Looks like the GMT-IIC made a much better entrance than the new Sub-C!!

[Mockingbird]

At this point little distinguishes it from from the GMTIIC, and at and equal pricepoint I would pick the GMTIIC eleven times out of ten.

[Dan2010]

Originally Posted by Mockingbird

At this point little distinguishes it from from the GMTIIC, and at and equal pricepoint I would pick the GMTIIC eleven times out of ten.

Thats funny. I would pick the Sub 11 times out of 10.

[mpkRolex]

Originally Posted by rob

JJ,

I agree there was the mystic of the GMT II-C, because of the release of the Gold in 2006. We all waited for the release of the SS in 2007. When it finally came the was already a waiting list every where! you didn't see one in a AD on display for about 6 months after. The new case, band, crown, maxi dial, Ceramic, and new green GMT- hand, and oh the PCL's. Then the release of the DSSD, gave way to the band improvements, increased WR, and Ceramic. By the time the Sub-C got here the economy was already hit, and visually they kinda all look the same. It's just a matter of function, comfort, tradition, bias, or budget. JMHO

very nicely put buddy x2

[SLS]

Regardless of the economic climate, I would still pick the GMT IIc over the Sub C...it just boils down to aesthetics for me. For that matter, I will not be buying a DSSD either....unless one happens to fall in my lap. Maybe in time my feelings will change, but I doubt it! I still remember first seeing the the GMT IIc, and I knew I had to have the watch....that just did not happen with the Sub.
Scott

[Dan2010]

Originally Posted by SLS

Regardless of the economic climate, I would still pick the GMT IIc over the Sub C...it just boils down to aesthetics for me. For that matter, I will not be buying a DSSD either....unless one happens to fall in my lap. Maybe in time my feelings will change, but I doubt it! I still remember first seeing the the GMT IIc, and I knew I had to have the watch....that just did not happen with the Sub.
Scott

I was the same way about the Sub and with no interest what so ever in the GMT. I think a good anology regarding these two great watches is like comparing Coke & Pepsi. Some people love Coke and hate Pepsi and vice versa.

[Watch Professor]

Originally Posted by sakuraba

I still stand by my original assertion that the II-C is the most beautiful modern reference. IMHO the Sub-C comes close, but fails to drop the II-C from its pedestal.

I agree. Even though the GMT IIC and the Sub C are similar, for some reason, the GMT looks better in it's recent incarnation. Maybe it's the PCL's, or the bezel, or the green hand, but it looks more refined and elegant.
As far as the old and new Subs, the classic is perfect- in size, in balance, and in weight. If only I could put the Easy Glide clasp on my 16610....

[Watch Professor]

Originally Posted by sls

regardless of the economic climate, i would still pick the gmt iic over the sub c...it just boils down to aesthetics for me. For that matter, i will not be buying a dssd either....unless one happens to fall in my lap. Maybe in time my feelings will change, but i doubt it! I still remember first seeing the the gmt iic, and i knew i had to have the watch....that just did not happen with the sub.
Scott

+1

[Singslinger]

If first impressions/reactions are anything to go by, I'd agree with JJ - there was a lot more enthusiasm for the GMT IIc than the new Sub. This has also been reflected in the price - the GMT sold for a premium for many months after issue but the Sub's early premium has vanished. So a straight comparison suggests the GMT's impact was greater and longer-lasting.

But as others have pointed out, people had deeper pockets in the pre-banking crisis days when the GMT was launched and the ceramic bezel's novelty factor may have worn out, so there are explanatory factors.

[exxondus]

I believe its gg to be the same sceanrio as when the SD was replaced by the SDDS.

1) False notion that thr SD's value would leap when there are probably loads out there. Hence, sam false notion at initial phases that the now discontinued but readily available subs will appreciate.

2) uncertainty in the mkt to spend on luxury gds

3) peeps waiting for Sub C to hit the preown mkt so that price would soften. Look at GMTIIc. Once the supply hits a certain level, preown prices dropped tremendously. We are mainly comparing grey dealer IIc prices with a few mth old SubC prices which is pretty unfair to say that the SubC is is overpriced

4) Threads after threads of people speculating abt how hot the new SubC are. Prpbably with the intention n hope that this will project a false impression n make more peeps hold back with purchasing a subC

Look further mayb a year or 2 down the road, whrn SubC prices soften to preown GMTIIc prices before we can make a proper analysis.

Oh well, just my 2 cents. Whats imp is what rocks your boat :D

[Andad]

Yes it is unfair to say the tha Subc is overpriced at Aus$9600.



That is US$9200 at todays RX.

[Gerardus]

But it is very difficult to overrule an enormous hit.

[dannyp]

While I think everyone has made good points, there's one other thing that I don't think has been mentioned, but could explain the initial GMT IIc hype and why it is absent from the Sub c: The GMT IIc was launched not only as a new version of the watch, but as an anniversary model. The fanfare associated with each event would have been compounded (remember the LV?), thus creating a larger hype.

[Caraptor]

Okay, I realize the GMT has been a favorite for many long before the ceramic version came out. But could it be that the release of the GMT-II-C sparked a bit of a renaissance for this model? Might it have attracted a lot of buyers who had previously been fans of, say, Submariner? Perhaps it drew so much attention because it introduced a host of improvements, re-introduced a model that I'm guessing has never been as popular with the general public as Sub or DJ, and once so many WIS and civilians bought one, the Sub-C came along with a sort of "Hey, me, too!" vibe to it. The GMTIIc was the underdog that went to the weight room over the summer and came back to school a real stunner. The ever-popular Sub, which everyone expects to be great, and will continue to sell well, just doesn't have that burst of momentum that came when many people were discovering or rediscovering the GMT.
Just thoughts.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Caraptor

Okay, I realize the GMT has been a favorite for many long before the ceramic version came out. But could it be that the release of the GMT-II-C sparked a bit of a renaissance for this model? Might it have attracted a lot of buyers who had previously been fans of, say, Submariner? Perhaps it drew so much attention because it introduced a host of improvements, re-introduced a model that I'm guessing has never been as popular with the general public as Sub or DJ, and once so many WIS and civilians bought one, the Sub-C came along with a sort of "Hey, me, too!" vibe to it. The GMTIIc was the underdog that went to the weight room over the summer and came back to school a real stunner. The ever-popular Sub, which everyone expects to be great, and will continue to sell well, just doesn't have that burst of momentum that came when many people were discovering or rediscovering the GMT.
Just thoughts.

Good post and an excellent analysis on your part!!

[Stitch]

I love the gmt II, tried one on today intact while they resized my bracelet on the sub. If it wasn't for the PCL it would have been a very tough choice fir me.
That said, I've always wanted a sub so that helped draw me in too and I think I made the right choice for me.

[BH13GMT]

For me, I think the sub was just perfect as it was and guys like us WIS were not bowled over with the SubC. The GMTC was a vast improvement over the old model and as such has also conditioned us to what we would receive with the SubC. Lets face it we were scared when watching JAWS for the first time, not so scared with JAWS2 (we wont event go there with JAWS the revenge). I think guys that have never owned a Sub will find the Sub C just perfect without the previous feelings/loyalty to the original Sub. For me I will be adding a Sub to my collection at some point but i wont be the SubC, however I have the GMTC which covers all the updates (ceramic, maxi case, new bracelet etc ). Possibly if the releases were reversed the problem would have been with the GMT? Also the other factors well documented in the thread play an important part in the lack of hooplar.

Any I think got there in the end, ramble over

[kelly23]

Originally Posted by Stitch

I love the gmt II, tried one on today intact while they resized my bracelet on the sub. If it wasn't for the PCL it would have been a very tough choice fir me.
That said, I've always wanted a sub so that helped draw me in too and I think I made the right choice for me.

So true, it's the only thing I dislike about the GMT IIC. If I was to get one, I would want to have brushed centre links but I am hesitant to mess with the intended design of the watch.

[Danand]

Don't forget that aside from the GMT IIC there were also the TT and precious metal ceramic subs with all the changes. So the SS sub c really had no surprises whatsoever(other than price). And I do think the economy had a huge part to play at this point in time.
Remember also that the vast majority of buyers would never see this forum (or care about it) and so the long term difference between 116610 and 16610 sales is likely moot.

[ingoodtime]

Originally Posted by therolexguy

I agree with you JJ, although I don't know why. I like the looks of both. It could be because the iconic Sub is SO popular that it's too big of a change for some people. They hit a homerun imo with the new GMT...I even bought one. I think the Sub is just as nice. If I had the $, I'd probably add it to my collection.

Ditto. I would love the green dial Sub C but it is just to much money. I have only had my GMTIIC for a year and the Mrs would go bonkers if I was to buy another as finances are already stretched thin. It would not be a fiscally responsible thing for me to do.

I think over time, the sub C will take off. It is a nice watch although as with the GMTIIC, I wish Rolex would have increased the band width slightly close to the lugs. But, the GMTTIIC is comfortable to me and increased bracelet width may have changed the feel.

[ingoodtime]

Originally Posted by kelly23

So true, it's the only thing I dislike about the GMT IIC. If I was to get one, I would want to have brushed centre links but I am hesitant to mess with the intended design of the watch.

So just get the bracelet brushed as others have done. It is a fantastic watch. Wait, let me retract that...iut is a great watch and too many people are buying them thus ruining the future value of resales. People....stop buying the GMTIIC!

[ingoodtime]

Originally Posted by Caraptor

Okay, I realize the GMT has been a favorite for many long before the ceramic version came out. But could it be that the release of the GMT-II-C sparked a bit of a renaissance for this model? Might it have attracted a lot of buyers who had previously been fans of, say, Submariner? Perhaps it drew so much attention because it introduced a host of improvements, re-introduced a model that I'm guessing has never been as popular with the general public as Sub or DJ, and once so many WIS and civilians bought one, the Sub-C came along with a sort of "Hey, me, too!" vibe to it. The GMTIIc was the underdog that went to the weight room over the summer and came back to school a real stunner. The ever-popular Sub, which everyone expects to be great, and will continue to sell well, just doesn't have that burst of momentum that came when many people were discovering or rediscovering the GMT.
Just thoughts.

Good analogy. I agree. Well stated!

[niner niner seven]

Ill concur with JJ's original statement. I thought Rolex would absolutely SMASH sales with the 116610. But man did they sell a ton of GMTCs - a much better looking watch however.

[ingoodtime]

Originally Posted by SLS

Regardless of the economic climate, I would still pick the GMT IIc over the Sub C...it just boils down to aesthetics for me. For that matter, I will not be buying a DSSD either....unless one happens to fall in my lap. Maybe in time my feelings will change, but I doubt it! I still remember first seeing the the GMT IIc, and I knew I had to have the watch....that just did not happen with the Sub.
Scott

My wife , her twin and my brother in law all had SS rolex watches. I had none. The most expensive watch I had was my SS Breitling SuperOcean Steelfish Xplus. I told my wife I did not want a SS Rolex because I already had a good SS watch. So, my first Rolex happened on a trip to sell some old gold jewelery and I ended up leaving with a pre owned TT sub/ slate serti dial with box and papers. A very exciting day! OK fast forward a year. I had been drooling and dreaming of the 18KT YG GMTIIC green dial model. I would go out at lunch and go to JRDUNN jewelers about two blocks from my office every few weeks and try it on.(that as well as other 18KT subs etc). Anyway, I found I really liked the GMTIIC. So, one day, I tried on the SS model. It was love as soon as it touched my wrist. I had to have it and began the hard sell to the Mrs. I guess I was relentless because, I have it! And, the AD was great to work with. Just wish I could afford the YG model. I'd never need another watch. (of course, need and want may be different!)

The crazy thing is, I am starting to feel the same way about the SS green dial ceramic sub but I have not tortured myself by looking for one in the wild.

[p_mcgee]

Although I love the ceramic bezel, sub-c is a subtle update from the traditional model. Yawn. GMTIIc is a whole new look...love it or hate it. I vote the former.

[Dan2010]

Please everyone, DO NOT BUY THE SUB C. Keep buying the GMT. I personally DON'T want sales of the Sub C to go through the roof. This way my Sub C won't be like the old Sub where EVERYONE has one. Thank you.

[htc8p]

i love the gmt in all its shinyness

as for the sub c it will gain ground since theres no more choice but still i am not too impressed. rolex just made a natural transition

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by htc8p

i love the gmt in all its shinyness

as for the sub c it will gain ground since theres no more choice but still i am not too impressed. rolex just made a natural transition

Probably the whole scenario would have been different if the Sub-C was introduced to us a few years ago..............long BEFORE the GMT-IIC!!

JJ

[htc8p]

but the gmt 2 looks were really updated (the bezel with big curvy numbers) that was what caught my eye

also the new movement was a significant change

[unclesallie]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

I think it has to do with the timing of the release of each reference. The thicker lugs, milled clasp, etc have already been experienced with the GMT IIc and are consequently less impact full with the release of the new Sub.
dP

yes, and somehow, that ceramic sub, for some reason, is not as sharp as the GMT II-c, to my taste.

[niner niner seven]

Originally Posted by htc8p

but the gmt 2 looks were really updated (the bezel with big curvy numbers) that was what caught my eye

also the new movement was a significant change

concur concur concur, uncertain why they added in the blu parachrom to the subc and still called it a 3135