ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

mcorliss · 9 January 2013, 04:44 AM

I love my new Sub-C, but candidly, after wearing my Planet Ocean Chrono, when I put the Sub-C back on, it sort of feels like a Movado (thickness-wise, not quality). Kind of wish I had bought one DSSD to ride the middle ground instead of two separate watches for twice the total price. If you get it, you won't be disappointed, but I too feel a larger Sub-C would staunch many sales that go to Omega and Breitling.

FremStar · 9 January 2013, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey®

Hahahahahahahahahahahah!

To answer the OP's question... 40mm is perfect!

Mystro · 9 January 2013, 04:46 AM

I personally would like a 42mm Sub. I dont think 42-45mm is a trend anymore. Its a reality(at least with diving watches).

Mickey® · 9 January 2013, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FremStar

Hahahahahahahahahahahah!

To answer the OP's question... 40mm is perfect!

Thanks Sam. I'm learning!!!!

thomaspp · 9 January 2013, 04:51 AM

God.. Maybe something is wrong with me. Hate the "big watches" ( aka PAMs) and find myself lusting over the "small" 39mm PPs and APs. Wish it were the opposite as it would be a hell of a lot cheaper!

jimmypark54 · 9 January 2013, 04:52 AM

nope not at all. i started with 42-44 and now only wear my sub. more classic feel and look. you can never go wrong with a sub. try the new sub c, it wears a little bigger. cheers and good luck

Mickey® · 9 January 2013, 04:53 AM

SO what are the overall dimensions of a 40mm 16610 compared to a 40mm 116610?

Thanks!!!!

impalass · 9 January 2013, 05:14 AM

I have to agree with Ravager135, the Submariner @ 40m is staying ! (thankfully)

The Daytona would indeed make more sense to plus size, although I'm quite happy with mine the way it is. If it must increase in size I'd favour a Daytona II, and keeping the present 116520

Stevieb · 9 January 2013, 05:16 AM

Nay, nay and thrice nay

floater156 · 9 January 2013, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dream99

Do you think this is the case and will Rolex eventually realise perhaps a 42-44mm Sub?

Historically, Rolex has made relatively few and small changes to the sub. I doubt they will blow it up to 42-44mm.

landroverking · 9 January 2013, 05:20 AM

No.

Mickey® · 9 January 2013, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by floater156

Historically, Rolex has made relatively few and small changes to the sub. I doubt they will blow it up to 42-44mm.

They have already "kinda" blown it up with the new SubC haven't they?
I mean overall size has increased even though it is still 40mm?

Normans Cay · 9 January 2013, 05:30 AM

I'ts a good size for me.

mmmk604 · 9 January 2013, 05:42 AM

I have 6.5" wrists, I thought the older cased Subs were perfect. The supercase feels and looks larger.

Have you tried the SubC? If it's still too small, just go for the DSSD...

Dream99 · 9 January 2013, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey®

They have already "kinda" blown it up with the new SubC haven't they?
I mean overall size has increased even though it is still 40mm?

I was shocked to see how much bigger the Sub-C is upto its older one.

Mickey® · 9 January 2013, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dream99

I was shocked to see how much bigger the Sub-C is upto its older one.

I know right? But they are both 40mm...? Maybe we need to start measuring a watches OD from now on...LOL

mjclark32 · 9 January 2013, 06:04 AM

It's perfect for me

topjimmi · 9 January 2013, 06:04 AM

no

McLovin · 9 January 2013, 06:14 AM

hell no

Matt_Regan · 9 January 2013, 06:24 AM

I think it's just right, any bigger & the styling would be comparable to DSSD.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

patb · 9 January 2013, 06:37 AM

I don't think they should go any bigger. I think all the 44mm and larger are just a circus freak fad that should go away.

Bangel · 9 January 2013, 06:37 AM

40mm is perfect.

bimmerboy · 9 January 2013, 06:40 AM

After wearing a sub and a sea dweller I feel the sea dweller is the perfect size watch even though they are both 40mm the SD wears bigger

gregvisser · 9 January 2013, 07:12 AM

Would love a 42 mm sub. Rolex should keep the no-date at 40 mm to still have an offering for folks that prefer the more 'traditional' size (don't know what else to call it) and have the sub upscaled to 42 mm with better flowing case dimensions.

I feel that we can hardly call 42 mm a trend. It has been around for a long time and sells well (Omega Speedmaster for example). I look at my Sub and it looks like a book with all the writing on the face. The 216570 just has so much more real estate and it gives the face a less cluttered look - although it only has one line less writing.

Bring on the 42 mm Sub at Basel! Woohoo. (like that will ever happen

)

Greg

HL65 · 9 January 2013, 07:19 AM

No.

FeelingTheBlues · 9 January 2013, 08:44 AM

crowncollection · 9 January 2013, 08:47 AM

no it's perfect, the new one appears to wear larger anyway

nauticajoe · 9 January 2013, 08:47 AM

The 40mm is just right.

esm · 9 January 2013, 09:00 AM

Submariner isn't too small... Some people just have fat wrists.

Rags · 9 January 2013, 09:04 AM

40mm is perfect. Anything larger that 42 is ridiculous. IMO...

9 January 2013, 04:51 AM	#35
thomaspp "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: N/A Posts: 11,137	God.. Maybe something is wrong with me. Hate the "big watches" ( aka PAMs) and find myself lusting over the "small" 39mm PPs and APs. Wish it were the opposite as it would be a hell of a lot cheaper! __________________ Instagram: @watches_anonymous

9 January 2013, 06:04 AM	#47
mjclark32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: MJC Location: PHL USA Watch: IWC, Rolex, AP Posts: 29,232	It's perfect for me __________________

9 January 2013, 06:24 AM	#50
Matt_Regan "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Real Name: Matt Location: Berlin, Germany Watch: 116610LN Posts: 294	I think it's just right, any bigger & the styling would be comparable to DSSD. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk __________________ "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

9 January 2013, 07:19 AM	#55
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,989	No. __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

9 January 2013, 08:44 AM	#56
FeelingTheBlues "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Real Name: Carl Location: Always moving Watch: If you wish... Posts: 22,039	__________________ Mon corps c'est un pays en guerre sur l'point d'finir, Le général de l'armée de terre s'attend au pire, J'ai faim, j'ai frette, je suis trop faible pour me lever debout, On va hisser le drapeau blanc un point c'est tout. - André Fortin

9 January 2013, 04:44 AM	#31
mcorliss "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Real Name: M Location: Boston Posts: 1,024	I love my new Sub-C, but candidly, after wearing my Planet Ocean Chrono, when I put the Sub-C back on, it sort of feels like a Movado (thickness-wise, not quality). Kind of wish I had bought one DSSD to ride the middle ground instead of two separate watches for twice the total price. If you get it, you won't be disappointed, but I too feel a larger Sub-C would staunch many sales that go to Omega and Breitling.

9 January 2013, 04:46 AM	#33
Mystro 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: The Mystro ;) Location: Central Pa. Posts: 15,465	I personally would like a 42mm Sub. I dont think 42-45mm is a trend anymore. Its a reality(at least with diving watches).

9 January 2013, 04:52 AM	#36
jimmypark54 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Real Name: Jimmy Location: La Crescenta Watch: AP Diver Posts: 808	nope not at all. i started with 42-44 and now only wear my sub. more classic feel and look. you can never go wrong with a sub. try the new sub c, it wears a little bigger. cheers and good luck

9 January 2013, 04:53 AM	#37
Mickey® Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Mickey® Location: Atlanta, GA Watch: Swiss Made Posts: 5,801	SO what are the overall dimensions of a 40mm 16610 compared to a 40mm 116610? Thanks!!!!

9 January 2013, 05:14 AM	#38
impalass "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Real Name: Mark Location: Toronto, Canada. Watch: SD / LV / Daytona Posts: 2,089	I have to agree with Ravager135, the Submariner @ 40m is staying ! (thankfully) The Daytona would indeed make more sense to plus size, although I'm quite happy with mine the way it is. If it must increase in size I'd favour a Daytona II, and keeping the present 116520

9 January 2013, 05:16 AM	#39
Stevieb "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: UK Watch: Seamaster Posts: 181	Nay, nay and thrice nay

9 January 2013, 05:20 AM	#41
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	No.

9 January 2013, 05:30 AM	#43
Normans Cay Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Cleveland, Oh Watch: Rolex GMT pepsi Posts: 15	I'ts a good size for me.

9 January 2013, 05:42 AM	#44
mmmk604 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Canada Watch: 116610LN Posts: 1,594	I have 6.5" wrists, I thought the older cased Subs were perfect. The supercase feels and looks larger. Have you tried the SubC? If it's still too small, just go for the DSSD...

9 January 2013, 06:04 AM	#48
topjimmi "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: matt Location: USA Posts: 551	no

9 January 2013, 06:14 AM	#49
McLovin "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: USA Watch: SubC Posts: 1,014	hell no

9 January 2013, 06:37 AM	#51
patb "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Real Name: Pat Location: North East Watch: YG Yachtmaster Posts: 202	I don't think they should go any bigger. I think all the 44mm and larger are just a circus freak fad that should go away.

9 January 2013, 06:37 AM	#52
Bangel "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Australia Watch: 116610LN Posts: 15,802	40mm is perfect.

9 January 2013, 06:40 AM	#53
bimmerboy Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: toronto Watch: TTsub/ss sea-dwell Posts: 243	After wearing a sub and a sea dweller I feel the sea dweller is the perfect size watch even though they are both 40mm the SD wears bigger

9 January 2013, 07:12 AM	#54
gregvisser "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Greg Visser Location: New Zealand Posts: 571	Would love a 42 mm sub. Rolex should keep the no-date at 40 mm to still have an offering for folks that prefer the more 'traditional' size (don't know what else to call it) and have the sub upscaled to 42 mm with better flowing case dimensions. I feel that we can hardly call 42 mm a trend. It has been around for a long time and sells well (Omega Speedmaster for example). I look at my Sub and it looks like a book with all the writing on the face. The 216570 just has so much more real estate and it gives the face a less cluttered look - although it only has one line less writing. Bring on the 42 mm Sub at Basel! Woohoo. (like that will ever happen ) Greg

9 January 2013, 08:47 AM	#57
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,215	no it's perfect, the new one appears to wear larger anyway __________________ watches many

9 January 2013, 08:47 AM	#58
nauticajoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Joe Location: PA Posts: 14,774	The 40mm is just right.

9 January 2013, 09:00 AM	#59
esm "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Eric Location: Location,Location Watch: this, bro... Posts: 15,340	Submariner isn't too small... Some people just have fat wrists.

9 January 2013, 09:04 AM	#60
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,196	40mm is perfect. Anything larger that 42 is ridiculous. IMO... __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

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