GMT II C VS SUB C Comparison

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by OYSTERMANN

Here's a couple, in sharper focus, which may confirm any differences in lug and crown guard dimensions . . . .

See what you think . . . .

Great pair. I've been wondering about the differences too. I think the profile on the Sub looks more "squarish" than on the GMT IIc, but I can't be sure of this. What do you think?

[JIFF1975]

http://www.r-l-x.de/wbb2/thread.php?...id=105503&sid=

Great comparison, lots of pics...

[sturgeon123456]

Originally Posted by spuds

X like ten billion

[SUPERDOC]

Wow...I've never seen a thread make it back on track after hitting such a wild tangent...

I think that this reflects very well on Mike as a moderator..

In an effort to salute him, and keep the OP on track...

I offer my pic...a slightly different turn on that which has been presented, and a 16613 added in for perspective..



I have to say.. for all the case upgrade, and bracelet chatter, and ceramic bezel...it's that MAXI-Dial that really stands out...

[mpkRolex]

Originally Posted by SUPERDOC

Wow...I've never seen a thread make it back on track after hitting such a wild tangent...

I think that this reflects very well on Mike as a moderator..

In an effort to salute him, and keep the OP on track...

I offer my pic...a slightly different turn on that which has been presented, and a 16613 added in for perspective..



I have to say.. for all the case upgrade, and bracelet chatter, and ceramic bezel...it's that MAXI-Dial that really stands out...

Couldnt agree more...Maxi dial ROCKS!!!

[Chris_FL]

Are my eyes fooling me or does the Sub-C have thicker links than the GMTII-C?

[MY-WATCH]

Originally Posted by OYSTERMANN

Moving back to the plot . . . . .

Here are a couple of photos of my GMT and Sub (albeit the Blue one). Not the best of shots, but here you go . . . . .

nice pics both are gorgeous

[Asian Sub]

Very true. I have both Sub C and GMT 2c. Before i got my GMT 2c, i had a 16610 sub. I am planning to flip the Sub C because i cant justify the high price with very little cosmetic changes against the older one. Unlike the old and new GMT 2 wherein you could really see the changes both cosmetically and functionally.

Originally Posted by Dob

Having just moved from the GMTIIC to the Sub-C, I would agree. The GMTIIC has a great deal of wrist presence and is immediately distinguishable from the prior versions. The Sub-C, while having had substantial changes, is still more noticeable from the wearer's perspective, not the observers. To me, from a short distance, you would not know the difference between the old and the new Sub. Now, to us WIS, yes, you would pick up on it quickly but, in general, the new Sub looks a heck of a lot similar to the old. I think the GMTIIC is the more "visible" watch, with the Sub-C being more stealthy.

[esm]

Originally Posted by Asian Sub

Very true. I have both Sub C and GMT 2c. Before i got my GMT 2c, i had a 16610 sub. I am planning to flip the Sub C because i cant justify the high price with very little cosmetic changes against the older one. Unlike the old and new GMT 2 wherein you could really see the changes both cosmetically and functionally.

cosmetically - yes, ceramic bezel insert, PCL and maxi dial + green bits on the dial

functionally - GMTII and GMTIIC does the same thing right?

[Speed]

But Eric... The GMTIIC does it with a Green Hand!


Hahahahahah

[esm]

Originally Posted by Speed

But Eric... The GMTIIC does it with a Green Hand!


Hahahahahah

damn, Bill. thanks for pointing out the obvious. why didnt i think of that. my bad...

[rolexsweep]

Originally Posted by tinman

Kinda reminds me of my 1st wife. She just HAD to get the last word in, no matter how silly the disagreement.

hahahahahaha

[Watch Professor]

Of course the answer is to have both.

[CashGap]

Originally Posted by OYSTERMANN

Moving back to the plot . . . . .

Here are a couple of photos of my GMT and Sub (albeit the Blue one). Not the best of shots, but here you go . . . . .

BEAUTIFUL... I have the one on the right and I'm halfway to the one on the left...

Originally Posted by Dannyy

From wikipedia:

... Today it has become one of the most iconic models in the Rolex collection

Indeed! Brings this to mind (In good fun, please keep in mind that I agree with the GMT as iconic!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8

[esm]

Originally Posted by Watch Professor

Of course the answer is to have both.

Sir, your Sub C 116610LN looks abit "funny"....

J/k

Great pic





(yes, I know it is a 16610)

[zeuloa]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Ahh, well, a lot of people round here don't associate the Seamaster with Bond, or at least don't see it as a "true" Bond watch. In Fleming's books, the watch mentioned was a Rolex, and in the Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton films, Submariners were worn. There's a lot of info about it on here and on other sites as well

If we really want to be purists, wasn't Bond wearing an Explorer in the books?

Great pics of 2 amazing watches!

[lhanddds]

Great pics and discussion guys

[unitas12]

Originally Posted by Dannyy

From wikipedia:

The Rolex GMT Master wristwatch (ref 6542) is a watch originally designed in collaboration with Pan Am Airways for use by their pilots when travelling through multiple time zones on transcontinental (or long-haul) flights, GMT standing for Greenwich Mean Time.[2] Working in conjunction with Pan-Am's Captain Frederick Libby (a decorated World War II veteran and one of the airlines most respected navigators), Rolex executive and Public Relations Director Rene-Paul Jeanneret came up with the idea of a watch with an additional hour hand revolving just once every 24 hours and a rotatable bezel marked with those same 24 hours. Today it has become one of the most iconic models in the Rolex collection, regarded as a status symbol and is popular with travellers and people who need to keep track of the time simultaneously in different areas of the world.[3]

I agree 100%. I know the sub has history but the Gmt has me and I fly more than dive.

[thefork]

Originally Posted by ethangill

You really havnt read the posts properly it's people like you that quite frankly are just ignorant and I'm not bothered that your upset that you think your GMT is being dissed your are not being targeted you have your own opinions which you are entitled to but to be offensive directly to me is unacceptable - your an idiot you really are.

Are you being serious? If you are, you are just a bit out of line? How old are you? Are you an educated person? You are speaking rudely and like a petulant child, I am sorry.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by thefork

Are you being serious? If you are, you are just a bit out of line? How old are you? Are you an educated person? You are speaking rudely and like a petulant child, I am sorry.

You do realise he has been banned since last July? He won't be able to see this...

[FireFight]

Hi guys

I am fairly new to this forum and what attracted me to joining it was the knoweldge, experience and obvious inteligence of the members and of course the friendship..... what happend above!!!! ?
I m sure you all know where I am coming from :-)

[thewatchguy93]

Originally Posted by esm

Sir, your Sub C 116610LN looks abit "funny"....

J/k

Great pic





(yes, I know it is a 16610)

[mlotus95]

sweet pics!!

[xjeeunitx]

I've owned both.

IMHO, I think the Sub is more comfortable than the GMT.

[thefork]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

You do realise he has been banned since last July? He won't be able to see this...

I didn't. Good move though.

[scl6118]

Originally Posted by ethangill

GMT is not an iconic watch the sub is it has history pedigree film association ie bond and is an aspirational watch - GMT not so

Clearly, you don't know much about iconic watches. Any watch enthusiast on this planet knows that the Rolex GMT is one of THE most iconic watches in history!