ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

presario · 15 July 2010, 08:56 AM

I was following another thread where the posters were discussing the case dimension differences between the SUB-C and GMT2C even if both are 40mm. Are the supercased lugs different sizes? What about crown guard shape? I do know for certain that the caseback is thicker on the Sub. Any confirmations? Thanks!

presario · 16 July 2010, 06:20 AM

Anyone know if the lugs are thicker on the Sub-C than the GMT2C?

spuds · 16 July 2010, 08:31 AM

Oy-Oy!!

.....where's all the experts?????

I'm as intrigued by this whole 'case difference' issue as you are Andrew mate!!....
I'm not doubting the OP of the other thread I just always thought all 'Super-Cases' were the same (lugs'n'all)....

The GMT Master · 16 July 2010, 08:33 AM

I would've thought the only difference would be the case back to deal with the added water resistence - certainly at a glance they seem identical. I can't say for sure though

presario · 16 July 2010, 08:44 AM

Thanks Dan!

I started browsing all the photos of the new Sub-C that forum members have posted and I'm beginning to think the lugs are indeed wider on the Sub-C, as subtle as it may be.

Chris,
That's what I thought too, until someone else brought it up.

TheDude · 16 July 2010, 09:05 AM

I remember a thread a while back where folks were pretty certain that the lugs are thicker on the Sub. The pics seem to support this. I have a GMT-IIc, and I can see from certain photographed angles that the lugs are thicker on the Sub.

Fiery · 16 July 2010, 09:18 AM

Interesting topic. I also wonder whether Sub-C and GMT IIC bracelets are interchangable. Do they have the same end-link shape?

DOUBLE 0 SE7EN · 16 July 2010, 10:44 AM

maybe this macro shot can help this topic.. just by the gmt side..

jnkay · 16 July 2010, 11:09 AM

The lugs on the sub-c are wider than those on the GMT-IIc. It's a difference of a fraction of a millimeter, maybe .6 mm, but it is enough to give the sub case a more blocky appearance.

ayres · 16 July 2010, 11:12 AM

yep, i noticed that thread too, and i even commented on it...

we need to see a side-by-side pic, as well as a micrometer, if it's available.

all i can say is, for those who cite the difference, where/how did you learn the difference?

Psmith · 16 July 2010, 01:10 PM

I got some info on the two cases from observation/discussion at a Rolex boutique, followed by a discussion at Rolex Australia.

Also, you can make comparisons (on some of the dimensions) using the data sheets in these two threads...

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=30808

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=72642

Cheers

jnkay · 16 July 2010, 01:58 PM

I got my information by looking at my GMT-c then Sub-c. And then looking at them again because the lugs look different. Finally I held one over the other, and yup, clear as day. I have not measured the difference, but it is clearly less than 1 mm.

masterkiller · 16 July 2010, 04:21 PM

It sounds strange to me, that Rolex would bother to stock and manufacture two diffenrent 'supercase's if the only difference is even less then a mm on the lugs?

Why have no one noticed this on the fullgold and TT version, I have not heard anything? or is the change only valid for SS?

feedback please!

/masterkiller

Oslo · 16 July 2010, 04:58 PM

The case of the GMT is bulkier than the sub which seems thin. Caseback protudes more on the sub, but bottomline is that my Sub-C feels akwardly thin when I'm used to my GMT IIC

Psmith · 16 July 2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oslo

The case of the GMT is bulkier than the sub which seems thin. Caseback protudes more on the sub, but bottomline is that my Sub-C feels akwardly thin when I'm used to my GMT IIC

Yep, I noticed the differences when comparing my GMT IIC to a TT Sub C in the boutique. I mentioned the cases to one of the RSC techs when I was at Rolex Aus a few weeks later.

I guess they wanted to keep the overall height of the Sub approx the same as the GMT, so made the middle case thinner to compensate for the thicker caseback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by masterkiller

It sounds strange to me, that Rolex would bother to stock and manufacture two diffenrent 'supercase's if the only difference is even less then a mm on the lugs?

Why have no one noticed this on the fullgold and TT version, I have not heard anything? or is the change only valid for SS?

feedback please!

/masterkiller

All of the GMT models use the same shape case.

Cheers

TheDude · 16 July 2010, 10:52 PM

From the Sales Corner...

It is subtle, but the lug appears to taper more aggressively on the GMT from the bezel to the tip. The Sub maintains a much shallower taper and thus the extra width.

theken · 16 July 2010, 11:15 PM

I never noticed the difference in the case size until this was mentioned in a prior post.

TheDude · 16 July 2010, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theken

I never noticed the difference in the case size until this was mentioned in a prior post.

Yeah, you can see what I mean about the taper. The Sub lugs stay thicker all the way from the 10, 2, 4, 8 areas of the watch.

15 July 2010, 08:56 AM	#1
presario "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Andrew Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,428	Supercase difference between SUB-C and GMT2C? I was following another thread where the posters were discussing the case dimension differences between the SUB-C and GMT2C even if both are 40mm. Are the supercased lugs different sizes? What about crown guard shape? I do know for certain that the caseback is thicker on the Sub. Any confirmations? Thanks! __________________

16 July 2010, 06:20 AM	#2
presario "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Andrew Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,428	Anyone know if the lugs are thicker on the Sub-C than the GMT2C? __________________

16 July 2010, 08:31 AM	#3
spuds "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Dan Location: Essex, UK Watch: West Ham! COYI!! Posts: 7,941	Oy-Oy!! .....where's all the experts????? I'm as intrigued by this whole 'case difference' issue as you are Andrew mate!!.... I'm not doubting the OP of the other thread I just always thought all 'Super-Cases' were the same (lugs'n'all).... __________________ Onwards & Upwards Rodders...... Onwards & Upwards. Life is not about how fast you can run or how high you can climb........... It's about how well you can bounce!! TRF HALL OF FAME JANUARY 2010

16 July 2010, 08:44 AM	#5
presario "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Andrew Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,428	Thanks Dan! I started browsing all the photos of the new Sub-C that forum members have posted and I'm beginning to think the lugs are indeed wider on the Sub-C, as subtle as it may be. Chris, That's what I thought too, until someone else brought it up. __________________

16 July 2010, 01:10 PM	#11
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	I got some info on the two cases from observation/discussion at a Rolex boutique, followed by a discussion at Rolex Australia. Also, you can make comparisons (on some of the dimensions) using the data sheets in these two threads... http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=30808 http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=72642 Cheers __________________

16 July 2010, 08:33 AM	#4
The GMT Master "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: England Posts: 8,150	I would've thought the only difference would be the case back to deal with the added water resistence - certainly at a glance they seem identical. I can't say for sure though

16 July 2010, 09:05 AM	#6
TheDude "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: DC Area, USA Watch: IIc,1680 Red,16660 Posts: 4,492	I remember a thread a while back where folks were pretty certain that the lugs are thicker on the Sub. The pics seem to support this. I have a GMT-IIc, and I can see from certain photographed angles that the lugs are thicker on the Sub.

16 July 2010, 09:18 AM	#7
Fiery "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Europe Watch: Sub-C 116610LN Posts: 2,649	Interesting topic. I also wonder whether Sub-C and GMT IIC bracelets are interchangable. Do they have the same end-link shape?

16 July 2010, 10:44 AM	#8
DOUBLE 0 SE7EN "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: KAAN Location: ISTANBUL Watch: Explorer-PAM233 Posts: 1,648	maybe this macro shot can help this topic.. just by the gmt side..

16 July 2010, 11:09 AM	#9
jnkay "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: South Florida, US Watch: du jour Posts: 1,815	The lugs on the sub-c are wider than those on the GMT-IIc. It's a difference of a fraction of a millimeter, maybe .6 mm, but it is enough to give the sub case a more blocky appearance.

16 July 2010, 11:12 AM	#10
ayres "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: honolulu Watch: whatever runs Posts: 551	yep, i noticed that thread too, and i even commented on it... we need to see a side-by-side pic, as well as a micrometer, if it's available. all i can say is, for those who cite the difference, where/how did you learn the difference?

16 July 2010, 01:58 PM	#12
jnkay "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: South Florida, US Watch: du jour Posts: 1,815	I got my information by looking at my GMT-c then Sub-c. And then looking at them again because the lugs look different. Finally I held one over the other, and yup, clear as day. I have not measured the difference, but it is clearly less than 1 mm.

16 July 2010, 04:21 PM	#13
masterkiller "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Sweden Watch: Rolex, AP & PAM... Posts: 1,403	It sounds strange to me, that Rolex would bother to stock and manufacture two diffenrent 'supercase's if the only difference is even less then a mm on the lugs? Why have no one noticed this on the fullgold and TT version, I have not heard anything? or is the change only valid for SS? feedback please! /masterkiller __________________ Rolex - SubC... AP - Diver... Panerai - PAM380 Omega - Speedy PRO

16 July 2010, 04:58 PM	#14
Oslo "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oslo Watch: 116660 116618 BR01 Posts: 40	The case of the GMT is bulkier than the sub which seems thin. Caseback protudes more on the sub, but bottomline is that my Sub-C feels akwardly thin when I'm used to my GMT IIC

16 July 2010, 10:52 PM	#16
TheDude "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: DC Area, USA Watch: IIc,1680 Red,16660 Posts: 4,492	From the Sales Corner... It is subtle, but the lug appears to taper more aggressively on the GMT from the bezel to the tip. The Sub maintains a much shallower taper and thus the extra width.

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