Rolex Submariner Date Merits

[KAHN]

Brief review of Rolex Submariner Date watches.

Classic 16610 (Classic Sub) & Ceramic Bezel 116610 (Sub C)

Sorry My Pics Are Not Great

Sub C is on the bottom of this image



Most of the folks here are very familiar with both of these versions and each
has it's very own positive merits:


Sub C is the newest version with Rolexes current updates.

• Much improved flip lock band
• Ceramic bezel insert
• Very Swol head size
• thicker hands
• Blue Lume with larger dots
• (techie members can advise of differences in actual movements and proposed accuracy)

Classic Sub pictured is a transitional model having a SEL band, no holes case and engraved rehault on inside of sapphire crystal.

I like both of these models very much.

The Classic Sub is just much more comfortable to wear, yet the
major flaw is the ultra crappy flip lock clasp that was never upgraded for years and years.

Sub C feels much more robust yet the swol head is just never as comfortable
as the Classic Sub which seems to meld with your wrist when being worn.





Sub C band is the one on top of both of the above images - only gripe would be the way the Rolex coronet seems glued on the newer style fliplock band (obviously it's tack welded or another way of being applied) but the coronet could have been better placed .

The fliplock band revision was well overdue and the transition from
thin folded what seemed like sheet metal has been eliminated along the full
line of Rolex Oyster models.

The integrity of the classic style Submariner dial I feel was also lost on the
new Sub C, the new Sub C dial is nice clear and crisp but the Classic Sub just
was more aesthetically pleasing to my eye.


The lume with the classic green glow just seemed more inviting that the current blue type glow the newer Sub C offers.

Again this all may be a matter of personal preference but in summation
the Classic Sub is a much more majestic watch

[watchmework]

Interesting review...

My SubC is so swol from my watch gainz.

[Etschell]

Thanks for the review. The SubC is just better built imo.

That said both are great.

[SpeakWithMichael]

Originally Posted by watchmework

Interesting review...

My SubC is so swol from my watch gainz.

Yea, but too much gainz and you're not within COSC. Don't want to have to regulate for not being all-natty.

[watchmework]

Originally Posted by SpeakWithMichael

Yea, but too much gainz and you're not within COSC. Don't want to have to regulate for not being all-natty.

Everyone always talks about my fat lugs but I think my swol case is just perfect. I even wear it everyday to stay within COSC.

[Swiss Mad!]

Nice review - my only comment would be regarding the position of the coronet.

You state you think it could have been better placed, however I actually think it is perfect and was actually a stroke of genius by Rolex to let the bottom of the coronet overhang a little to act as a finger grip to open the glide lock clasp.

Just my 2c

[KAHN]

Originally Posted by Swiss Mad!

Nice review - my only comment would be regarding the position of the coronet.

You state you think it could have been better placed, however I actually think it is perfect and was actually a stroke of genius by Rolex to let the bottom of the coronet overhang a little to act as a finger grip to open the glide lock clasp.

Just my 2c

You make a valid point.

I'm also wrong about it being attached as it seems from the back of the smaller fliplock clasp it is actually a single piece of steel that must be formed in a high quality casting or some more modern process like MIM (metal injection molding) that can reproduce the fine details associated with this part.

Surely other members know how these clasp parts are being manufactured?

[Beowulf]

Very interesting review @KAHN, at least for me, I wasn't aware of the little details and differences between the versions.

[uansari1]

How can the flip lock be considered "ultra crappy" if it's tried and true, and just works?

[KAHN]

Originally Posted by uansari1

How can the flip lock be considered "ultra crappy" if it's tried and true, and just works?

Here is a hint: look at the updated version.


Basically Rolex got away for years putting a subpar clasp on the market because of their name and history.

If you have worn the older style band hard, you'll know and remember the need to bend the sheet metal parts to hear the 'click' when locking mechanism was once again needed.

I've literally bent the whole older style clasp when pulling my hand thru a Subway door, Rolex back then was gracious enough to replace the clasp parts for free at the NYC service center.

[uansari1]

Originally Posted by KAHN

Here is a hint: look at the updated version.


Basically Rolex got away for years putting a subpar clasp on the market because of their name and history.

If you have worn the older style band hard, you'll know and remember the need to bend the sheet metal parts to hear the 'click' when locking mechanism was once again needed.

I've literally bent the whole older style clasp when pulling my hand thru a Subway door, Rolex back then was gracious enough to replace the clasp parts for free at the NYC service center.

I'd wager you're in the extreme minority. I agree the newer clasp is solid and definitely a step forward, but I have three pieces with the old clasp and have never had an issue regardless of wearing them in the water, hiking, or snowboarding.