Would you buy a Submariner Chronograph?

[Punchthefatkid]

Although the idea in principle of a Submariner chronograph may be hard to accept for the Rolex purists, if anyone (with far better computer skills than me) could 'mock one up' using photo shop or some similar software, then seeing what an actual watch could look like in reality, may change a few opinions.. just a thought...

Would be interesting at least to see one before condemning the idea totally.

[Punchthefatkid]

Originally Posted by Rowlf

It's called the Speedmaster Professional.

the Speedmaster Professional has NEVER been a dive watch

[Punchthefatkid]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The Daytona is already 100m water resistant. Not sure I see the point.

Water Resistant & Waterproof are totally different.

Whilst swimming at the bottom of a deep swimming pool the pressure exerted on the watch with the movement of the arm through the water could easily exceed the equivalent of 100m water resistance.

A Submariner is 'Waterproof' up to 300m - totally different ball game in pressure terms.

[Lumberjact]

Originally Posted by Punchthefatkid

Water Resistant & Waterproof are totally different.

A Submariner is 'Waterproof' up to 300m - totally different ball game in pressure terms.

Not sure this is 100% correct. I think both are "waterproof", just to different depths.

[Punchthefatkid]

Originally Posted by Lumberjact

Not sure this is 100% correct. I think both are "waterproof", just to different depths.

..accepted, my mistake, apologies.

[Lumberjact]

Originally Posted by Punchthefatkid

..accepted, my mistake, apologies.

No apologies necessary! Hope all well in the north of England! Have a nice weekend!

[Punchthefatkid]

Originally Posted by Lumberjact

No apologies necessary! Hope all well in the north of England! Have a nice weekend!

..and you

[GreenLantern]

I happen to dig the Omega Planet Ocean 600M Chronographs. I'd be curious to see a proper chronograph dive watch from Rolex.

[kultschar]

Cant see it happening thankfully. No need to dilute the mega strong brand / range

I cant see them doing an Omega anytime soon :)

[ajas]

I would buy one. Why not

[wuyeah]

No one attempt to race with their buddies during dive? That's odd LOL!

[Punchthefatkid]

Originally Posted by wuyeah

No one attempt to race with their buddies during dive? That's odd LOL!

Lol - great answer

[Gerry62]

no ! thanks

[Lumberjact]

Originally Posted by wuyeah

No one attempt to race with their buddies during dive? That's odd LOL!

Would it be safe to do that?

[Aztekzz]

I would get the no date

[wuyeah]

For your viewing enjoyment only.

[Maxy]

^^ Good one!

[emersm]

I might be interested. Omega used to have one with the Seamaster, back in the day. And, it had the Cal.321 movement (bonus).

[srvrf]

Originally Posted by varkom

no for a few reasons:

1. chronographs on Omegas look weird to me, its all bunched together, I just don't see it working that well without ruining the watch
2. we already have the daytona which is the perfect chrono as far as everyone is concerned
3. rolex isn't exactly stupid. its not like "hey lets add a chrono to submariner" wasn't brought up in their meetings. I'm sure the mock ups just didn't do a Rolex justice and were scrapped

Consider this:

1. The Omega Speedmaster is probably the single most iconic chronograph ever made, even ahead of the Daytona. I doubt I'm alone in saying it doesn't look "bunched."

2. As nice as the Daytona is (I've owned two) it isn't perfect either. For some, no date function is a minus. For others, the high reflectivity and lack of anti-reflective coating on the crystal makes legibility difficult. Screw down pushers aren't always conducive to actual chronograph use, and as a tool watch, PCLs aren't ideal for hiding scratches.

3. Rolex is a highly successful company, and I have no doubt that if they wanted to make a more waterproof chronograph than the Daytona (like a Seamaster or Seamaster Planet Ocean) they could do so without a problem. Sticking with what they have in their current lineup is their decision, but I doubt it is because they can't design a waterproof chronograph that meet "Rolex standards."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[cab56]

I have a 90s Tudor (Rolex) chronograph (79270?) with rotating 12-hour rotating bezel, chronograph, and date with cyclops on an oyster bracelet. For my needs, it is a highly functional Sub/GMT/Daytona. I deal with different time zones and the 12-hour rotating bezel works better for me than some of my other watches with a 24-hour GMT hand.

[Onikage]

Nice photoshop.. eh, horrible watch, but cool photoshop effort. ^And that ladies n gents, is why it won't happen. Phew.

[Punchthefatkid]

Most people seem to be against the idea of a chronograph on a Sub, using the principle that its not relevant to the original purpose of the watch being designed for Diving - i.e why would you need to time anything underwater?

Well I guess the same logic could be applied to the date window...

As Rolex produce 2 versions currently, Date/No date, why couldn't they produce 2 versions of this.. Chrono/Non Chrono?

A Chrono version wouldn't have to replace the existing Submariner, just be an additional model along side it.

Omega produce 2 versions of the Seamaster, Chrono/Non Chrono.. seems to work for them.

[GreenLantern]

Originally Posted by Punchthefatkid

Omega produce 2 versions of the Seamaster, Chrono/Non Chrono.. seems to work for them.

Indeed.

The reason why I like the Chrono Seamasters is because when not using the watch for diving, it's nice to have the Chrono. Chrono for land makes the watch more versatile.

[Gunbucker]

Originally Posted by wuyeah

For your viewing enjoyment only.

Thanks for the rendition. This could work. But at the same time this would be the day Rolex has officially run out of ideas unfortunately.

[J!m]

So is it a Submograph, or a Cosmariner?

And by they way, they would sell a ton of them. Not to me but to others.

[SALTY]

Alright, I will be the contrarian here ... and go a step further.

I am a pilot, a boater, a fisherman and a diver. While I really like the Submariner (who doesn't) I prefer a rubber beater watch for diving. The actual timing function of "dive watches" has long ago been supplanted by dive computers. That said, dive watches are still cool and will likely always be cool.

I like the 16170 and all of it's cousins and nephews; they are my favorite Rolex watches. Despite what Rolex purists may say, the GMTs do look somewhat like a Sub and I, for one, (and from this thread it appears as though I am alone or certainly in the minority), would not mind at all have a chronograph complication on a GMT.

It is therefore not a stretch for me to say that I would not mind a Sub with chronograph and GMT complications - at least for my tastes and my mission profile.

I'm hiding under my desk now.

[GreenLantern]

Originally Posted by SALTY

It is therefore not a stretch for me to say that I would not mind a Sub with chronograph and GMT complications - at least for my tastes and my mission profile.

Ok, this ^^ I want.

Give me a Cosmariner GMT please. I'll even take two, one in SS and one in PM (WG or Plat!).

Rolex, are you snooping these forums like any good business would? If so, read this. :)

[subkrawler]

A chronograph Submariner with just a bunch of typical sub-dials, would not be of interest. However, if Rolex decided to build a new Submariner with another dive timing feature, aside from the rotating bezel, then I would be in. Some sort of complex timing feature, like that of the Yachtmaster II or the Skydweller, would be awesome.

[U5512]

Nope.

[porschejeff]

Sure, I can use it for timing my submarine races!