Sub ND vs Sub measurements

[leopardprey]

Just measured my Sub ND and Sub LV with calibers. Sub ND had diameter of 39mm, Sub was 40mm. The Sub LV actually looks smaller in diameter though due to the Maxi Dial, cyclops, and extra printing on dial. Measured my new GMT as well. Was also 40mm in diameter, and around 1mm thinner in height compared to the Sub LV. 0.5 mm thinner than Sub ND. Can actually tell the difference on the wrist. The GMT definately fits more flush and comfortable. Also like the thinner clasp on the bracelet that the GMT has.

[JJ Irani]

Hi Chad,

The LV and the SS Sub-date use the same identical case and bracelet. Only differences are TWO - i.e. the bezel colour and the maxi dial - all else is the same.

This chart might help....

[leopardprey]

Yes, but the SS Sub/Sub LV are larger than the Sub No Date (which is not on the chart). The Bezel insert in the Sub No Date is smaller and the overall diameter and also the height of the Sub No Date is smaller.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Yes, but the SS Sub/Sub LV are larger than the Sub No Date (which is not on the chart). The Bezel insert in the Sub No Date is smaller and the overall diameter and also the height of the Sub No Date is smaller.

I'm quite sure the diameter of the ND Sub is the same as all the other Subs, i.e. 40 mm. In thickness, however, the ND Sub might be slimmer.

JJ

[leopardprey]

JJ, I am measuring them both side by side. Not the same. Also had Mike confirm this. Also popped out the Bezel insert of the Sub No Date to put on the LV, that is when discovered the Sub No Date is a bit smaller in diameter. I always thought they would be the same. I guess without the date function, they can make the Sub No Date a little smaller.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

JJ, I am measuring them both side by side. Not the same. Also had Mike confirm this. Also popped out the Bezel insert of the Sub No Date to put on the LV, that is when discovered the Sub No Date is a bit smaller in diameter. I always thought they would be the same. I guess without the date function, they can make the Sub No Date a little smaller.

Hmmm.....interesting. What instrument are you using for measurements? Vernier calipers?

I used a Vernier once on one of my Exp-II and the measurement came up as 39 mm....whereas the Sub-date came up as 40 mm.

I was always under the impression that the same case was used for the no-date Sub as well as the other Subs (except, of course, the solid gold one).

JJ

[Blue Bull]

Interesting info,Chad.Is your caliper accurate enough so you can give us the actual differences of the measurements ?

[leopardprey]

Using a good set of SS Calipers my Father loaned me. Will give you the exact measurements, but off top of my head, the Sub ND is about .5-.25mm thinner. And dimater wise, the Sub ND is 1mm smaller. You can definately tell from the Bezel insert, and bezel itself. When you compare the bezels after you take them both off, you see the Sub is bigger than the Sub ND. Another way to tell without measuring is the hard plastic protective covering - locks down on the GMT and SUB bezel, but rotates freely on the Sub ND.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Using a good set of SS Calipers my Father loaned me. Will give you the exact measurements, but off top of my head, the Sub ND is about .5-.25mm thinner. And dimater wise, the Sub ND is 1mm smaller. You can definately tell from the Bezel insert, and bezel itself. When you compare the bezels after you take them both off, you see the Sub is bigger than the Sub ND. Another way to tell without measuring is the hard plastic protective covering - locks down on the GMT and SUB bezel, but rotates freely on the Sub ND.

Thanks for the info, Chad. So it's obvious that the SUB they mention in my chart above is the Sub-date. I should know because I've weighed it and it does weigh in at exactly 135 grams.

JJ

[mike]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Yes, but the SS Sub/Sub LV are larger than the Sub No Date (which is not on the chart). The Bezel insert in the Sub No Date is smaller and the overall diameter and also the height of the Sub No Date is smaller.

Yeah, my reference lists the 16610 insert--37.75 outer diameter, 30.7 inner diameter.
14060 (M)--36.55 OD, 27.7 ID.

[leopardprey]

Stainless Steel National Calipers. My measurements:


Thickness:

Sub ND 12.5mm
Sub LV 13.0mm
GMT II 12.0mm
Omega Seamaster Prof. 12.25mm

Outer Bezel Diameter:

Sub ND 39mm
Sub LV 40mm
GMT II 40mm
Omega SMP 41mm

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Stainless Steel National Calipers. My measurements:


Thickness:

Sub ND 12.5mm
Sub LV 13.0mm
GMT II 12.0mm
Omega Seamaster Prof. 12.25mm

Outer Bezel Diameter:

Sub ND 39mm
Sub LV 40mm
GMT II 40mm
Omega SMP 41mm

I love this kinda info, Chad. Thanks!!

[Lubrifar]

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Stainless Steel National Calipers. My measurements:


Thickness:

Sub ND 12.5mm
Sub LV 13.0mm
GMT II 12.0mm
Omega Seamaster Prof. 12.25mm

Outer Bezel Diameter:

Sub ND 39mm
Sub LV 40mm
GMT II 40mm
Omega SMP 41mm

Great info here Chad, thanks.
As a comparison, are you refering to Omega SMP 2254.50?

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Is that the GMT II Ceramic you measured, Chad?

[Transient]

Very interesting post.
I have a SMP and when I compare it to my 16610 the SMP looks way larger than just the 1mm stated difference.

[Lubrifar]

Originally Posted by Transient

Very interesting post.
I have a SMP and when I compare it to my 16610 the SMP looks way larger than just the 1mm stated difference.

I assume you are talking about the case diameter. How about the thicknest between the two? And comfort level?