Sub or GMT - help??

[stuttgartsfinest]

Morning, I guess it's been done before, so apologies!

I want to buy either a bi-metal Sub (16613) or GMT Master II (116713). Both black face/ceramic bezel.

I'm really stuck on which one to go for, so just wondered if there was something glaringly obvious that would assist me in coming to a final decision?

Edited by stuttgartsfinest on Wednesday 6th November 10:43

[worsy]

stuttgartsfinest said:

Morning, I guess it's been done before, so apologies!

I want to buy either a bi-metal Sub (11613) or GMT Master II (116713). Both black face/ceramic bezel.

I'm really stuck on which one to go for, so just wondered if there was something glaringly obvious that would assist me in coming to a final decision?

Think you mean the 16613 for the Sub.

[stuttgartsfinest]

worsy said:

Think you mean the 16613 for the Sub.

Correct & edited!! Thanks.

[gp1699]

I was thinking the same and will probably go with the Sub no date... then it still leaves an opening in my collection for a GMT from a different brand

[AlexWF]

I'd go Sub ceramic (model ref is actually 116613), in blue. Lovely looking watch, nice to have a dial that isn't black on a Rolex sports watch too!

Another thing, when they brought out the ceramic steel and gold sub in 2009 it had a lovely pale blue dial, similar to the one on the white gold Sub. They've just decided though that they want to go back to a more purple tinge like the old model so if you get a 2nd hand pale blue dial watch it could be a good one to hang on to for the future!

Just to clarify, this is the watch I mean:

[Zingari]

Depends on your outlook. If you are looking at an investment piece ie one that will give you a decent return v outlay I'd stick to stainless steel only. SubD will hold more.

Bi-metal are not very popular which combined with when they get older and the gold stretches they drop like a stone.

[AlexWF]

Zingari said:

Depends on your outlook. If you are looking at an investment piece ie one that will give you a decent return v outlay I'd stick to stainless steel only. SubD will hold more.

Bi-metal are not very popular which combined with when they get older and the gold stretches they drop like a stone.

I disagree strongly. The bi-metal Sub is an extremely popular watch at the moment.

Over £5k is achievable now for the old style steel & gold sub, even at about 10 or 15 years old. 2 or 3 years ago they were going for about £4k. It's all down to the £9k retail for the new version.

[Vvroom]

OP, I have a 16610 Sub an love it. I will buy a birth year GMT (1980, bi-metal) at some point as I find myself craving the GMT complication when I travel.

If you're thinking about the GMT, I'd say go for it. It looks very similar to the Sub, yet you get the additional functionality.

[Zingari]

AlexWF said:

Zingari said:

Depends on your outlook. If you are looking at an investment piece ie one that will give you a decent return v outlay I'd stick to stainless steel only. SubD will hold more.

Bi-metal are not very popular which combined with when they get older and the gold stretches they drop like a stone.

I disagree strongly. The bi-metal Sub is an extremely popular watch at the moment.

Over £5k is achievable now for the old style steel & gold sub, even at about 10 or 15 years old. 2 or 3 years ago they were going for about £4k. It's all down to the £9k retail for the new version.

Yes but you're a dealer. A few years back I took my Rolex Day Date into a London dealer for appraisal. It's an early 80s watch, never polished, worn a handful of times yet I was offered £3.5k against £16k new. At the time the watch retailed new I believe at £6k. Now my 20 yr old stainless SubD is worth at least twice what I paid for it.

My view is if you like a watch you buy it to wear and not with the intention to sell its just that some have added bonus given fashion/popularity at a particular time. Original Milgauss couldn't give them away and discontinued but now worth £20k+

[AlexWF]

Zingari said:

AlexWF said:

Zingari said:

Depends on your outlook. If you are looking at an investment piece ie one that will give you a decent return v outlay I'd stick to stainless steel only. SubD will hold more.

Bi-metal are not very popular which combined with when they get older and the gold stretches they drop like a stone.

I disagree strongly. The bi-metal Sub is an extremely popular watch at the moment.

Over £5k is achievable now for the old style steel & gold sub, even at about 10 or 15 years old. 2 or 3 years ago they were going for about £4k. It's all down to the £9k retail for the new version.

Yes but you're a dealer. A few years back I took my Rolex Day Date into a London dealer for appraisal. It's an early 80s watch, never polished, worn a handful of times yet I was offered £3.5k against £16k new. At the time the watch retailed new I believe at £6k. Now my 20 yr old stainless SubD is worth at least twice what I paid for it.

My view is if you like a watch you buy it to wear and not with the intention to sell its just that some have added bonus given fashion/popularity at a particular time. Original Milgauss couldn't give them away and discontinued but now worth £20k+

Dealer or not my point was that it's not the case (as stated by someone else) that steel and gold watches are not popular and don't hold their money at all. Far from it.

[chris56]

I have most types of SubDate except the Steel and Gold one. I also have the GMT II in SS with black face ceramic dial.. The steel and gold SubDate with blue face does look very nice but my experience with steel and gold and all gold Rolexes tends to put me off. As Zingari mentions the bracelets do wear out quicker and stretch. The gold is very soft and marks/dents very easily and looks scruffy in no time. Yes you can get them serviced by Rolex but cost are high and the only way to repair a stretched badly damaged bracelet is new parts which are expensive.. The service recently i had done on my all gold SubDate cost over £1200 with link repairs etc.

[Mermaid]

chris56 said:

..The steel and gold SubDate with blue face does look very nice but my experience with steel and gold and all gold Rolexes tends to put me off. .

Steel & Gold do look a bit Saga'ish

[worsy]

Please read the OP he wants one of these

[audidoody]

IMHO there's something 'wrong' about a Rolex 'tool' watch in gold.

Why design and build a watch meant for challenging environments and robust activities - and then make it out of one of the softest metals there is?

[stuttgartsfinest]

Many thanks for the comments so far. I'm not expecting to sell the watch, so future value is not high on the list. My problem was which to go for, Sub or GMT?

AlexWF, I did leave you a message about the blue sub. I could be swayed??? I will leave that in your court for the time being!

[Miguel Alvarez]

I have the old blue one and a mate has the old black one. I like both but the blue edged it for me. If I was going for the black however I'd possibly go for the GMT. I'm unlikely to go diving more than once every few years but I'd be very likely to use the extra hand function so if it was two black face bi metal watches the GMT it would be. IMHO

[MrTickle]

AlexWF said:

Zingari said:

Depends on your outlook. If you are looking at an investment piece ie one that will give you a decent return v outlay I'd stick to stainless steel only. SubD will hold more.

Bi-metal are not very popular which combined with when they get older and the gold stretches they drop like a stone.

I disagree strongly. The bi-metal Sub is an extremely popular watch at the moment.

Over £5k is achievable now for the old style steel & gold sub, even at about 10 or 15 years old. 2 or 3 years ago they were going for about £4k. It's all down to the £9k retail for the new version.

Also the gold links on ceramic models are solid gold, not plated - so will always polish perfect.

[z4chris99]

a second hand gold day date presidential is worth more as scrap than taking it to a dealer to sell

[Perec]

z4chris99 said:

a second hand gold day date presidential is worth more as scrap than taking it to a dealer to sell

Really?

Is the market for them weak?

[z4chris99]

very weak