Once Again, Submariner vs GMT Master

[JSolano305]

Between my 114060 and BLNR....I pick GMT. Only thing I wish my BLNR had was a glide lock bracelet.

[slide13]

Both are great watches and it really just comes down to preference.

I don't travel that much so the functionality of a GMT is mostly lost on me. I work with numerous offices around the world but it's enough that it's just easier to use a global clock on my phone for that...GMT wouldn't quite cut it.

I like the Sub myself because I find the bezel design more attractive and more useful for quick timing tasks. I also love the Glidelock on the modern sub!! Plus...it comes in a no-date dial which I think looks a little cleaner.

But I can totally see why, for some people, the GMT is a more useful watch for their needs.

[Canefan1]

Sub.

[watchwatcher]

The diving bezel is one of the most useful functions, IMO. You can track elapsed time for a myriad of tasks, such as grilling steaks.

And, as a frequent traveler, the GMT does come in handy. So...I have both.

[subtona]

Timing bezel is simple and reliable to use.

I find many uses for it in my daily routine and I am always glad I have it.

A gmt is also a useful complication but not as much for me.

Ps
Diving has nothing to do with my appreciation for my sub (I am certified PADI diver)

[abs82]

Originally Posted by nikesupremedunk

The right answer is always BOTH. Strictly speaking on the 6 digits, both models couldn't be more different than they are similar. GMT is more dressy while Sub is more of a every day tool watch. I've used the GMT function ONCE so far and loved it, but the timer on the Sub would be far more useful to me. I also want a every day watch that I can beat around a little without having to worry so much as I do w/ the PCL on my GMT. That's why I'm going to add a sub next.

That's why to me, one isn't better than the other...it just depends on your needs.

Totally agree with "both"! The great thing about collecting is that having one doesn't exclude you from having or appreciating another. Hell I have a SubC-ND and a 16600 which from afar could be said to be very similar and while I won't be diving anywhere near deep enough to test the limits of either I love them both for their small differences. It's all about what makes you happy!

[Amiroo]

I just sold my two tone sub and went for a batman. I love both watches however I really couldn't stand the gold in my sub anymore. It made me very uncomfortable in meetings and at work so I went with the less flashy GMT. The only thing I miss about my sub is the adjustable clasp.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by lord91

Because the Sub has a much cleaner/less crowded look, making it more versatile, and, once again, you can easily use the Sub's bezel for gmt purpose, as i do it frequently in my travels. I basically use my Sub as a GMT, rather than a dive watch. In my early days i was a pro swimmer, now i barely enter the water and so far my Sub only got in contact with water when i had to clean it up, but so what, it still serves other purposes while retaining its core value if needed. That's the beauty of the Sub

I never knew that was a thing. Olympic?

Regarding the topic of Sub v GMT, it's a Ford/Chevy debate.
I chose both the 5 digit Sub and GMT because they're both very nice watches and imo the 2 best sports models that Rolex makes.

Never been a fan of having a date on a diving watch (just always bothered me for some strange reason) so the Sub date was never an option. Adding a black GMT made sense as I got a very similar look to the Sub, from a practical standpoint the same water capabilities, and because it's a GMT having the date didn't bother me.

Because they're both 5 digits I don't have to deal with PCL's and no ceramics. Never felt the urge to "upgrade" either and after all these years I doubt that i ever would.

Would never want to have to choose between the two. Sub is cleaner, GMT is more functional. Both are terrific.

TL/DR version---- get both

[Joearch]

I own 3 subs and 2 GMT's. they are a blend of 5 and 6 digits. Most SS and 1 TT I like them all and would have a hard time picking a favorite. I know in a day my decision would be different. Happy to be in the position to have even one of them.

[Chinese_Mantis]

Originally Posted by OasisMS

The primary function of a watch is to tell the time in one time zone. Both do that.

Other than that aesthetic preference and that's it really.

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eco8gator]

I've owned both but I find the GMT hand more useful for me for many reasons.

I do admit that I do miss the option to have the timing bezel at rare times.

Its just best to have both:) but if I had to pick one it would be a GMT...the Batman to be specific (which I do have)

[fishingbear]

Another vote to stop the bickering and get both.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by 904VT

You're taking a very narrow view point.

Remember

1. The Glidelock feature is very useful for many people

2. The Sub's timing bezel can find more use than the GMT bezel/function for many owners

3. It's the only (grouping Rolex divers together for this purpose) ceramic professional Rolex that doesn't have PCLs

^^^Bingo^^^

Timed my wife's contractions with both my kids with my Submariner bezel. Its the simplest and most effective timing system under stressful conditions. I time everything from cooking to company meetings with my Sub bezel. Its a lifestyle for me after 20 years and I would miss it in and out of the water.

[JWE77]

I own both the 5 digit ref GMTII and a SubC. Both have qualities that I find enjoyable and have their own appealing qualities.

But to use them in the sense as they were "designed" for...nah. I just want it to tell time and they do. Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by dmash

Lastly, GMT has PCLs.

Lastly, but not in the least, those PCL's, I do wish they were brushed.

[faldoc]

Originally Posted by Kneecough

Glidelock
Bezel (both looks and timing functionality)
Brushed center links
History

I've wanted a submariner for 3 decades, finally got one.

I did think about a GMT since they cost about the same (for the LN models), but ultimately the above reasons prevailed.

I have a cell phone for the other time zones, haha! It tells the weather too!

If I get a GMT it will be the BLNR, I think.

Meanwhile I use the bezel of my SubC date for walks, cooking, all sorts of daily reminders, knowing that the splashing it gets in the sink won't hurt it in the least, and if I ever go underwater again, it will be right there with me.

[Quailhunter]

Let's face the realty that there are far cheaper and technically superior watches that do what the GMT and Sub do.

[Lamone]

What would Magnum PI wear?

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by dr35mm

Something you have ignored is that a diver's watch since its designed to withstand more pressure than normal, results in a more rugged watch. A more rugged watch means it can handle basically anything you throw at it, service has to be less often and the possibilities of replacement parts will be much less than a none diver. I could benefit from having a GMT but I don't need the get function nor I want the gmt, very simple, sub is more rugged and easier to set and reset.

Incorrect.

If struck or dropped, the thicker case of the Sub transfers the same amount of shock to it's movement as the GMT does, and they share the same shock absorber system. Made from the same material, the Sub will dent and scratch the same way as a GMT. The crystals of both shatter with the same force, and there's nothing inherently stronger about the bezel of the Sub. The newer GMTs have a Triplock crown.

The only aspect of a GMT where one could make a case for being less "rugged" is by using the general rule of thumb that says a less complicated watch has less that can potentially go wrong with it. Therefore, using that line of thinking a Sub would be more "rugged" based on it lacking a 24hr hand. Using that same notion, however, one could say the Easylink clasp adjustment on the GMT is mechanically much simpler than the complicated Glidelock of the Sub, and therefore more "rugged".

One can make a very good case that the most rugged Rolex is the Explorer. It has no extraneous movement complications, the simpler clasp and, unlike every version of the Sub, no moveable bezel or bezel parts to be broken, lost, cracked, or stuck. Unlike both Sub and GMT, the Explorer also has the Paraflex incorporated into its shock absorbing system that Rolex claims increases it's performance.

[vipereaper30]

All those who voted sub are completely wrong.

Those who said GMT have no idea what they are talking about.

But those who say BOTH are spot on! Neither is better its all down to preference and everyone needs at least one of each.

[Canook]

ive had 3 GMT's and each time i have sold or traded them as the cluttered bezel and PCL's just dont do it for me.... i have no use for the extra complication as its not rocket science to add or subtract a few hours off your local time to work out a different time zone........

So for me ive ended back up having subs, i still have a polar explorer II but ive pretty much let that go to my father as has my Hulk to my brother... so for now this is what ive got with me

[Rocco21]

For me the sub is rolex.The sub is more rugged,less busy,less moving parts to break,quickset date and brushed band.More casual and everyday rugged.So easy sub over gym for me.also wherever I am is the only time zone I need so unnecessary function with gym for me anyways.

[GSBC]

No need for self rationalizations and endless internal strife...just get both.

[lord91]

Originally Posted by Tony64

I never knew that was a thing. Olympic?

Regarding the topic of Sub v GMT, it's a Ford/Chevy debate.
I chose both the 5 digit Sub and GMT because they're both very nice watches and imo the 2 best sports models that Rolex makes.

Never been a fan of having a date on a diving watch (just always bothered me for some strange reason) so the Sub date was never an option. Adding a black GMT made sense as I got a very similar look to the Sub, from a practical standpoint the same water capabilities, and because it's a GMT having the date didn't bother me.

Because they're both 5 digits I don't have to deal with PCL's and no ceramics. Never felt the urge to "upgrade" either and after all these years I doubt that i ever would.

Would never want to have to choose between the two. Sub is cleaner, GMT is more functional. Both are terrific.

TL/DR version---- get both

Nope, didn't get to the Olympic part, unfortunately i had to stop pretty early

[tig00s1783]

Yes the GMT looks busier but the BLNR is one fine watch. But I also own a hulk so why not own both lol

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Aces Full

I'm sure there have been countless debates about this subject, but my take is this:
For every serious diver, there are thousands of travelers. For anyone who travels and wants to monitor the time at their destination, and the time at their home base, the GMT Master is a very useful tool.

Unless you are a serious diver, why would you rather have the Submariner than a GMT Master.

I just don't get it. The fact that a Submariner is certifiec to a vast distance underwater benefits WHO, and HOW???

Wow. Fairly narrow-minded.

I travel far more than I dive. FAR MORE.

However, I chose the Sub because:

-the GMT looks busy and cluttered

-the GMT has PCLs

-its easy to time stuff with the Sub bezel

[UnicoJG]

It's a matter of preference, personally I don't need the GMT function, however it's a nice watch. I simply prefer the Sub because it's classic and I love the glidelock vs pcl's.

[Xxmikeyb]

Originally Posted by dmash

Can completely agree with you friend. Except that it's not comparable to a date feature. You have to actively use some other device to grab a date. I can calculate another time zone within seconds in my head, nothing else necessary.

GMT is nice perk if the watch you like already has it, would never argue that. I was speaking more of the people that state things like 'I travel a few times a year, therefore I NEED a GMT function'. That's just incredible overkill IMO. This logic of course doesn't apply to any businessmen who frequently fly or speak with clients in different cities regularly.



I'll still be picking up a SS Coke GMT if Rolex ever releases it though

I'd agree that anyone can subtract or add hours depending on which countries you wish to track. I live in NZ and am constantly in touch with people in the UK. I can never actually remember the time difference. NZ can be anything from +13 to +11 gmt. So once my GMT hand is set I know the time in the UK.

[dr35mm]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Incorrect.

If struck or dropped, the thicker case of the Sub transfers the same amount of shock to it's movement as the GMT does, and they share the same shock absorber system. Made from the same material, the Sub will dent and scratch the same way as a GMT. The crystals of both shatter with the same force, and there's nothing inherently stronger about the bezel of the Sub. The newer GMTs have a Triplock crown.

The only aspect of a GMT where one could make a case for being less "rugged" is by using the general rule of thumb that says a less complicated watch has less that can potentially go wrong with it. Therefore, using that line of thinking a Sub would be more "rugged" based on it lacking a 24hr hand. Using that same notion, however, one could say the Easylink clasp adjustment on the GMT is mechanically much simpler than the complicated Glidelock of the Sub, and therefore more "rugged".

One can make a very good case that the most rugged Rolex is the Explorer. It has no extraneous movement complications, the simpler clasp and, unlike every version of the Sub, no moveable bezel or bezel parts to be broken, lost, cracked, or stuck. Unlike both Sub and GMT, the Explorer also has the Paraflex incorporated into its shock absorbing system that Rolex claims increases it's performance.

Thanks for the detailed information, I find it fascinating. Given that the Sub and GMT are basically the same case and very similar built, what makes the difference between the 300m vs 100m in wr?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[904VT]

Originally Posted by Quailhunter

Let's face the realty that there are far cheaper and technically superior watches that do what the GMT and Sub do.

It depends on your definition of technically superior. Yes, you could find a cheaper watch with a deep rating that is in practice not very useable. I find features such as the Glidelock to offer much technical superiority over the competition.