ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

brianflemm · 8 March 2010, 12:14 PM

What is the difference in feel btw a SS Sub and SS GMT? I own a SS Sub and am interested in selling it for a GMT.

Thanks

thomaskho · 8 March 2010, 12:16 PM

GMT for sky and Sub for Sea!!

HL65 · 8 March 2010, 12:18 PM

They feel exactly the same to me!!

ayres · 8 March 2010, 12:41 PM

first off, are you referring to the 16710? or the 116710? it matters...

brianflemm · 8 March 2010, 12:47 PM

Gmt 16700 a

chiscoe · 8 March 2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ayres

first off, are you referring to the 16710? or the 116710? it matters...

Good question, because if it is the 116710, it feels heavier(IMHO).

Tools · 8 March 2010, 12:48 PM

After a couple of hours, it doesn't matter much............

Poom · 8 March 2010, 12:59 PM

Like them both and keeping them both

Singslinger · 8 March 2010, 01:48 PM

I know this isn't what the OP asked, but I believe there will be a (possibly small) difference in wearing comfort between the new ceramic Subs and the GMT IIc because the former will have the Glidelock on the new Oyster bracelet.

It's not identical to the Glidelock on the Deepsea which can be adjusted while the watch is still on the wrist. You have to take the watch off to lengthen/shorten the Glidelock. But it's still a vast improvement on the present bracelet.

However, if it's between the current S/S Sub and new GMT IIc, I'm not sure if there is a difference.

sakuraba · 8 March 2010, 02:03 PM

FWIW I can't tell my Pepsi from my Explorer II on my wrist (have to keep looking at my wrist

), but the Sub is more substantial than both of them. It feels heftier, and more comfortable.

To throw a curve ball, my recently acquired SD feels the heftiest, but not as comfortable as the Sub.

Mrdi · 8 March 2010, 02:21 PM

About the same
The Dweller feels different.
The Explorer feels very clean and easy.

sea-dweller · 8 March 2010, 03:22 PM

They pretty much feel the same. The longer crown of the Sub, may "dig", if the watch slips down the wrist, but if it is snug, it's fine. No real difference.

Newportkrieger · 8 March 2010, 03:31 PM

I own both... a 16610 and a 16700. The 16700 feels a bit lighter and if this makes sense, it "wears thinner". The GMT is more comfortable to wear IMHO and is more versatile in so much as it is easier to wear a dress shirt with the GMT and have the shirt cuff wear/fit properly over the watch.

brianflemm · 8 March 2010, 05:11 PM

Thanks gentleman. TRF has been a blessing

nch209 · 8 March 2010, 05:18 PM

I like the feel of the older 1675 and 16750... I feel they both feel much better than say a 16610 sub. Can't speak for the new ceramics though...

ayres · 9 March 2010, 08:13 AM

aside from different wrist shapes, there are unquestionable differences between the two. the sub has a thicker case back, so the watch sits higher on the wrist.

given that you wear your watch a little loose like most, the sub crown can create a callus on your hand - i've never noticed this with my exp2's smaller crown. it never bothered me, though.

additionally, and most importantly, the sub clasp is larger. the gmt clasp sits flush with the oyster links, which i love for comfort reasons. so if you're not diving with your watch, the utility of the sub clasp is quickly lost, and it is more obnoxious when your wrist is resting on books, papers, desk, etc.

then again, i'm left handed, and i wear my watch on the left wrist, so i very quickly noticed the annoyance with the sub clasp.

overall, i think the gmt/gmt2/exp2 is much more comfortable.

Mockingbird · 9 March 2010, 08:37 AM

I prefer the feel of the GMT II, the slimmer profile makes it much easier to wear.

Mockingbird · 9 March 2010, 08:37 AM

Double post sorry!

mike · 9 March 2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newportkrieger

I own both... a 16610 and a 16700. The 16700 feels a bit lighter and if this makes sense, it "wears thinner". The GMT is more comfortable to wear IMHO and is more versatile in so much as it is easier to wear a dress shirt with the GMT and have the shirt cuff wear/fit properly over the watch.

Well said. That's my feeling as well.

CPTL · 9 March 2010, 09:50 AM

I have an Exp-II and a Sub. The Exp-II with its thinner case and lighter overall weight wears much more comfortably. The Sub is thicker and heavier, and thus the head tends to pull a little more at the top. It gets much more pronounced when I'm running, where the Sub tends to slide around more.

I assume that the GMT-II, with it's lighter, thinner case, is a similar story.

Perdu · 9 March 2010, 11:02 AM

The GMT feels lighter and it's thinner on the wrist. Also the clasp is smaller/less thick.

Dan Pierce · 9 March 2010, 11:11 AM

When comparing my GMT II to with Tudor Sub I find they have a different presence and character on the wrist. Like both and enjoy the differences.

dP

8 March 2010, 12:14 PM	#1
brianflemm Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: North Pole,Alaska Posts: 67	GMT vs Sub? How do they feel? What is the difference in feel btw a SS Sub and SS GMT? I own a SS Sub and am interested in selling it for a GMT. Thanks

8 March 2010, 12:18 PM	#3
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,993	They feel exactly the same to me!! __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

8 March 2010, 12:48 PM	#7
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,499	After a couple of hours, it doesn't matter much............ __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

8 March 2010, 02:03 PM	#10
sakuraba "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Real Name: Jib Location: SJ, California Watch: sun dial Posts: 8,189	FWIW I can't tell my Pepsi from my Explorer II on my wrist (have to keep looking at my wrist), but the Sub is more substantial than both of them. It feels heftier, and more comfortable. To throw a curve ball, my recently acquired SD feels the heftiest, but not as comfortable as the Sub. __________________ F 14000 AirKing black F 16710 GMT Pepsi F 16570 Explorer II white T 16600 SD D 16610 LV "fine quality is remembered long after the pain of spending money" -Steve Mulholland

8 March 2010, 03:22 PM	#12
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	They pretty much feel the same. The longer crown of the Sub, may "dig", if the watch slips down the wrist, but if it is snug, it's fine. No real difference. __________________ TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)

8 March 2010, 12:16 PM	#2
thomaskho "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: New York Watch: 16610 Posts: 226	GMT for sky and Sub for Sea!!

8 March 2010, 12:41 PM	#4
ayres "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: honolulu Watch: whatever runs Posts: 551	first off, are you referring to the 16710? or the 116710? it matters...

8 March 2010, 12:47 PM	#5
brianflemm Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: North Pole,Alaska Posts: 67	Gmt 16700 a

8 March 2010, 12:59 PM	#8
Poom "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Bangkok, Thailand Posts: 349	Like them both and keeping them both

8 March 2010, 01:48 PM	#9
Singslinger "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: singapore Posts: 6,424	I know this isn't what the OP asked, but I believe there will be a (possibly small) difference in wearing comfort between the new ceramic Subs and the GMT IIc because the former will have the Glidelock on the new Oyster bracelet. It's not identical to the Glidelock on the Deepsea which can be adjusted while the watch is still on the wrist. You have to take the watch off to lengthen/shorten the Glidelock. But it's still a vast improvement on the present bracelet. However, if it's between the current S/S Sub and new GMT IIc, I'm not sure if there is a difference.

8 March 2010, 02:21 PM	#11
Mrdi Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: PA Posts: 3,478	About the same The Dweller feels different. The Explorer feels very clean and easy.

8 March 2010, 03:31 PM	#13
Newportkrieger Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Steve Location: Newport Beach, CA Watch: GMT Master Pepsi Posts: 1,243	"feel the difference".... I own both... a 16610 and a 16700. The 16700 feels a bit lighter and if this makes sense, it "wears thinner". The GMT is more comfortable to wear IMHO and is more versatile in so much as it is easier to wear a dress shirt with the GMT and have the shirt cuff wear/fit properly over the watch.

8 March 2010, 05:11 PM	#14
brianflemm Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: North Pole,Alaska Posts: 67	Thanks gentleman. TRF has been a blessing

8 March 2010, 05:18 PM	#15
nch209 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Nathan Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 2,775	I like the feel of the older 1675 and 16750... I feel they both feel much better than say a 16610 sub. Can't speak for the new ceramics though... __________________ nch209

9 March 2010, 08:13 AM	#16
ayres "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: honolulu Watch: whatever runs Posts: 551	aside from different wrist shapes, there are unquestionable differences between the two. the sub has a thicker case back, so the watch sits higher on the wrist. given that you wear your watch a little loose like most, the sub crown can create a callus on your hand - i've never noticed this with my exp2's smaller crown. it never bothered me, though. additionally, and most importantly, the sub clasp is larger. the gmt clasp sits flush with the oyster links, which i love for comfort reasons. so if you're not diving with your watch, the utility of the sub clasp is quickly lost, and it is more obnoxious when your wrist is resting on books, papers, desk, etc. then again, i'm left handed, and i wear my watch on the left wrist, so i very quickly noticed the annoyance with the sub clasp. overall, i think the gmt/gmt2/exp2 is much more comfortable.

9 March 2010, 08:37 AM	#17
Mockingbird "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: -- Posts: 2,097	I prefer the feel of the GMT II, the slimmer profile makes it much easier to wear.

9 March 2010, 09:50 AM	#20
CPTL "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Kevin Location: Texas on my mind Watch: Sub Date; SS/WG DJ Posts: 2,445	I have an Exp-II and a Sub. The Exp-II with its thinner case and lighter overall weight wears much more comfortably. The Sub is thicker and heavier, and thus the head tends to pull a little more at the top. It gets much more pronounced when I'm running, where the Sub tends to slide around more. I assume that the GMT-II, with it's lighter, thinner case, is a similar story. __________________ 16610 Submariner Date; D Serial 16234 DateJust SS with WG Fluted Bezel & Jubillee, White Roman Dial; F Serial 16570 Explorer II White Dial; M Serial And Hers: 78240 Mid-Size DateJust SS with Domed Bezel & Oyster, White Roman; D Serial

9 March 2010, 11:02 AM	#21
Perdu "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Gary Location: GMT-6 Watch: GMT Posts: 3,350	The GMT feels lighter and it's thinner on the wrist. Also the clasp is smaller/less thick. __________________ Omega Seamaster 300M GMT Noire Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 8500 Benson 1937 Sterling Silver Hunter

9 March 2010, 11:11 AM	#22
Dan Pierce 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Real Name: D'OH! Location: Kentucky Watch: Rolex-1 Tudor-3 Posts: 36,190	When comparing my GMT II to with Tudor Sub I find they have a different presence and character on the wrist. Like both and enjoy the differences. dP __________________ TRF Member# 1668 Bass Player in TRF "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Band Commander-in-Chief of The Nylon Nation The Crown & Shield Club Honorary Member of P-Club

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