Sub-C vs. Noob Sub - FIGHT!!! (Pic-heavy)

[MadeOfCheese 0]

So having just taken delivery of a Noobmariner from Reg (great service btw, thanks Reg!), I thought it might be of interest to others to see a direct comparison between that and the RWI promotion Sub-C I got from Timesshop.net at the end of last year.

 

Now I know these are reps of different watches, but to a certain extent they are comparable:

- They are both "base" steel Rolex sports watches

- They are both 21j

- They are both extremely cheap (Noobmariner £68 from Reg, Sub-C $68 from Timesshop)

 

I should also point out that I don't consider myself an expert in either model (gen or rep) and that the finer tells will probably pass me by. Apart from the photos, about which you can make your own judgements, my thoughts are subjective and based on the "feel" of the watches.

 

So, the pics - Sub-C is generally on left or top (ignore any purple tinges btw, that's something to do with my macro lens) :

 

Sub-C 116610

 

Sub 16610

 

 

Cyclops & CG. Magnification seems to be higher on Sub-C, Sub doesn't seem very effective. Crown guards are different as is appropriate.

 

Pearl: Sub-C is neat (and centered) but sticks out a bit too far - the biggest tell on this watch IMO. Sub is much more gen-looking, but needs more lume filling (or perhaps a lacquer top-off). Really want to get a better pearl on this Sub-C!

 

Hands and type: Sub-C has thick hour hand which is apparently wrong (but looks nice). Sub has correct hands but looks rather delicate in comparison. Typeface seems to be the same on both. Hour markers are smaller and borders are finer on Sub.

 

Logo and typeface seems to be identical on both.

 

Rehaut engraving is a lot heavier and more noticeable on Sub-C. I prefer it.

Sub-C rehaut is dead straight, Sub's is a bit wokky (although not excessively so).

 

Both have logo etched at 6 (apols for crappy pics)

 

Side profile: Sub-C is significantly thicker than Sub, bezel is also thicker and has larger cut-outs. Lugs have a steeper curve to them (presumably to achieve similar overall length)

 

Crown and CG: Sub-C CGs are thicker. Logo is more pronounced on Sub crown.

 

Clasp: Totally different. Sub-C one is much more substantial but stiffer, and with sharp edges (that presumably the gen doesn't have).

Sub's is very light and thin feeling, with a very soft, unpronounced logo. I don't like it.

 

Sub-C Clasp has a good definition to it. I suspect with some judicious sanding it could look very tasty indeed.

 

Sub - looks and feels tinny and thin. Can't believe the gen feels anything like this. Not impressed.

 

Both are slightly lighter than gen, although both are also minus 2 links (shouldve weighed those as well

Sub-C feels substantial, Sub feels much lighter and less convincing in the hand. Also the Sub-C makes a much better noise when rattled gently in the hand (not on wrist), if that makes sense. Sounds like I imagine a gen would sound (and my gen Seamaster does), whereas the Sub rattles in a much thinner way.

 

SEL: Sub-C seems a better fit, and strap feels much more substantial (although I believe it has hollow mid-links)

 

 

As you can probably gather by now - I prefer the Sub-C. It's heavier, larger, more shiny (thanks to the Ceramic bezel) and just looks and feels like a classier watch. If only it had a decent pearl

 

I'm sure the Sub is as close to gen as the Sub-C is, and I suspect in a gen match I'd much prefer the Sub-C gen to a Sub gen, so I'm clearly biased. But I did say at the beginning that this was an apples vs oranges match, and purely subjective.

 

Having said that, both watches are nothing short of astonishing for the price, and I really can't fault either of them for value. Service and delivery from both Timesshop and Narikaa were excellent, and I'd happily buy from either of them again.

And here's one of the whole family together - my that DSSD is a handsome beast

 

If you got this far, thanks for reading, and I hope some of you found it vaguely interesting.

 

This is my first try at this sort of thing, so if I've broken any rules / caused offence / made any glaring errors, feel free to put me right - I'm more than happy to have feedback and/or mistakes pointed out to me.

 

Cheers

Cheese

[cremona 0]

Great writeup! Very tempted to pickup Mary's Special Price sub c.

[MadeOfCheese 0]

Thanks!

 

I think that's the exact same one as I got from Timesshop. I heartily recommend it.

[Crusader 0]

Great comparison, congrats on that I'm not really into Rolex, so this was really nice and informative.

 

It's quite easy to tell them apart when together on the pic, Sub-C is the fattie one

 

And I love the Rolex family you have there, looks great together.

[g.man 0]

Great comparison. Thanks for taking the time.

 

+1

 

g.man

[machiavegli 6]

Great review & Thank you MOC

[Chiquita Fanjita 1,803]

Nice write up

[Greenhat 0]

Them bloody watches are all the same use your imagination

Edited March 20, 2012 by Greenhat

[jeffw69 0]

Very nice cheese!!!

[Del 4,511]

Very well done mate!

 

I'm not a Rollie expert but have owned both of these watches in the past (plus DSSD for that matter ) and know what you mean about the Sub feeling lighter and less convincing than the Sub-c. However, I'm reliably informed that the gen Sub feels similarly light, especially the bracelet.

 

[solkryssare 109]

Great writeup! This is yet another Proof of how much better looking the classic sub is. It's completely in harmony were as the new one makes compromises in order to achieve a larger looking case. You don't need a masters in design to see this. I love them both but the classic is a master piece is form and function. The new only in function.

[MadeOfCheese 0]

I think you're right Sol - the sub is clearly the classic among them (I suspect the Sea Dweller would win that battle with the DSSD also).

 

However, the newer watches are clearly more able to compete in the world of bling that the watch arena is these days, which is presumably why they're going in that direction.

 

And if you're looking for a status symbol rather than a classic timepiece, the ceramics win hands down. I'm ashamed to admit that I am swayed by that.

[Dr Yan 8]

Excellent review MOC!

I know what you mean about the older type bracelet, I have a noobmariner that i hated wearing until i took off the bracelet and put on a Subc bracelet and now i love it.

 

Funny thing is, a friend of mine has a gen Sub and the gen bracelet is just as crap as the rep one.

[ajs914 0]

I have both of the same watches and completely agree with the assessment though I will add that a TC bracelet is a huge upgrade over the thin clanky feel of the basic noob bracelet on the regular sub.

[MadeOfCheese 0]

So where do I get this TC bracelet that everyone recommends?

[myaz 3]

My go to person in these cases is WatchInternational.

Thoroughly enjoyed side by side photographs.

Thanks for the substantial amount of work it took to put it together.

[MadeOfCheese 0]

Thanks myaz.

 

Interestingly (for me at least ) since I wrote this I've started to come round more to the traditional sub. I think it's a more subtle, classier watch.

 

Not unconnected is that I think vintage watches is where my preferences are heading towards. Have just ordered a Double Red Sea Dweller from Reg, suspect that this will end up replacing the DSSD....

 

It never gets boring, this lark, that's for sure

[ajs914 0]

So where do I get this TC bracelet that everyone recommends?

 

Search the rolex area for all posts by "tc670207". I'm not sure if he has an ad in the classifieds but he is a supporting dealer on repgeek and has an add in the parts area on RWI.

 

FWIW, everybody says that at least the TC clasp is the same as the old WM9 clasp. For me, it's the nicest tightest one I've seen so far.

[Eiderdaus 0]

nice pics and a lot of work but what will be the next comparism ? GMT vs Explorer ? Can´t compare two different watches.

[MadeOfCheese 0]

I did say they're kind of apples and oranges.

 

But it is a relevant comparison because people (myself included) would be looking to choose between the two, and this helps to put them into context with each other.

 

Incidentally I just got a Double Red Sea Dweller from Reg, so that's where the next comparison will be coming from - DRSD vs DSSD

 

Apples and oranges again, but still of interest, I flatter myself

[mbjoer 0]

I like your comparison. To me it hits the nail on the head.

 

The most important thing with any rep is the overall feel and functionality. That provides more basic value for money than minute details like accuracy of the date font.

 

Thanks for bringing us this.

[jeffw69 0]

Accuracy of datewheel font is important to me.

[mbjoer 0]

Accuracy of datewheel font is important to me.

 

Understand and appreciate that. And the forum is great to get details like that.

But compared to build quality, it is secondary. And often that aspect is impossible to see from pictures on the internet.

[Member X 91]

+1

 

I have found that if a rep feels like it is solid and 'all of a piece', rather than feeling like a collection of parts thrown together, I am much more likely to wear it

 

Both the ceramic and original Subs have their merits so this is a good thread for comparison in that regard, as I imagine a lot of people are tempted by both!

[MadeOfCheese 0]

Thanks for the positive feedback guys

 

We see a lot of the minutiae of rep tells, but sometimes some 'real world' comparison to give context is helpful.

 

Eg how does a Rad wear compared to a Luminor? Comparative wristies etc could be helpful in making a choice of what rep to buy.