ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Lion · 12 February 2012, 10:34 AM

I'm glad I already own a Sub ND non-COSC watch.....the only way to improve upon it would be to buy a Vintage ND Sub.......

MoBe · 12 February 2012, 10:36 AM

If the 14060 got the newer 93250 bracelet I wouldn`t mind,otherwise leave it alone I say.

GradyPhilpott · 12 February 2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoBe

If the 14060 got the newer 93250 bracelet I wouldn`t mind,otherwise leave it alone I say.

That would be a perfectly suitable upgrade in keeping with the tradition.

WHS1@swbell.net · 12 February 2012, 10:40 AM

i like them all!

Z-Sub · 12 February 2012, 10:42 AM

al_bongo · 12 February 2012, 11:37 AM

So an AD just happens to have a copy of this and shows it to a customer? Would have to wonder why they would do that or what they would hope to achieve.

Stirring up interest for something that doesn't yet exist seems a bit desperate.

Mar122 · 12 February 2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownbear

X2

GradyPhilpott · 12 February 2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosco

I do, however, see more and more folks having a hard time deciding between the ceramic GMT II and a Sub...

That puzzles me, too, but it is indicative of how differently we perceive the watches we own. I tend to first look at function and the form that follows that function. If I find the form appealing and the function in concert with my needs, then it's a winner.

I might want a Sub and a GMT, but the dilemma would not be about form (an emotional matter), but rather function (a logical matter), which is easily settled with an analysis of needs.

It should be noted however, that my first two Rolex purchases, the Explorer and the DJ, were based more on emotion than logic, as the Sub would have been the most logical first Rolex for me to own, however in both instances, it was a matter of the heart and not the head.

I broke with my own philosophy when it came to Rolex, so I guess I should not be overly critical.

Tools · 12 February 2012, 03:40 PM

I don't expect them to change the Sub at all.. They haven't done any of the same upgrades yet, so why would they suddenly do everything at once...

Heck, it doesn't even have an SEL bracelet yet, and still sports those old holes through the lugs....

Nope, can't say as I would expect a ceramic one any time soon...

sea-dweller · 12 February 2012, 04:06 PM

Looks sharp!

ct11127 · 13 February 2012, 01:51 AM

This hypothetical iteration with the Explorer II case would give us a ND Sub bigger (at 42mm) than the 116610. I don't imagine that would happen. And even though I like the look better than that of the Sub C, I think the 14060M is fine just as it is.

One of the things I really like about the ND Sub is its size, weight, dimensions, and so on, which IMHO make it very comfortable in comparison to the Sub C (and even to the previous 16610). And I don't have small wrists either. I also prefer a tool watch with lug holes--though I admit my preference in this regard is not entirely due to functionality but partly to aesthetics and nostalgia as well.

All of this is not to imply that I don't like the Sub C. It's a great watch. I suppose I'm simply not yet fully acclimated to the look and the dimensions of the case. The Sub C has a striking appearance, wrist presence, etc., and does indeed look good on some people. But on me it looks and feels odd.

Back to the ND Sub, though. If Rolex makes any more changes, I hope they don't supercase it. Sure, let them upgrade the bracelet. I wouldn't mind that (although I actually like the old bracelet). But to entirely reconfigure this time-proven design would be a mistake IMHO. Yet perhaps it's inevitable. After all, look at what's happening to the Explorer I.

Rollie2011 · 13 February 2012, 03:14 AM

I don't think the nd sub will be 42. But I do think it will be ceramic

Hooper · 13 February 2012, 03:37 AM

I'M all for keeping it as is, if it's not broke don't fix it

Cru Jones · 13 February 2012, 03:57 AM

The Photoshop does show how nice the 216570 case and lugs go together.

However, a 42 ND sub makes no sense. What would it say about the sub date? If you want a date, you have to get the smaller case and fat lugs, but if you want ND, you get a bigger case and slimmer lugs?

It will never happen like that.

azguy · 13 February 2012, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuyC

I think the ND sub should be left as is.....

x2

Actsulb · 13 February 2012, 06:47 AM

Nice job on the photo. I personally would like to see the Sub ND stay the same but with no lug holes IMHO.

GradyPhilpott · 13 February 2012, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Actsulb

Nice job on the photo. I personally would like to see the Sub ND stay the same but with no lug holes IMHO.

Bluelume · 13 February 2012, 07:37 AM

Hi guys. Thanks for all your replies. I think an upgrade of the 14060M is inevidable. The old case design will therefore be gone forever. The reason why i made the picture of my future dream Sub ND with the new Explorer II case is that I don't like the super case. And if I had to decide between those two cases then I would choose the 42 mm without a doubt.

One thing is for sure - there are a lot of different opinions on a possible upgrade. And Basel will be very exiting this year!

itchy243mhz · 9 March 2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluelume

Hi guys. Thanks for all your replies. I think an upgrade of the 14060M is inevidable. The old case design will therefore be gone forever. The reason why i made the picture of my future dream Sub ND with the new Explorer II case is that I don't like the super case. And if I had to decide between those two cases then I would choose the 42 mm without a doubt.

One thing is for sure - there are a lot of different opinions on a possible upgrade. And Basel will be very exiting this year!

Awful darn close!

12 February 2012, 10:34 AM	#31
Lion "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Leo Location: Midwest Watch: GMT-II 16710 PEPSI Posts: 21,461	I'm glad I already own a Sub ND non-COSC watch.....the only way to improve upon it would be to buy a Vintage ND Sub....... __________________ SS GMT-II 16710 PEPSI(Z-serial#) THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND BOYS IS THE PRICE OF THE TOYS!!! MontBlanc Meisterstuck Doue Silver Barley MontBlanc Meisterstuck Solitaire Doue Signum Proud Card Carrying Member of the Curmudgeons.....Yikes!!!

12 February 2012, 10:42 AM	#35
Z-Sub 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: So Cal, USA Watch: Not a ONEWatch Man Posts: 7,383	__________________ SS Submariner Date "Z" SS SeaDweller "D" SS Submariner "Random" TT Blue Submariner "P" SS GMT-Master ll "M", Pepsi Pam 311, 524, 297

12 February 2012, 03:40 PM	#39
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,496	I don't expect them to change the Sub at all.. They haven't done any of the same upgrades yet, so why would they suddenly do everything at once... Heck, it doesn't even have an SEL bracelet yet, and still sports those old holes through the lugs.... Nope, can't say as I would expect a ceramic one any time soon... __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

13 February 2012, 03:14 AM	#42
Rollie2011 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: John Location: Palm Beach, FL Watch: Sub-C + Exp 42 Posts: 1,654	I don't think the nd sub will be 42. But I do think it will be ceramic __________________ John Submariner C LN Explorer 42 Polar

13 February 2012, 06:47 AM	#46
Actsulb 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: Ali Location: California Watch: GMT II (Coke) Posts: 1,747	Nice job on the photo. I personally would like to see the Sub ND stay the same but with no lug holes IMHO. __________________ A Crown for Every Achievement

12 February 2012, 10:36 AM	#32
MoBe "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 6,773	If the 14060 got the newer 93250 bracelet I wouldn`t mind,otherwise leave it alone I say.

12 February 2012, 10:40 AM	#34
WHS1@swbell.net "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: St. Louis Posts: 7	i like them all!

12 February 2012, 11:37 AM	#36
al_bongo "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 444	So an AD just happens to have a copy of this and shows it to a customer? Would have to wonder why they would do that or what they would hope to achieve. Stirring up interest for something that doesn't yet exist seems a bit desperate.

12 February 2012, 04:06 PM	#40
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	Looks sharp!

13 February 2012, 01:51 AM	#41
ct11127 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: PA Posts: 101	This hypothetical iteration with the Explorer II case would give us a ND Sub bigger (at 42mm) than the 116610. I don't imagine that would happen. And even though I like the look better than that of the Sub C, I think the 14060M is fine just as it is. One of the things I really like about the ND Sub is its size, weight, dimensions, and so on, which IMHO make it very comfortable in comparison to the Sub C (and even to the previous 16610). And I don't have small wrists either. I also prefer a tool watch with lug holes--though I admit my preference in this regard is not entirely due to functionality but partly to aesthetics and nostalgia as well. All of this is not to imply that I don't like the Sub C. It's a great watch. I suppose I'm simply not yet fully acclimated to the look and the dimensions of the case. The Sub C has a striking appearance, wrist presence, etc., and does indeed look good on some people. But on me it looks and feels odd. Back to the ND Sub, though. If Rolex makes any more changes, I hope they don't supercase it. Sure, let them upgrade the bracelet. I wouldn't mind that (although I actually like the old bracelet). But to entirely reconfigure this time-proven design would be a mistake IMHO. Yet perhaps it's inevitable. After all, look at what's happening to the Explorer I.

13 February 2012, 03:37 AM	#43
Hooper "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: Tony Location: Ontario, Canada Watch: 16610 Posts: 3,290	I'M all for keeping it as is, if it's not broke don't fix it

13 February 2012, 03:57 AM	#44
Cru Jones 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Paris, France Posts: 35,261	The Photoshop does show how nice the 216570 case and lugs go together. However, a 42 ND sub makes no sense. What would it say about the sub date? If you want a date, you have to get the smaller case and fat lugs, but if you want ND, you get a bigger case and slimmer lugs? It will never happen like that.

13 February 2012, 07:37 AM	#48
Bluelume Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Denmark Posts: 15	Hi guys. Thanks for all your replies. I think an upgrade of the 14060M is inevidable. The old case design will therefore be gone forever. The reason why i made the picture of my future dream Sub ND with the new Explorer II case is that I don't like the super case. And if I had to decide between those two cases then I would choose the 42 mm without a doubt. One thing is for sure - there are a lot of different opinions on a possible upgrade. And Basel will be very exiting this year!

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