New Sub- This is significant

[NCD1979]

While I'll venture to say that the new Sub LN is going to be a big seller, I think that we have to acknowledge the significance of the price increase and movement away from being a true tool watch.

The new model is truly magnificent but IMHO is not going to lend itself to being worn during the full range of applications like the older 16610

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Sub is getting a little too "Bling" for universal everyday wear, not to mention the price tag.

Just my thoughts - Fire at will...

[padi56]

Originally Posted by NCD1979

While I'll venture to say that the new Sub LN is going to be a big seller, I think that we have to acknowledge the significance of the price increase and movement away from being a true tool watch.

The new model is truly magnificent but IMHO is not going to lend itself to being worn during the full range of applications like the older 16610

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Sub is getting a little too "Bling" for universal everyday wear, not to mention the price tag.

Just my thoughts - Fire at will...

Alltough not a fan of the new case,I would doubt if 90% of all diver type watches are used as tool watches.Most Rolex watches today get a very very
pampered life, so perhaps today Rolex watches are directed more at the bling market wearer.

[dardeca]

Originally Posted by padi56

Alltough not a fan of the new case,I would doubt if 90% of all diver type watches are used as tool watches.Most Rolex watches today get a very very
pampered life, so perhaps today Rolex watches are directed more at the bling market wearer.

I agree!

[mike]

Originally Posted by padi56

Alltough not a fan of the new case,I would doubt if 90% of all diver type watches are used as tool watches.Most Rolex watches today get a very very
pampered life, so perhaps today Rolex watches are directed more at the bling market wearer.

Absolutely.

Those that put their 16610 on a pillow will do the same with the new version. Those that have always used the watch as it was intended will continue with the new version.

Perhaps it isn't the watch that has changed so much.......

[NCD1979]

Good point guys. I guess I like having the option of using it as a tool watch and it looks like we're moving away from that...

[subdaytona]

what is the MSRP ?

[NCD1979]

Folks with more knowledge than myself predict an MSRP of just over 7K...

[TheDude]

Well, the bezel is far more durable. No more scratches and fading.

The blue lume is more practical for actual diving. I read on a thread that blue is the last visible spectrum the deeper you dive.

The clasp is far superior, and is built to address the needs of the diver.



While the cost is prohibitive, I'd argue that the Submariner is a better dive watch than perhaps it has ever been.


I don't plan on buying one, so I don't really have a horse in this race.

[SUPERDOC]

I love the new Sub, and am first in line...

I like the upgrade and I am not that upset about the price hike..

I had always loved the old sub as well, but was in Vegas a few weeks ago, and almost every other male was wearing a ss sub (be it rolex or an homage)...plus the grey and used markets have made it fairly easily attainable..

now it has some exlusivity to it again...

[Gerardus]

I agree too

Originally Posted by padi56

Alltough not a fan of the new case,I would doubt if 90% of all diver type watches are used as tool watches.Most Rolex watches today get a very very
pampered life, so perhaps today Rolex watches are directed more at the bling market wearer.

[Joey_V]

If you go by pricing to determine whether a watch is a "tool watch", then your logic fails to persuade me that the 16610 is a tool watch anymoreso than the upcoming LN version.

Both watches are priced BEYOND tool watch category and if you really think about it, the features on the LN are better suited to diving than the 16610 ever was.

[16610v]

it is quite meaningless to argue if any of the Rolex model should be a real tools watch or not since the price level is far more expansive than a tool watch. it functions should be able to match a tool watch but cant prepare the advanced tech. watch as rolex is 50 yrs old watch and the tech. cant improve very much as long as it need to be fixed with automatic and non-plastic materials

[Tools]

I'm not sure that arguing price is valid....

The GMT IIc was priced 20% higher than it's earlier version and has been at $7k for the past year and Dealers can't keep them in the cases..

The Sub will be priced in that same area - I don't think that it's going to be a deterrant at all...

[Moggo]

Originally Posted by Joey_V

If you go by pricing to determine whether a watch is a "tool watch", then your logic fails to persuade me that the 16610 is a tool watch anymoreso than the upcoming LN version.

Both watches are priced BEYOND tool watch category and if you really think about it, the features on the LN are better suited to diving than the 16610 ever was.

Not sure I entirely agree that the new model is better suited, which features? A heavier bracelet? A bigger case? A fancier clasp? Do these actually help the diver? The new one at the moment is totally untested so has a long way to go to prove itself. I do like it though

[jamesworthy52]

I have no idea how someone can argue that the older sub was a better dive watch. The new sub has a better clasp for diving, better lume, and has a bezel that is more scratch resistant. Yes, it may cost more, but cost aside, its hard to argue that the old model was better from a functional (not asthetic) viewpoint.

[STEELINOX]

From "Tool to Jewel" in three Basel Shows !

[correctn, two shows]

[Mockingbird]

The one qualm I have, is the ceramic bezel, other than that, it's moved more into the tool watch range. The ceramic bezel on the other hand, shatters easily, and is WAY too ostentatious for my tastes.

[TheBluePrince]

Most people who buy a Rolex aren't watch enthusiasts. They buy it because it's a Rolex for vanity and apperance reasons only.

They won't have a clue about the old model Vs new model. They just go into an AD and buy the big black shiny watch in the window. While we here and other WIS types are all talking about, aware of and debating the new watch, for the majority of new Rolex buyers it will mean nothing to them.

[Moggo]

Originally Posted by jamesworthy52

I have no idea how someone can argue that the older sub was a better dive watch. The new sub has a better clasp for diving, better lume, and has a bezel that is more scratch resistant. Yes, it may cost more, but cost aside, its hard to argue that the old model was better from a functional (not asthetic) viewpoint.

Why is the clasp better for diving? Not being argumentative just don't know why? It's function is to keep the watch securely fastened isn't it? Which the old one has done for many years. The lume being blue, I can't disagree with if it has been scientifically proven as a better colour at depth.

[mpkRolex]

I pamper my old 16610 even though it is a "tool watch". After having spent 4k on it why would I abuse it. Also I have the tissot and my brand new Orient Mako for my daily run and yard work

[HL65]

Originally Posted by Tools

I'm not sure that arguing price is valid....

The GMT IIc was priced 20% higher than it's earlier version and has been at $7k for the past year and Dealers can't keep them in the cases..

The Sub will be priced in that same area - I don't think that it's going to be a deterrant at all...

Agree.

[vjb.knife]

Since this is the same as another post basically I am going to copy my answer to it here. I am not sure what 'tool watch' means to you so here is what I think.

Sorry but I think this "tool watch" designation and the question in general is silly because they are sport watches.

Are there any watches other than <$100 G-Shocks or similar that you would really use in a very dirty and exceptionally hazardous environment where they are likely to get seriously damaged? If so than you have a lot more money than sense. I don't consider sport diving to be that hazardous for a watch and the Subs are perfectly suited for it. Subs are for sports not being used with or as tools.

Commercial diving, heavy mechanical maintenance, welding and jobs like that are different, that is why I own a G-Shock. If you wear any nice watch when doing that type of activity then you should know what to expect - a fat repair bill.

If I was still in the Commercial Diving business I sure wouldn't be wearing one of my Subs to work just as I did not when I was a Plant Engineer at a steel mill and a machine shop.

[Casey VP-26]

I agree the new LN seems more fragile. I have been wearing my 16610 for 12 years now every day except sundays . I operated bulldozers, Gutted Deer, Bumped it against walls and stone fireplaces, Had it in several hundred swimming pools as I traveled, still shower with it on most of the time and have never had it serviced . It runs within 2 seconds a day, that is what I call a tool Watch. I don't know if I would attempt that with the new LN watch. IMHO

[cornerstore]

Originally Posted by TheBluePrince

Most people who buy a Rolex aren't watch enthusiasts. They buy it because it's a Rolex for vanity and appearance reasons only.

They won't have a clue about the old model Vs new model. They just go into an AD and buy the big black shiny watch in the window. While we here and other WIS types are all talking about, aware of and debating the new watch, for the majority of new Rolex buyers it will mean nothing to them.

Without those"vanity buyers" the WIS types wouldn't have the Brand or the market to play in .So I say thank you to all those vanity and appearance buyers out there and keep those used watches coming as you feel the inevitable need to up grade.

[SUPERDOC]

Originally Posted by Mockingbird

The one qualm I have, is the ceramic bezel, other than that, it's moved more into the tool watch range. The ceramic bezel on the other hand, shatters easily, and is WAY too ostentatious for my tastes.

Charlie, you seem to have made this claim about the ceramic bezel a few times (I apologize if it wasn't you)...but I don't see a DSSD, or GMT or any new ceramic bezel offerings in your collection..

I assume that you've somehow been soured on the ceramic...what's the story behind it?
Because my understanding, and my experience with my GNMT is that the ceramic is incredibly durable, scratch resistant, and has taken a few hard knocks (the heart stopping kind)...

please share...it might be therapeutic

[NCD1979]

Some really great points here! I agree that from a functionality standpoint the LN is a very capable dive watch, but with all the jazzy new fit and finish I think I'll limit mine to the office...

[Overkill]

I think the new Sub is still pretty "tool"! Thankfully, it still has brushed center links. As for the ceramic bezel, well, at least it's more scratch resistant. And I like the super case.

I agree with padi56 about most Rolex watches getting a pampered life these days, and it's truly sad. Not mine though! I went sandboarding with my GMT-Master IIc last week! That's right

Yes, the bracelet got thousands of hairline scratches against the sand when I fell. Yes, the sand got under the bezel and made it hard to turn (got it out later with hot water). Yes, the watch no longer looks new. But hey... that's what makes it MY Rolex, and not just any Rolex, and it's still better than leaving the watch at home

[JJ Irani]

Guys, guys........

A watch worth several thousands of dollars deserves a bit of TLC and a pampered life.

If I need tools, Stanley as well as Black & Decker have never failed to impress!!

[Welshwatchman]

Also don't forget that Rolex was never anything but a premium price product.

In 1982 these utilitarian rugged tool sports watches each cost nearly 6 month's salary of my first job.

[mike]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

Also don't forget that Rolex was never anything but a premium price product.

In 1982 these utilitarian rugged tool sports watches each cost nearly 6 month's salary of my first job.

Well said Paul. Given a particular era Rolex has never be cheap.