semi-Quickset. You have to roll the 24Hr hand around to set the date forward or backward.

-Eddie

[clubsta]

Its a beauty!

[JBat]

Originally Posted by Ebruner

The Date on a GMT is Semi-Quickset. You have to roll the 24Hr hand around to set the date forward or backward.

-Eddie

On my GMT you don't have to do that, you roll the hour hand around to advance or retard the date, and the 24 hour hand stays in place. But my question pertains to the Sub. I'm wondering what the difference is between the 16610's date change feature and a true quick-set.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by Jocke

Maybe they can build in a wrist shaver? I know a guy that need it.

Originally Posted by 2005rivers

quartz movement?

Thats actually a DAMN good idea !

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

As much as I love the Super Jubilee bracelet, I think this watch still looks best on the Oysterlock. JJ

I totally agree, it just doesnt 'look' right; Supercase and OYSTER bracelet. or see below !

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Once you get the hang of adjusting the EASY LINK to best suit your wrist size, it becomes a very comfortable bracelet.
JJ

Or just put on onadem WALMART Timex Velcro straps = a percect fit every time, no sun or shine !

[tandrup]

Lovely watch - both that and the Bluesy are stunning!

[scl6118]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

The TRIPLOCK is not enough to justify a 300 m waterproof rating.

The caseback is not as thick as that of the Sub, nor is the crystal......so this watch still qualifies for a 100 m rating only.

JJ

I understand that, but I believe that the case and crystal are thick enough to warrant the 300m rating, but Rolex probably doesn't want the GMT IIC thought of as a diver's watch, so they didn't rate it at 300m. If you go to clockmaker.com, you can actually see that the Submariner 14060 (no date) case is 12.3mm and the GMT II is THICKER at 12.4mm.

[STEELINOX]

Originally Posted by scl6118

I understand that, but I believe that the case and crystal are thick enough to warrant the 300m rating, but Rolex probably doesn't want the GMT IIC thought of as a diver's watch, so they didn't rate it at 300m. If you go to clockmaker.com, you can actually see that the Submariner 14060 (no date) case is 12.3mm and the GMT II is THICKER at 12.4mm.

I think I am gonna buy a 3186 and install it on my SUB date, just to stir it up around here !

[chiscoe]

Originally Posted by swissautopro

Oh, yeah ... just a Pepsi bezel insert.

Good one!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by scl6118

I understand that, but I believe that the case and crystal are thick enough to warrant the 300m rating, but Rolex probably doesn't want the GMT IIC thought of as a diver's watch, so they didn't rate it at 300m. If you go to clockmaker.com, you can actually see that the Submariner 14060 (no date) case is 12.3mm and the GMT II is THICKER at 12.4mm.

You've misunderstood. I was not referring to the height of the case (which is what you are talking about)!!

I was referring to the caseback cover, the actual cover that screws onto the back and covers the mechanism. This cover is called the caseback and is very thick in the case of the Subs and dive watches - not so with the GMT-IIC, Daytona and YM although they all have TRIPLOCK crowns.

JJ

[Cato]

Perhaps some additive to the bezel to make it less prone to chipping?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Cato

Perhaps some additive to the bezel to make it less prone to chipping?

According to the several reports I've read here, the Ceramic bezel seems to be pretty tough considering the number of whacks it's taken and been subjected to!!

[Fiery]

I know it's not a diver's watch, but I'd still add the GlideLock. Also, a couple of ideas -- albeit they're not essential features, or not features at all:

1) Have a choice of size, like on Omega Planet Ocean. 40mm (classic) and 43mm (modern big size). They may call the big one "GMT-Master III".

2) Coke and Pepsi bezel, of course. They would clash with the gold, but on the SS model they would be cool.

3) AR coating on the inside of the crystal. Why cannot Rolex do this? IMHO it would improve the overall look of the watch.

4) Power reserve indicator. Maybe Rolex refuses to do it to avoid cluttering the dial?

5) WG GMT IIC with a special bezel colour. Bronze, deep blue, deep green, maroon? Maybe same colour for the dial as well?

But frankly, I'd get the TT GMT IIC as is. I'm sure I would never miss those features. Well, not until I could get a Sub-C with GlideLock

[LouS]

Originally Posted by Mosco

I do think it can be improved with a TRUE quick-set date.

Bingo. That's it. Current date set mechanism is a nuisance.