GMT Master II V's Submariner. Your thoughts appreciated...
Discussion
I'm considering the purchase of a weekend watch, something sportier than the datejust that I wear to work very day and less fancy than the Cellini that I wear if dressing up.
My jeweller has just gotten in a GMT Master II, 2010 ceramic bezel in black that I can have for £4300, not a bad price I thought. After initially thinking a no date Sub was what was required I think I might prefer the GMT, I like the numbers around the bezel and the quirky green detailing.The jeweller likes the GMT as he considers it "more watch for your money" what with the functionality etc.
However, as a weekend watch a No Date Sub appeals as there would be no need to set the date obviously!
Now, to throw a spanner into the works my man also has an interesting Sub in stock. This No Date model is the old watch without the ceramic bezel but has the new none-sequential serial case number. This watch is unworn and part of a collection and apparently an "investment" at £6k.
Now I hate to admit it but the investment angle does actually interest me. This is a treat to celebrate our first kid and rather than stick some money in an ISA I'm thinking of something that I can wear and enjoy for 15-20 years and sell when the time is right. I'm not suggesting a rolex will pay university fees but I've yet to lose money on any of the watches I've bought (should I need to sell).
TL;DR
I've tried on both and I'm unsure of which I prefer.
My jeweller has just gotten in a GMT Master II, 2010 ceramic bezel in black that I can have for £4300, not a bad price I thought. After initially thinking a no date Sub was what was required I think I might prefer the GMT, I like the numbers around the bezel and the quirky green detailing.The jeweller likes the GMT as he considers it "more watch for your money" what with the functionality etc.
However, as a weekend watch a No Date Sub appeals as there would be no need to set the date obviously!
Now, to throw a spanner into the works my man also has an interesting Sub in stock. This No Date model is the old watch without the ceramic bezel but has the new none-sequential serial case number. This watch is unworn and part of a collection and apparently an "investment" at £6k.
Now I hate to admit it but the investment angle does actually interest me. This is a treat to celebrate our first kid and rather than stick some money in an ISA I'm thinking of something that I can wear and enjoy for 15-20 years and sell when the time is right. I'm not suggesting a rolex will pay university fees but I've yet to lose money on any of the watches I've bought (should I need to sell).
TL;DR
I've tried on both and I'm unsure of which I prefer.
Edited by LaurasOtherHalf on Sunday 10th July 10:23
I compared the two when watch shopping for mine - went for a bi metal sub with blue face and bezel, because I love the blue.
If it was a choice between the stainless / black models, it becomes trickier for me! The sub is the "traditional" Rolex sports watch, and pulls at the heart for that reason. The GMT has a function I'd actually have used, as it's handy to know what the time in our other office would be - as a result, I would likely have gone for the GMT.
All that is rather irrelevant though. Get the one you'd make most use of, or use a feature of. If you dive on holiday, the sub. If you travel for work or pleasure, maybe the GMT. I'm not sure if buy into any of them being real "investment" pieces if you're actually planning to wear them though...
If it was a choice between the stainless / black models, it becomes trickier for me! The sub is the "traditional" Rolex sports watch, and pulls at the heart for that reason. The GMT has a function I'd actually have used, as it's handy to know what the time in our other office would be - as a result, I would likely have gone for the GMT.
All that is rather irrelevant though. Get the one you'd make most use of, or use a feature of. If you dive on holiday, the sub. If you travel for work or pleasure, maybe the GMT. I'm not sure if buy into any of them being real "investment" pieces if you're actually planning to wear them though...
I had long lusted after a date sub, but when the time came I actually fell for the GMT Master II BLNR. I preferred that it was distinctive. It wears very well too, much easier to live with on the wrist that my 46mm PO. If it's an all black GMT then it'll come down to how you feel about them when they're on. Head to a dealer and try both.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Now, to throw a spanner into the works my man also has an interesting Sub in stock. This No Date model is the old watch without the ceramic bezel but has the new none-sequential serial case number. This watch is unworn and part of a collection and apparently an "investment" at £6k.
[/footnote]
The GMT is a nice watch.
Personally I find that when I wear a watch without a date I miss having it. Which you should choose is a matter of which one speaks to you most.
audidoody said:
I've got a 2003 GMT II Coke and a 2008 sub no-date.
I'd grab both in a house fire. But the Sub gets more wrist time because the elapsed time bezel is of more use.
You'd be better off grabbing a fire extinguisher, or in the case of a chip pan fire a damp tea towel draped over the pan is effective. Neither watch you mention is particular good for fighting fires. The elapsed time bezel may be of some use in determining how much time you have left before you asphyxiate, however. Remember - fire kills in minutes, smoke kills in seconds!I'd grab both in a house fire. But the Sub gets more wrist time because the elapsed time bezel is of more use.
13m said:
audidoody said:
I've got a 2003 GMT II Coke and a 2008 sub no-date.
I'd grab both in a house fire. But the Sub gets more wrist time because the elapsed time bezel is of more use.
You'd be better off grabbing a fire extinguisher, or in the case of a chip pan fire a damp tea towel draped over the pan is effective. Neither watch you mention is particular good for fighting fires. The elapsed time bezel may be of some use in determining how much time you have left before you asphyxiate, however. Remember - fire kills in minutes, smoke kills in seconds!I'd grab both in a house fire. But the Sub gets more wrist time because the elapsed time bezel is of more use.
13m said:
The Sub is a better looking watch IMHO, and being pre-ceramic is a good thing. I presume the one you're referring to has the engraved rehaut and is chronometer certified? Strong money at £6k though and if you're going to wear it you will lose a big chunk of that immediately - so it's not much of an investment.
^This.Even for an unworn, stickered 14060M, £6k is very strong money! and as said, it would only be an 'investment' if you put it in the safe and left it unworn and stickered!
13m said:
audidoody said:
I've got a 2003 GMT II Coke and a 2008 sub no-date.
I'd grab both in a house fire. But the Sub gets more wrist time because the elapsed time bezel is of more use.
You'd be better off grabbing a fire extinguisher, or in the case of a chip pan fire a damp tea towel draped over the pan is effective. Neither watch you mention is particular good for fighting fires. The elapsed time bezel may be of some use in determining how much time you have left before you asphyxiate, however. Remember - fire kills in minutes, smoke kills in seconds!I'd grab both in a house fire. But the Sub gets more wrist time because the elapsed time bezel is of more use.
And the elapsed bezel is required to work out how fast I need to run to get out.
So - as I said. I'd grab both.
Edited by audidoody on Thursday 14th July 16:23
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff