ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

leopardprey · 9 March 2007, 04:24 AM

Just measured my Sub ND and Sub LV with calibers. Sub ND had diameter of 39mm, Sub was 40mm. The Sub LV actually looks smaller in diameter though due to the Maxi Dial, cyclops, and extra printing on dial. Measured my new GMT as well. Was also 40mm in diameter, and around 1mm thinner in height compared to the Sub LV. 0.5 mm thinner than Sub ND. Can actually tell the difference on the wrist. The GMT definately fits more flush and comfortable. Also like the thinner clasp on the bracelet that the GMT has.

JJ Irani · 9 March 2007, 04:29 AM

Hi Chad,

The LV and the SS Sub-date use the same identical case and bracelet. Only differences are TWO - i.e. the bezel colour and the maxi dial - all else is the same.

This chart might help....

leopardprey · 9 March 2007, 10:07 AM

Yes, but the SS Sub/Sub LV are larger than the Sub No Date (which is not on the chart). The Bezel insert in the Sub No Date is smaller and the overall diameter and also the height of the Sub No Date is smaller.

JJ Irani · 9 March 2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Yes, but the SS Sub/Sub LV are larger than the Sub No Date (which is not on the chart). The Bezel insert in the Sub No Date is smaller and the overall diameter and also the height of the Sub No Date is smaller.

I'm quite sure the diameter of the ND Sub is the same as all the other Subs, i.e. 40 mm. In thickness, however, the ND Sub might be slimmer.

JJ

mike · 9 March 2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Yes, but the SS Sub/Sub LV are larger than the Sub No Date (which is not on the chart). The Bezel insert in the Sub No Date is smaller and the overall diameter and also the height of the Sub No Date is smaller.

Yeah, my reference lists the 16610 insert--37.75 outer diameter, 30.7 inner diameter.
14060 (M)--36.55 OD, 27.7 ID.

leopardprey · 9 March 2007, 10:15 AM

JJ, I am measuring them both side by side. Not the same. Also had Mike confirm this. Also popped out the Bezel insert of the Sub No Date to put on the LV, that is when discovered the Sub No Date is a bit smaller in diameter. I always thought they would be the same. I guess without the date function, they can make the Sub No Date a little smaller.

JJ Irani · 9 March 2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

JJ, I am measuring them both side by side. Not the same. Also had Mike confirm this. Also popped out the Bezel insert of the Sub No Date to put on the LV, that is when discovered the Sub No Date is a bit smaller in diameter. I always thought they would be the same. I guess without the date function, they can make the Sub No Date a little smaller.

Hmmm.....interesting. What instrument are you using for measurements? Vernier calipers?

I used a Vernier once on one of my Exp-II and the measurement came up as 39 mm....whereas the Sub-date came up as 40 mm.

I was always under the impression that the same case was used for the no-date Sub as well as the other Subs (except, of course, the solid gold one).

JJ

Blue Bull · 9 March 2007, 10:19 AM

Interesting info,Chad.Is your caliper accurate enough so you can give us the actual differences of the measurements ?

leopardprey · 9 March 2007, 10:24 AM

Using a good set of SS Calipers my Father loaned me. Will give you the exact measurements, but off top of my head, the Sub ND is about .5-.25mm thinner. And dimater wise, the Sub ND is 1mm smaller. You can definately tell from the Bezel insert, and bezel itself. When you compare the bezels after you take them both off, you see the Sub is bigger than the Sub ND. Another way to tell without measuring is the hard plastic protective covering - locks down on the GMT and SUB bezel, but rotates freely on the Sub ND.

JJ Irani · 9 March 2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Using a good set of SS Calipers my Father loaned me. Will give you the exact measurements, but off top of my head, the Sub ND is about .5-.25mm thinner. And dimater wise, the Sub ND is 1mm smaller. You can definately tell from the Bezel insert, and bezel itself. When you compare the bezels after you take them both off, you see the Sub is bigger than the Sub ND. Another way to tell without measuring is the hard plastic protective covering - locks down on the GMT and SUB bezel, but rotates freely on the Sub ND.

Thanks for the info, Chad. So it's obvious that the SUB they mention in my chart above is the Sub-date. I should know because I've weighed it and it does weigh in at exactly 135 grams.

JJ

leopardprey · 9 March 2007, 10:48 AM

Stainless Steel National Calipers. My measurements:

Thickness:

Sub ND 12.5mm
Sub LV 13.0mm
GMT II 12.0mm
Omega Seamaster Prof. 12.25mm

Outer Bezel Diameter:

Sub ND 39mm
Sub LV 40mm
GMT II 40mm
Omega SMP 41mm

JJ Irani · 9 March 2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Stainless Steel National Calipers. My measurements:

Thickness:

Sub ND 12.5mm
Sub LV 13.0mm
GMT II 12.0mm
Omega Seamaster Prof. 12.25mm

Outer Bezel Diameter:

Sub ND 39mm
Sub LV 40mm
GMT II 40mm
Omega SMP 41mm

I love this kinda info, Chad.

Thanks!!

Lubrifar · 9 January 2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Stainless Steel National Calipers. My measurements:

Thickness:

Sub ND 12.5mm
Sub LV 13.0mm
GMT II 12.0mm
Omega Seamaster Prof. 12.25mm

Outer Bezel Diameter:

Sub ND 39mm
Sub LV 40mm
GMT II 40mm
Omega SMP 41mm

Great info here Chad, thanks.
As a comparison, are you refering to Omega SMP 2254.50?

SPACE-DWELLER · 9 January 2008, 10:23 AM

Is that the GMT II Ceramic you measured, Chad?

Transient · 9 January 2008, 10:39 AM

Very interesting post.
I have a SMP and when I compare it to my 16610 the SMP looks way larger than just the 1mm stated difference.

Lubrifar · 9 January 2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Very interesting post.
I have a SMP and when I compare it to my 16610 the SMP looks way larger than just the 1mm stated difference.

I assume you are talking about the case diameter. How about the thicknest between the two? And comfort level?

9 March 2007, 04:24 AM	#1
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	Sub ND vs Sub measurements Just measured my Sub ND and Sub LV with calibers. Sub ND had diameter of 39mm, Sub was 40mm. The Sub LV actually looks smaller in diameter though due to the Maxi Dial, cyclops, and extra printing on dial. Measured my new GMT as well. Was also 40mm in diameter, and around 1mm thinner in height compared to the Sub LV. 0.5 mm thinner than Sub ND. Can actually tell the difference on the wrist. The GMT definately fits more flush and comfortable. Also like the thinner clasp on the bracelet that the GMT has.

9 March 2007, 04:29 AM	#2
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,319	Hi Chad, The LV and the SS Sub-date use the same identical case and bracelet. Only differences are TWO - i.e. the bezel colour and the maxi dial - all else is the same. This chart might help.... __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

9 January 2008, 10:23 AM	#14
SPACE-DWELLER "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Bo Location: Denmark Watch: Rolex, of course! Posts: 22,436	Is that the GMT II Ceramic you measured, Chad? __________________ With kind regards, Bo LocTite 221: The Taming Of The Screw...

9 March 2007, 10:07 AM	#3
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	Yes, but the SS Sub/Sub LV are larger than the Sub No Date (which is not on the chart). The Bezel insert in the Sub No Date is smaller and the overall diameter and also the height of the Sub No Date is smaller.

9 March 2007, 10:15 AM	#6
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	JJ, I am measuring them both side by side. Not the same. Also had Mike confirm this. Also popped out the Bezel insert of the Sub No Date to put on the LV, that is when discovered the Sub No Date is a bit smaller in diameter. I always thought they would be the same. I guess without the date function, they can make the Sub No Date a little smaller.

9 March 2007, 10:19 AM	#8
Blue Bull Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,887	Interesting info,Chad.Is your caliper accurate enough so you can give us the actual differences of the measurements ?

9 March 2007, 10:24 AM	#9
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	Using a good set of SS Calipers my Father loaned me. Will give you the exact measurements, but off top of my head, the Sub ND is about .5-.25mm thinner. And dimater wise, the Sub ND is 1mm smaller. You can definately tell from the Bezel insert, and bezel itself. When you compare the bezels after you take them both off, you see the Sub is bigger than the Sub ND. Another way to tell without measuring is the hard plastic protective covering - locks down on the GMT and SUB bezel, but rotates freely on the Sub ND.

9 March 2007, 10:48 AM	#11
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	Stainless Steel National Calipers. My measurements: Thickness: Sub ND 12.5mm Sub LV 13.0mm GMT II 12.0mm Omega Seamaster Prof. 12.25mm Outer Bezel Diameter: Sub ND 39mm Sub LV 40mm GMT II 40mm Omega SMP 41mm

9 January 2008, 10:39 AM	#15
Transient "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Real Name: Rob Location: Sydney, Australia Watch: Rolex & Omega Posts: 697	Very interesting post. I have a SMP and when I compare it to my 16610 the SMP looks way larger than just the 1mm stated difference.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)