Is the Submariner too small?

[Jake B]

Originally Posted by Syed117

This topic comes up often enough and it still surprises me how blatantly ignorant so many people on this forum are. They insist on forcing their opinion on an entire population and it's an embarrassment.

Any person who says 40mm is perfect or any other dismissive remark is a joke. As bad as the guy who wears a Rolex because it says Rolex on it. Perfect for one person isn't perfect for every other. Not sure why that's such a hard concept to understand.

You know what's not clever or entertaining? Posting a bunch of smileys or other dumb emoticons as a response to someone suggesting a slightly larger Sub. If the very thought of 42mm Sub elicits that kind of response, maybe it's time to grow up a little.

There is no "perfect" size. It's completely relative to how big a persons wrist is. I don't mind the 40mm personally, but I would probably like it better if it were 42mm simply because my wrist is a bit larger.

[Lucky777]

I'm happy with the current size, but others may think otherwise.

[GradyPhilpott]

If the Sub is too small, then there's always the DSSD, or did someone mention that already?

There are also brands who make watches so large they can double a desk clocks.

[Urosfan]

I always thought the sub was small, but my subc fits and looks awesome. I have 6.5 in ch wrists. I wear 44 mm Pam's also both fit nice

[RolexDivers]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

If the Sub is too small, then there's always the DSSD, or did someone mention that already?

There are also brands who make watches so large they can double a desk clocks.

And people wear them so proudly, those desk clocks I mean ...the bigger the dial of the watch the crappier it is ...

[Alex Ks]

The Daytona definitely feels too small on my wrist, however, the GMTIIC is the perfect size!

[balboa73]

To each their own. a 42mm sub doesent mean Rolex has to discontinue the 40mm. I'm always baffled at some peoples insistence that Rolex shouldent 'change' to get NEW customers. Seriously. Omegas tearing apart the under 50 sports watch circuit with a better watch at a better price. Its that simple. I get it. Want a Rolex pay for a Rolex. It buys you 'Respect' apparently ** I will debate that another day.

Time for Rolex to offer 42mm options across the board while keeping the 40mm options and the Legendary DSSD ( Best SS sports watch made today IMHO).

[PMiddy]

I have 3 watches, 2 in a 42mm and my Sub in 40mm.....I'm happy with the Sub, but wouldn't mind it in 42mm

[boogiebot]

At one point in time I would have said yes. This was before I owned a sub.

I admit that I was wrapped up in the larger size watch dial trend. Not so much as of late.

Personally I hope the sub stays at 40 mm.

[bayerische]

I think it's a bit too big. 39mm or 38mm would make it perfect. A 42mm sub (or bigger) would ruin the watch. Big watch craze will fade.

[yOyOYoo]

The SubC is perfect for me and my small wrists.

If the SubC is too small and the DSSD is too big, what about Rolex bringing in a 42mm SD?

I think a 42mm SD would be perfect for lots of people.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by yOyOYoo

The SubC is perfect for me and my small wrists.

If the SubC is too small and the DSSD is too big, what about Rolex bringing in a 42mm SD?

I think a 42mm SD would be perfect for lots of people.

I think the Classical 40mm SD is perfect.

[al_bongo]

Does it really matter what anyone thinks of the size of the Submariner? After all Rolex have only recently introduced new models over the last year or two. Presumably if they were going to make a bigger watch they would have done so with perhaps the Deep Sea being the most obvious candidate for this kind of treatment.

[MP5]

Originally Posted by balboa73

To each their own. a 42mm sub doesent mean Rolex has to discontinue the 40mm. I'm always baffled at some peoples insistence that Rolex shouldent 'change' to get NEW customers. Seriously. Omegas tearing apart the under 50 sports watch circuit with a better watch at a better price. Its that simple. I get it. Want a Rolex pay for a Rolex. It buys you 'Respect' apparently ** I will debate that another day.

Time for Rolex to offer 42mm options across the board while keeping the 40mm options and the Legendary DSSD ( Best SS sports watch made today IMHO).

I notice this is your standard boilerplate argument to proclaim that omega is wiping the floor with Rolex despite direct evidence to the contrary. Why do you never mention they are popular because they are cheaper? Why do you never mention NO discounts on Rolex and you can easily get Omega up to 30% off? If Omega customers would have really have bought a Rolex they wouldn't be such coupon shopping be their real deciding factor. There are many Omega lovers here, that's awesome. To you, it seems to be tied up in your identity, congrats you have a nice watch and saved some money. That's the most important thing to some and a nice perk for nearly everyone.

[MichaelB_Can]

Too small if you want a Giant watch with a bright neon light that says "look at me", or too small if you are have a problem with your eyes . I can see just fine & love my Sub & Gmt in 40 !ImageUploadedByTapatalk1366575301.942029.jpgImageUploadedByTapatalk1366575342.798670.jpgImageUploadedByTapatalk1366575389.605238.jpgImageUploadedByTapatalk1366575421.451076.jpg


Mike B , Canada ⌚

[MP5]

I would accept a sub in 42 with the new EII lugs over the subC I'm afraid but would prolly never buy one as there are too many of those little rungs of vintage subs to buy first.

[kungapa]

Personally I think it is almost too big - I'm not a huge fan of the giant 42+ sized watches - I find it looking rather contrived. 36-38 is my sweet spot!

[ledas1]

Yesterday, for first time, saw the new YMII 44mm [YG] in local AD display window. Very impressive. But, they were all so nice in that window.

[balboa73]

Originally Posted by bayerische

I think it's a bit too big. 39mm or 38mm would make it perfect. A 42mm sub (or bigger) would ruin the watch. Big watch craze will fade.

what craze??? The Omega Speedmaster Professional is 42mm and absolutely as iconic as the Rolex Submariner

[balboa73]

Originally Posted by MP5

I notice this is your standard boilerplate argument to proclaim that omega is wiping the floor with Rolex despite direct evidence to the contrary. Why do you never mention they are popular because they are cheaper? Why do you never mention NO discounts on Rolex and you can easily get Omega up to 30% off? If Omega customers would have really have bought a Rolex they wouldn't be such coupon shopping be their real deciding factor. There are many Omega lovers here, that's awesome. To you, it seems to be tied up in your identity, congrats you have a nice watch and saved some money. That's the most important thing to some and a nice perk for nearly everyone.

Shame on You.

I own my 2 'Rollies' I also own 2 'Omegas, GS, IWC, B-'LING' etc, nevermind other brands....this aint a peeing match. Rolex will,l like it or not make the ever so sacred sub 42mm. book it. matter of time.

Omega may be 'cheaper' but its current 8500 PO offering simply is better than Rolex's 3135 Submariner offering. The 'price' is nothing more than a 'bigger' profit margin for Rolex. I will pay that premium but dont dismiss Omega making 'sales' because someone can get a 42mm PO. MANY would probably 'upgrade' to the SUB IF it was 42mm

[MP5]

Originally Posted by balboa73

what craze??? The Omega Speedmaster Professional is 42mm and absolutely as iconic as the Rolex Submariner

So you would be totally surprised to learn that the speedy was 38-40 mm then right?

[Sherwooddavid]

No,it seems alright to me !

[floater156]

I find it interesting that people are getting so heated over a few mm.... To answer the OP's question. No, I don't think 40mm is too small. I own a 41mm DJII and a 42m ExpII. If I get another Rolex, it will probably be the 40mm Subc. I prefer watches in the range of 39-42mm.

[wantonebad]

I have TT Sub, Z serial that I love, it's proportional and classic, I will never own a Sub C because it is off putting to me, the exaggerated lugs and crown guard are not proportional anymore and Rolex has screwed up the symmetry IMHO, aesthetically I could never live with it. The DSSD is not an option because it wears like a top hat, to me both of these new options are silly. The EXP II 42MM is closer to what I would like to have seen from the new Sub, but oh well, can't make everyone happy I guess. My next new diving watch will most likely be an omega, not because I prefer the brand, but because they are closer to my personal aesthetic. I really really wanted a proportional 42MM Sub and since I didn't get it I have to move on, because the DSSD is too thick. JMHO

Originally Posted by rolex75216

I don't think it is too small but think it would look nice at the Explorer II size of 42 mm.

X2

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Alex Ks

The Daytona definitely feels too small on my wrist, however, the GMTIIC is the perfect size!

Agree the Dayt and old Subs are a bit small for over 7 inch wrists but the new ceramics wear like 42mm so are perfect.

[HL65]

Originally Posted by AK797

Agree the Dayt and old Subs are a bit small for over 7 inch wrists but the new ceramics wear like 42mm so are perfect.

Disagree and it is all personal. I have a 7 3/8 wrist and 36-40mm wears absolutley perfectly for me--not at all small. This is 100% subjective and what wears perfect for one person might not for another.

[Milgaussgv]

Can't go wrong with a 40

[Nidal]

You need to see the air king before you call anything "small"! I've seen FEMALE celebs wearing the DSSD

[melons]

I love the 40mm size of my 16610. If it were say 42mm, the size of the 216570, it would be disproportionate IMO. I have a 7 3/8 wrist and never have I felt the Sub is small. It's the perfect size, no need to mess with a classic.

[Grey.Coupe]

To the question, no. I like the new Explorer, but the Sub is a classic.