# Seiko SKX007 vs. Rolex Submariner - which design do you prefer?



## schlimmest (Jan 19, 2008)

If you disregard the movement and fully emphasize the design - which design do you prefer? The SKX007 or the Submariner?


----------



## cbomb (Jul 6, 2011)

For me it's the Submariner. I prefer the bezel grip and overall design. 

I'm going to buy the 007 though as it's the next best thing (Rolex is out of my price range right now).


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

Both look great, and are classic designs with great heritage,but I'm not a fan of the cyclops. presonally I'd prefer to see a ND or SD.


----------



## kaina7 (Nov 15, 2010)

I have always wanted a Rolex Sub. If I had a son, I might have already bought one to pass down. Since I don't, I am having a hard time justifying the price for a Rolex Submariner or a Breitling Chronomat Evolution.


----------



## lexvil (May 2, 2008)

Overall both are proven designs, I like the crown at 4 but for me I think the Sub has a cleaner look.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 23, 2009)

The sub looks better in every way except for that *&%^ cyclops.


----------



## Fullers1845 (Nov 23, 2008)

Sub, Sub, Sub, Sub, Sub, Sub, Sub!










As much as I love Seiko divers, the 007 just doesn't appeal to me aesthetically.


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

I agree that both are nice looking designs but the Sub for me any time.


----------



## bakuma (Mar 28, 2006)

Between these two, the sub. But if you had said 6309 it would have been a tie.


----------



## drspaceman (Feb 26, 2009)

bakuma said:


> Between these two, the sub. But if you had said 6309 it would have been a tie.


You read my mind. +1


----------



## Reese's TimePieces (Jun 14, 2011)

Fullers1845 said:


> Sub, Sub, Sub, Sub, Sub, Sub, Sub!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said!


----------



## Mark McK (Aug 18, 2007)

I would choose a 14060m ND Sub.


----------



## Ryeguy (Jun 24, 2009)

The Sub has a ton of good things going for it and is a true icon, but one has to admit the 007's case is more complex and artistically interesting. The way the crown protectors blend into the case, the way the case sides are rounded, almost "boat sided", and the hands are well proportioned for "at a glance" reading. One could also argue the 007's bezel is more practical because it allows for exact minute marking through out an entire hour.

That said, I love the Sub for what it is - the grand daddy of dive watches. It is a simple, practical case design that is intuitive to read and use.

Somebody once said to ignore all watches between $500 and $5,000 as everything in between is just a compromise. I personnally do not have the strength to follow this advice, but I think this example is a good demonstration of its underlying truth.


----------



## Fullers1845 (Nov 23, 2008)

Ryeguy said:


> Somebody once said to ignore all watches between $500 and $5,000 as everything in between is just a compromise. I personnally do not have the strength to follow this advice, but I think this example is a good demonstration of its underlying truth.


+1 to that!


----------



## mikiejack (Dec 14, 2010)

Even ignoring the price difference, Seiko for me. I just wish the hour markers were smaller.


----------



## Beau8 (May 24, 2008)

Both are produced using machined parts, but are two completely different watches; apples and oranges. The Seiko is the more affordable and just as reliable.


----------



## Cleans Up (Jun 14, 2010)

On a pure aesthetic basis, the sub...minus that stinking cyclops (though the sub/gmt etc is the only time it ever looks "right"). It's just so well balanced. However the 007 is a fine looking watch and I'm partial to the crown at 4, or just about anywhere but 3 for wearability. Still there's a reason the sub is so copied, known etc, and it's not because James Bond wore one. Afterall he wore a seiko-pulsar too (something or other I forget exactly what- ironic?) but that was hardly a timeless design.


----------



## Cana (May 6, 2008)

I have a Seiko 007 and I did a mod. The hour markers are way to big. As for the Submariner, I would like to see a bezel with full minute markings, minus the cyclops and could they move the crown to 4:30. BUT I would still love to have the Rolex Submariner, it is a ROLEX and a Rolex is for ever.. I can always buy another oo7.


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

I own a SKX007 & a 14060......I like them both, as far as looks, I prefer the 14060 sub.


----------



## Coler (Mar 28, 2009)

That cyclops is just the antithesis of everything I look for in a watch of any style (smooth, clean lines are a pre-requisite)...I probably don't like the rolex bezel so much either actually...and I also don't like the mercedes hands....give me a rolex diver without the cyclops anytime though and I'll get over the rest.


----------



## strongergodzilla (Dec 23, 2010)

I agree with much of the sentiment here; I love both for what they are. I have a skx007 and for the money it is one amazing watch! Easily worth two or three times as much it is a great tool watch with endless options for customization. Its movement is the definition of work horse, tons of stories out there about them going for decades without so much as one service! Very cool watch with a very nice heritage in Japanese dive history.

The Submariner is a timeless classic. IMO much more of a one trick pony, but darnit if it doesn't do that trick well. I have a steinhart vintage red which satisfies my sub needs for a much more realistic price tag for me, but I definitely plan on a sub at one point in my future, maybe to give to my kids some day, just because its such an important timepiece. like someone else said here, there is a reason why it's maybe the most commonly copied watch out there!

I think if both were the same price I'd pick the Seiko because of it's unique styling. 

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk


----------



## Boxer (Aug 4, 2010)

I prefer the Seiko's styling in every way except for the day window. My ideal watch wouldn't have a day or date. One of the main reasons I got the Seiko FFF mod is that there is no day or date window on the dial I got. My ideal option for a watch of this style without being a mod is the Marathon SAR.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I hate the cyclops also. The Swiss Army DM500 has the cyclops under the crystal and placed on the dial which I think is a cool touch.


----------



## jlow28 (Feb 27, 2010)

schlimmest said:


> If you disregard the movement and fully emphasize the design - which design do you prefer? The SKX007 or the Submariner?


I guess considering I took the picture you posted. I would have to say both. The Seiko 007 design and Sub are both classic designs that have stood the test of time. I agree with the cyclops, but wanted a date. It need to be removed or a new Rolex crystal from a no date sub installed by RSC.


----------



## Billyloves2boogie (May 30, 2011)

If they were the same price i would go with the Seiko, as it stands i would pick the sub, but non date.


----------



## mgsimmer (Mar 3, 2010)

Submariner for me...the dial/bezel combo looks less noisy/busy. As for the 'clops, I think it ads a jewel like touch.


----------



## bobabreath (Aug 21, 2010)

My vote goes to SKX007. I had a Submariner knockoff for a while but I could never get used to the Mercedes hour hand.


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

I'm happy I have both........


----------



## fireftr45 (Sep 21, 2010)

SKX007 all the way!

1. I prefer the more toolish styling of the SKX over the submariner.

2. I could buy roughly 30 SKX'x for the price of 1 submariner.

3. If I scratched a $5K watch I'd cry, if I broke a $5K watch I'd roll into a ball and die! If a close enough friend admires my SKX enough I could give it to them and buy another one.

4. If taken care of they both last a long time. If not, they don't, but I could just order another SKX without major budget reforms.

5. For a difference of nearly $4850, a nearly sweep second hand looks as good to me as a perfectly sweeping second hand.

Although a fantastic watch in all respects (design, build and look), I don't plan on owning a submariner. I couldn't see tying that much money up in one watch, especially with all of the other fantastic watch designs out there. And lets face it, a Rolex is a status symbol. The parts of a Rolex add up to what, $500? Yet the price tag is $5K. You're buying the name.

Luckily we are all free to do as we feel. So if you prefer to buy a Sub, I will applaud just as loudly for you as for the guy who buys his first SKX.

Cheers,
Erik
(Mr. Practical)


----------



## OLDBOLDDIVER (Jun 21, 2009)

Have both also.....my Seiko stopped running in a year and a half. My Rolex has been running since 1986. The Submariner is a classic.


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

I wish I could hand wind my Seiko SKX007


----------



## BBK357 (Jun 19, 2011)

Rolex dial. Seiko bezel. Seiko hands... Rolex everything else.


----------



## lgking (Nov 23, 2009)

Seeing how Asians are known for their ability to copy things better than anyone else...I'd have to go with the Seiko over the Rolex...

Everybody knows the Swiss can't copy '****e'...|>


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

Seiko skx007. Never been a fan of the Sub. To me it is the most boring look of any watch. Just so bland! Urgh


----------



## dougcee (Feb 7, 2009)

I go with the 007. No fault of it's own, but everyone sells a copy of the Submariner.
That, and I'm always rooting for the underdog!! :-d


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

Sub preferences:
Gently sloping bezel
Cleaner-looking bezel insert (though one might argue a diver should have second markers on the bezel)
Applied indexes
Date-only (For a cleaner dial)

007 preferences:
Arrow Hands (Simply cannot understand the appeal of Mercedes hands)
No cyclops
4 o'clock crown
Deeply recessed bezel lume pip (no danger of damaging it)


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

While I prefer the no-date or the Sea Dweller design, the Sub wins this. Yes, it's too small, but I like the markers better and I dislike that the SKX007 is a day-date.


----------



## Kent108 (Jan 17, 2007)

For me, it's the Seiko. I hate Mercedes hands and I think the bezel grip design on the Seiko is more practical.


----------



## JwY (Apr 5, 2011)

I like the details of the Sub more -- for example, the markers.


----------



## Swengen (Nov 25, 2008)

The cyclops on the Rolex can be removed and improve the looks by a lot IMO. Having said that, the mods that can be done to the 007 make it very interesting. Mod the Seiko and take a nice trip on the savings! :-!


----------



## 1R0NH31D3 (Jan 8, 2009)

I don't know. Tough to say; they look the same. I guess I like which ever one costs more.


----------



## subkrawler (Oct 26, 2006)

I'd take a Sub, in any configuration, over the Seiko. I don't care for the Seiko's hands or hour markers.


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

Ryeguy said:


> Somebody once said to ignore all watches between $500 and $5,000 as everything in between is just a compromise.


I suspect there are a lot of folks over on the Omega forum who would strongly disagree with that.

I wonder how much difference there would have been in the anti-Sub responses if the OP had asked: "A billionaire picks you up as you're walking down the street. He hands you $8,000 and drops you off at a watch store. 'You can look at anything you want, but you can only buy a Seiko 007 or a Rolex Sub-C,' he tells you. 'And what you don't spend you have to give back to me.' Which would you buy?"

Rob


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

iinsic said:


> I suspect there are a lot of folks over on the Omega forum who would strongly disagree with that.
> 
> I wonder how much difference there would have been in the anti-Sub responses if the OP had asked: "A billionaire picks you up as you're walking down the street. He hands you $8,000 and drops you off at a watch store. 'You can look at anything you want, but you can only buy a Seiko 007 or a Rolex Sub-C,' he tells you. 'And what you don't spend you have to give back to me.' Which would you buy?"
> 
> Rob


If I wasn't allowed to resell it and would have to live with my pick as a daily wearer? The SKX007. I don't like the Sub at all and Rolex charging someone else too much for it does little to change that.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

iinsic said:


> I suspect there are a lot of folks over on the Omega forum who would strongly disagree with that.
> 
> I wonder how much difference there would have been in the anti-Sub responses if the OP had asked: "A billionaire picks you up as you're walking down the street. He hands you $8,000 and drops you off at a watch store. 'You can look at anything you want, but you can only buy a Seiko 007 or a Rolex Sub-C,' he tells you. 'And what you don't spend you have to give back to me.' Which would you buy?"
> 
> Rob


I'd buy a DeepSea and tell him to .... off!

Also, it was the Watch Snob who said that. Go figure.


----------



## iinsic (Feb 18, 2010)

Raza said:


> I'd buy a DeepSea and tell him to .... off!


"You know what I'd do? I'd take that deal n' crawfish, then drill that ol' Devil in the a$$." - Curly Bill Brocius :-d


----------



## lexvil (May 2, 2008)

One of my all time favorite movies, Kilmer's Doc Holiday was superb. 


iinsic said:


> "You know what I'd do? I'd take that deal n' crawfish, then drill that ol' Devil in the a$$." - Curly Bill Brocius :-d


----------



## Crue4 (Mar 9, 2006)

173 over the 007 anyway for me... but the rolex sub is simply miles ahead looks wise even if both had same movts and were the same price..


----------



## swingkid (Apr 28, 2008)

iinsic said:


> I wonder how much difference there would have been in the anti-Sub responses if the OP had asked: "A billionaire picks you up as you're walking down the street. He hands you $8,000 and drops you off at a watch store. 'You can look at anything you want, but you can only buy a Seiko 007 or a Rolex Sub-C,' he tells you. 'And what you don't spend you have to give back to me.' Which would you buy?"


In that case most folks probably would have chosen the Rolex, as would I. But then the the line of though would be " I can chose a watch worth many many $$ or one worth a couple of hundred $$. I'll go or the many many $$." But then it would most likely not be about the design only, but for the (resale) value etc.

Design-wise I really like the Rolex, and maybe I'll buy one when I'm old and rich, but some stuff bothers me a tiny bit, like the 6-line dial (or even 7, counting the logo), and the magnifier.


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

Beau8 said:


> Both are produced using machined parts, but are two completely different watches; apples and oranges. The Seiko is the more affordable and just as reliable.


Perhaps not as reliable at >200 meters, still all in all a great watch.


----------



## bakuma (Mar 28, 2006)

Best answer yet..... :-d



1R0NH31D3 said:


> I don't know. Tough to say; they look the same. I guess I like which ever one costs more.


----------



## marin (Feb 21, 2010)

Skx for me (I have 3), only thing I'd change is maybe the hands - and add a cyclops (I'll do that on one of mine one day, just for fun - I kinda like them).

Sub is nice too, but if I had one it'd need a high plexi, painted markers, sword hands and full minute makers around the bezel. Ok, so that's a milsub and costs 60k, but I'll build a sterile homage someday.


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

iinsic said:


> I suspect there are a lot of folks over on the Omega forum who would strongly disagree with that.
> 
> I wonder how much difference there would have been in the anti-Sub responses if the OP had asked: "A billionaire picks you up as you're walking down the street. He hands you $8,000 and drops you off at a watch store. 'You can look at anything you want, but you can only buy a Seiko 007 or a Rolex Sub-C,' he tells you. 'And what you don't spend you have to give back to me.' Which would you buy?"
> 
> Rob


Um, sorry, but the answer is pretty obvious to anyone with a grain of sense. Get the Rolex, then buy yourself an 007 with your own money in some other shop when the rich guy has left.


----------



## Todd5851 (Dec 12, 2006)

Answering the question based on design only, the 007.


----------



## samanator (Mar 8, 2008)

OK the most copied dive watch made, available in over a hundred different variations from the factory and a part of the most valued brand in watch making. Not really a contest and probably the watch that influenced your dive watch appreciation in some way. If you don't own one now, or in the past, you probably will own one or a watch that barrows from it's looks at some point in your life. Rolex has no watch in it's line that looks like the Seiko, but Seiko has dozens that look like the Rolex. The Rolex sub was my first good diver almost 25 years ago. It is a rock star that has aged like a vampire. You may not love all the elements of the Rolex sub, but chances are you've already bought at least 85% of it's looks either from Rolex or the hundreds of watches that look like it. The Rolex Sub look is legendary and as watch lovers we must show respect. I love Seiko's, but as mentioned even they have bowed to the looks of the Rolex sub and have felt the need to copy its form (Many times). I would still buy a Rolex sub again 24 years later all based on its looks (this time in the all green). Fifteen years from now see if you would do the same for a new Seiko SKX007, if it is still made? I'm betting the Submariner will still be tempting me then.


----------



## marin (Feb 21, 2010)

Let's not forget that the SKX007 is the current iteration of a line of dive watches with an evolution of almost 50 years as well, and that its shape and look is very much driven by function with incremental optimizations with every single generation.

It's very hard to fault technically, the movement is extremely robust and will run almost forever with the current sythetic Seiko oils, and if anything should ever break, replacement are cheap.


----------



## mike_123850 (Jun 4, 2006)

Actually, I like them both. I really like the simplicity of the Rolex Milsub with the sword hands and no date. But I also like the looks of the Seiko SKX007. I myself have a SKX171 with the 007 bezel, a little dressier than the 007, but every bit as hardy. If I could afford both, I would love to have them both. I think they are both great watches from iconic manufacturers.

Mike


----------



## bakuma (Mar 28, 2006)

Then how about some respect for the fact that thousands of sport and working divers have used Seikos as real diving tools for 40+ years?



samanator said:


> The Rolex Sub look is legendary and as watch lovers we must show respect.


And as for your assertion that "chances are you've already bought at least 85% of [the Rolex sub's] looks either from Rolex or the hundreds of watches that look like it" that is no doubt in part due to the great design of the sub, but also no doubt partly due to Rolex's willingness to spend hugely on marketing in the 1960s and '70s in order to elevate their brand status above their mid-level Swiss peers, many of which at the time were producing watches equal in quality and design (Zenith, Longines, etc.)


----------



## samanator (Mar 8, 2008)

marin said:


> Let's not forget that the SKX007 is the current iteration of a line of dive watches with an evolution of almost 50 years as well, and that its shape and look is very much driven by function with incremental optimizations with every single generation.


The 007 really has nothing in common with Seiko divers of the past except a crown location. It is not an evolution of a watches like the 6309. This was a clean piece of paper and is a ten year old design at best including development time. I'm also not getting the need to keep talking cost in a discussion of designs.


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

samanator said:


> The 007 really has nothing in common with Seiko divers of the past except a crown location. It is not an evolution of a watches like the 6309. This was a clean piece of paper and is a ten year old design at best including development time. I'm also not getting the need to keep talking cost in a discussion of designs.


I don't agree with this at all. The lineage from 6105-6309-7002-7S26 divers is very strong. Evolution is not as glacial as that of Rolex, but the original themes have largely been retained and improved over time.


----------



## Swengen (Nov 25, 2008)

jason_recliner said:


> I don't agree with this at all. The lineage from 6105-6309-7002-7S26 divers is very strong. Evolution is not as glacial as that of Rolex, but the original themes have largely been retained and improved over time.


I'm in agreement with you on this Toby. :-!


----------



## bakuma (Mar 28, 2006)

As a watch forum moderator it's amazing how little you know about Seiko divers. The current SKX divers are direct descendents (design-wise) from the 6309-7290. Nobody here really cares whether you like Seiko or not, but at least get your facts straight. You might start here:

http://www.thewatchsite.com/index.php/topic,1633.0.html



samanator said:


> The 007 really has nothing in common with Seiko divers of the past except a crown location. It is not an evolution of a watches like the 6309. This was a clean piece of paper and is a ten year old design at best including development time. I'm also not getting the need to keep talking cost in a discussion of designs.


----------



## gerrylb (Mar 5, 2008)

I knew it was only a matter of time before things got uppity in this thread. 

Anyhow, anyone who's seen a 6105, 6309(both cushion and slim case) and SKX007 side by side can easily see the evolution of form and design. What this has to do with the discussion of preference in this thread is unclear to me though.


----------



## Tragic (Feb 11, 2006)

gerrylb said:


> I knew it was only a matter of time before things got uppity in this thread.
> 
> Anyhow, anyone who's seen a 6105, 6309(both cushion and slim case) and SKX007 side by side can easily see the evolution of form and design. What this has to do with the discussion of preference in this thread is unclear to me though.


This whole thread "is unclear to me".


----------



## Frogman4me (Apr 8, 2010)

Sorry but this is a no contest. The submariner is the legend of all divers, marketing or not it has stood the test of time both by design and function. I love and collect both brands as they are the staple of my diver collection but the Submariner will forever be the pride and joy.


----------



## bakuma (Mar 28, 2006)

Nice collection! I wasn't faulting the sub - it is a great design. I was just pointing out that many more divers, including those who have worked in the industry, have used their Citizen and Seiko divers as everyday tools, than Rolex subs. In almost three decades of diving, I've seen a handful of subs, but many, many more Seikos, Citizens and G-Shocks (and for the past many years, dive computers). These less expensive watches have been the backbone of professional and sport diving, and they've served us well.

I see you're in Baltimore. I was just at JHU for a week. I would have loved to meet and see your collection.


----------



## MadMex (Jun 18, 2010)

jason_recliner said:


> Both look great, and are classic designs with great heritage,but I'm not a fan of the cyclops. presonally I'd prefer to see a ND or SD.


I just opt for a model without the cyclops...


----------



## Frogman4me (Apr 8, 2010)

Thanks for the compliment. I enjoy going to watch GTGs so the next time your in town send me a PM and I can organize one locally. Cheers


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

I thought we were talking about looks? What do history, heritage, and evolution of design have to do with it?


----------



## Mistalava (Mar 14, 2007)

Originally Posted by samanator 
"The 007 really has nothing in common with Seiko divers of the past except a crown location. It is not an evolution of a watches like the 6309. This was a clean piece of paper and is a ten year old design at best including development time. I'm also not getting the need to keep talking cost in a discussion of designs."



bakuma said:


> As a watch forum moderator it's amazing how little you know about Seiko divers. The current SKX divers are direct descendents (design-wise) from the 6309-7290. Nobody here really cares whether you like Seiko or not, but at least get your facts straight. You might start here:
> 
> http://www.thewatchsite.com/index.php/topic,1633.0.html


:-d:-d:-d:-d:-d:-d:-d


----------



## paulie485 (May 18, 2011)

Nikos said:


> The sub looks better in every way except for that *&%^ cyclops.


+1. Hate the cyclops.


----------



## paulie485 (May 18, 2011)

MadMex said:


> I just opt for a model without the cyclops...
> View attachment 474157


+1. No cyclops!


----------



## Frogman4me (Apr 8, 2010)

Raza said:


> I thought we were talking about looks? What do history, heritage, and evolution of design have to do with it?


It's really hard to not include that information as it does influence how we perceive a particular brand. Especially when one was strongly influenced by the other. I agree with others if we are just talking about looks alone which is difficult to honestly do then this thread is not a very interactive discussion.


----------



## marin (Feb 21, 2010)

I think good design covers more than looks.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

marin said:


> I think good design covers more than looks.


But does it include history, patents, ownership, heritage, clones, copies, fakes, and the like? I think not.


----------



## OldeCrow (Feb 11, 2006)

I prefer the 007 mostly because I like having the day/date and as a second choice nothing at all. 
In my defense I was pretty far back in the delusional brand fanboy line so by the time I got to the front they were all out of Rolex Zombie Juice all that was left was the Omega Zombie Juice and the Seiko Zombie Juice. I drank both.. I don't think I was supposed to but there ya go...


----------



## badams118 (Feb 10, 2011)

I like the larger 5 min markers & hand design of the 007, tbh. I suspect that the grail reputation of the sub influences many people's opinion, here. Give the 007 a swiss heritage, higher quality mvt & rolex price tag, & I have no doubt you would see the 007 design suddenly become more popular.


----------



## Deep Hull (Jul 19, 2011)

The ROLLY is an icon. No doubt 'bout that... But, the Seiko is a lot nicer to wear. I've had both, and the seiko is the only one that I regret selling


----------



## Deep Hull (Jul 19, 2011)

badams118 said:


> I like the larger 5 min markers & hand design of the 007, tbh. I suspect that the grail reputation of the sub influences many people's opinion, here. Give the 007 a swiss heritage, higher quality mvt & rolex price tag, & I have no doubt you would see the 007 design suddenly become more popular.


+1


----------



## Deep Hull (Jul 19, 2011)

Plus you don't get, that many, tears in your eyes if you accidently lose it... Even though, I think i'm getting one again...


----------



## marin (Feb 21, 2010)

Raza said:


> But does it include history, patents, ownership, heritage, clones, copies, fakes, and the like? I think not.


Patents it does, what else would you base them on if not on the design? Clones, copies, fakes ditto. And the history and heritage I mentioned above was the evolution of.. the design. Which leaves ownership. I agree that this has nothing to do with design, or this thread


----------



## fresno1232001 (Apr 6, 2011)

Just my 2 centavos worth: I think it looks a little odd when you see a guy with a pedestrian job wearing a Rollie. To my mind they seem to fit more on some big-shot's wrist. Other night during Obamas speech to Congress, WSJ had a picture of some senators listening to him. One- in a very good suit- had his arms crossed and a Sub on his wrist. When a guy with a modest income is wearing one, you wonder if he could really afford it. BUT BUT, if a man wants to sacrifice other stuff and have a really fine watch, then who is anyone to comment? Maybe he bought it used, maybe it was a gift, maybe he bought it at a PX in PR, and maybe he paid full retail. Quality always speaks well of its owner. And we're not talking about a Ferrari here.


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

I've owned both. Sub for me!


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

fresno1232001 said:


> Quality always speaks well of its owner.


Spending more on a consumer good has nothing to say about your worth as a person. It just says you are a person who values consumer goods.


----------



## TakesALickin (Mar 12, 2009)

It's not at all surprising how many people have been completely incapable of answering the OP's question as it was posed: "... which design do you prefer?"

With the picture attached to the original post, you have both watches with their branding intact. Most people can't mentally divorce the branding from the design. If however the branding had been removed, the question becomes more difficult to answer without addressing design issues only. Now you're looking at two watches. Let's face it - we know the watch on the left is a Seiko. But the watch on the right could be a Rolex, or a Sandoz, or a (gasp!) Invicta, or even a sterile Chinese sub clone. Which watch would you buy if price was not an issue (in a hypothetical world, we'll say they cost the same), and if Rolex as a brand _had never existed _and the design on the right was being floated as a proposed model by a new boutique designer?

Now you're talking about design only, without all the attendant brainwashing that goes with marketing. I imagine there are more than a few here that still can't make the split.


----------



## gslaskin (Aug 2, 2008)

Having owned both Rolex Subs and a Seiko SKX007 here on my comments on the "design" of these two watches:

If you define "design" as purely aesthetic I prefer the Sub slightly. To me, this is the prototype of a perfect watch. Clean and simple yet with an unmistakable presence. Functional, classic and useful. The original tool watch.

That being said, the Seiko is a great looking piece. The Seiko is bigger, bolder and has it's own unique vibe even though it is clearly evolved from the Sub.

But "design" for me means more than purely aesthetics. It includes how the watch functions. And the Seiko wins a couple of points here. Someone earlier in the thread said they like the Rolex bezel because it looked easier to grip. Well, the Seiko bezel is significantly easier and smoother to use. The Seiko also has much better lume and 22mm lugs, which I prefer over the 20mm lugs on the Rolex.

But the one design flaw on the Seiko, in my opinion, is the design of the crown guards. The bottom of the SKX007 crown guard comes to a sharp point which constantly digs into the back of my wrist - Very annoying.

The Rolex really has no glaring flaws in its design.


----------



## conquistador (Aug 24, 2011)

The dial and bezel on the Sub is way more appealing to me. Hell, even the bracelet from the picture on the Sub looks better.


----------



## Doctorsti (Sep 30, 2008)

No contest the Sub-C. It was funny however when people at work thought they looked completely the same.... goes to show you what the general public knows.


----------



## Aerofish (Aug 10, 2011)

> If you disregard the movement and fully emphasize the design - which design do you prefer? The SKX007 or the Submariner?


In this context I would say the 007, the other one looks too Invicta-ish:-d


----------



## niklasd (May 17, 2008)

With just these two I´d say the Sub, but compared to a 6105-8110 I think the sub will take second place when talking about the design.


----------



## Magnus (Nov 4, 2008)

Seeing them without the logos on the dial I think I'd have to say Seiko on this one. It just looks more purpousful as a dive watch and the design just looks more complete. Comparing it to the vintage Subs it would be a harder choice, I think Rolex lost their tool diver look when they stoped useing painted indexes and plexi crystals.


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

Doctorsti said:


> No contest the Sub-C. It was funny however when people at work thought they looked completely the same.... goes to show you what the general public knows.


The 007 is the smallest watch in my collection...yet it looks bigger than that Sub. Even my wife's watch is bigger.


----------



## 1R0NH31D3 (Jan 8, 2009)

It also just goes to show that you shouldn't buy a watch to impress anyone but yourself. I would say I have bumped into 3-4 people who actually cared about what watch I was wearing.


Doctorsti said:


> No contest the Sub-C. It was funny however when people at work thought they looked completely the same.... goes to show you what the general public knows.


----------



## mariod (Oct 29, 2007)

gslaskin said:


> But the one design flaw on the Seiko, in my opinion, is the design of the crown guards. The bottom of the SKX007 crown guard comes to a sharp point which constantly digs into the back of my wrist - Very annoying.


I agree and surprisingly Seiko does know how to make it better: the early slim cases used in the 80s for the 150m divers 7548-70xx, 6309-729x, 7c43-70xx had a slightly different crown guard design due to the 4 o'clock position of the crown. These vintage cases are very comfy compared to the current cases of the skx divers line. Just my 2ct of course ;-)


----------



## clouser (Apr 22, 2008)

I own numerous 007s and 1 sub clone, and the 007s get much more wrist time. The only thing that really bugs me about the sub is the mercedes hands...I just can't warm up to them. The same can be said for the 007 hands...they bug me for some reason, so I had Jay change them out with a set of his sword hands. IMO, that greatly improved the looks of the watch.


----------



## mariod (Oct 29, 2007)

clouser said:


> I own numerous 007s and 1 sub clone, and the 007s get much more wrist time. The only thing that really bugs me about the sub is the mercedes hands...I just can't warm up to them. The same can be said for the 007 hands...they bug me for some reason, so I had Jay change them out with a set of his sword hands. IMO, that greatly improved the looks of the watch.


Although I like the 007 (and their predecessors) hands, I agree regarding the sword hands. Here is my modded 007 (unfortunately long gone):


----------



## jeremydw (Sep 26, 2009)

It's hard to compare the two in that the Seiko has some price point compromises even from a design standpoint. It would be easy to sway the other way then and choose the Sub, espeically when one considers that in many ways the Sub was "the original". That being said, I find myself liking the design of the 007 more, the bezel grip (not the insert, which i feel is a weakness), the offset crown, the hands are a bit more distinct. The biggest flaw in both designs for me is that they are both too small for my taste. 44mm tends to be my entry point, but oddly enough anything above 47mm starts to get too big.


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

as said below I didn't understand. So as for styling ONLY, Sub hands down takes it. There is almost no watch that has the clean classic styling of the sub, hence why it has been copied more than any other diver which is another reason why it takes styling hands down. 

Another good comparison here would be invicta sub diver vs the seiko styling and again the invicta in my opinion wins because it pays homage to one of the most classic diving watch designs ever, the sub.


----------



## DPflaumer (May 12, 2010)

Yet another person who failed to take the actual question into account...

Anyway, I like the 007s style more. To be precise, I like the mini 007, the 013. Something about the Subs case seems too boxy to me. I also hate the cyclops and the bezel insert feels unbalanced to me. I like my Seiko dots all the way around thank you. I even prefer the arrow hands and the jubilee bracelet. And the recessed bezel dot. And the 4 oclock crown.

I will admit, however, that the curve formed by the bezel and crystal of the sub is absolutely sublime. Less functional than the recessed crystal on the Seiko, but far more appealing visually.


----------



## rjabsheh (Nov 22, 2011)

mariod said:


> Although I like the 007 (and their predecessors) hands, I agree regarding the sword hands. Here is my modded 007 (unfortunately long gone):


Hi Mario

What hands did you use on your mod ? They ssem to be completely white in the picture and without an outter frame of any sort. Very nice.

Rami


----------



## pcmxa (Sep 4, 2011)

Ok as for design

I like the Subs dial and bezel better than the 007. It is more minimal and that is my design aesthetic for the most part. I think if the 007 came in no day/date though, the dial would be a tie. The proportions on the bezel an its slope give an edge to the Sub for me. While I would prefer a slightly more domed crystal (and sapphire) on the 007 I would still give it the edge here over the Sub simply because I can not stand the cyclops. If you need the day/date bigger in order to read it, MAKE IT BIGGER. Don't glue a magnifier to your watch. I really don't like either's hands so it is a wash there. I prefer the case of the 007 over the Sub. The slightly larger size suits me. I also like the positioning of the crown, though I have never owned either so can't speak for comfort. Mostly though it is about the taper of the lugs. The 007 just looks more elegant and flowing to me. The Sub seems a bit clunky by comparison with its harsh edges and thicker lug to bracelet proportions. The bracelets don't matter to me, since I would switch them to straps anyway, so really I guess the 007 coming on rubber is a bonus, but a very small one. I would give finish to the Sub. It is clearly more carefully done. This is also a relatively minor point though with me as I could finish any stainless steal myself to the quality I want if it mattered, and overall I tend to wear watches hards so the 007 might actually wear better with its finish.

I would give a slight nod to the 007 in terms of the design. Given that I can easily get it modded at low cost to have the hands I want (vintage broad sword) and a no date mil-sub dial (though I would actually prefer a no date 007 dial) with a custom bezel, chapter ring, and sapphire, it takes a pretty large step forward. But that is outside the question.


----------



## Rusty_Shakleford (Jan 19, 2011)

I say Sub, no date. That's Is I had to pick off the shelf. 

Based on individual elements, I prefer the Sub dial, hands, case, and bezel. Even a date complication would be cool if I could get it sans cyclops. The one design aspect that I would take from the 007 is the 4 o'clock crown.

This is a tough question though. My answer could be different tomorrow.

RS


----------



## What? (Nov 11, 2010)

Rusty_Shakleford said:


> I say Sub, no date. That's Is I had to pick off the shelf.
> 
> Based on individual elements, I prefer the Sub dial, hands, case, and bezel. Even a date complication would be cool if I could get it sans cyclops. The one design aspect that I would take from the 007 is the 4 o'clock crown.
> 
> ...


You could -gasp- remove the cyclops from a Sub. Or get a Sea Dweller. The last generation Sea Dweller looks almost exactly like a Sub with no cyclops.


----------



## vintageguy (Mar 22, 2009)

I own both, but this one wins hands down. JMHO


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

vintageguy said:


> View attachment 563988
> 
> I own both, but this one wins hands down. JMHO


why aren't other people as tired of this re-tread design as I am?


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

The Sub it is tool and elegant at the same time
but the eye over the date just don't fall into my taste.


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

Sean779 said:


> why aren't other people as tired of this re-tread design as I am?


You will only get agreement from me. To me the Sub is stunningly boring....and the idea of parting with 5 or 6 large for one? Its hard not to laugh :-x :-s


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

bedlam said:


> You will only get agreement from me. To me the Sub is stunningly boring....and the idea of parting with 5 or 6 large for one? Its hard not to laugh :-x :-s


I'm sure the Rolex people also laugh when they look at the numbers they sell them in,
so you all laugh just not at the same thing ;-)

I think a Sub is one of the best looking watch on a girl wrist
and if my wife would wear one I would buy one fast.

I think the only Rolex diver that are big enough for me is the DS so it will always be my pick
and ít don't have that eyeb-)


----------



## lilreddivinghood (Apr 17, 2008)

I like em both....Maxi dial for the Rollie and Noah Froggie for the 007 tho! BTW Happy Turkey day to all you Chronopaths!!!


----------



## lilreddivinghood (Apr 17, 2008)

Does anyone know how to remove the Cyclops eye safely without marring the crystal?


----------



## Fullers1845 (Nov 23, 2008)

lilreddivinghood said:


> Does anyone know how to remove the Cyclops eye safely without marring the crystal?


Mask the bezel. A few seconds with a butane torch lighter directly on the cyclops to melt the glue, then nudge it off with a razor blade. Then gently scrape of the residue with the blade, and wipe clean with alcohol.

I have used this method on several watches, including my Tudor Sub.


----------



## Zidane (Feb 11, 2006)

Rolex Sub by a mile.


----------



## victarro (Nov 6, 2006)

of course this one!


----------



## lostguy (Sep 20, 2011)

The sub by a country mile. There are nicer Seikos out there.

This Rolex is a iconic. The no date version is just awesome and I can see why it's been so popular. Is it not the most copied design in history?


----------



## X.R. (Apr 21, 2010)

TakesALickin said:


> It's not at all surprising how many people have been completely incapable of answering the OP's question as it was posed: "... which design do you prefer?"
> 
> With the picture attached to the original post, you have both watches with their branding intact. Most people can't mentally divorce the branding from the design. If however the branding had been removed, the question becomes more difficult to answer without addressing design issues only. Now you're looking at two watches. Let's face it - we know the watch on the left is a Seiko. But the watch on the right could be a Rolex, or a Sandoz, or a (gasp!) Invicta, or even a sterile Chinese sub clone. Which watch would you buy if price was not an issue (in a hypothetical world, we'll say they cost the same), and if Rolex as a brand _had never existed _and the design on the right was being floated as a proposed model by a new boutique designer?
> 
> Now you're talking about design only, without all the attendant brainwashing that goes with marketing. I imagine there are more than a few here that still can't make the split.


Good point, if design only, i would say none, if i may i would like to bring up the blancpain fifty fathoms, which i think is far better designed.


----------



## pcmxa (Sep 4, 2011)

Actually some would argue that this is the most copied watch in history since it came out the year before the sub. (Pic from BP site).










lostguy said:


> The sub by a country mile. There are nicer Seikos out there.
> 
> This Rolex is a iconic. The no date version is just awesome and I can see why it's been so popular. Is it not the most copied design in history?


----------



## ModestGP (Jul 15, 2008)

Prefer the Seiko design by miles. But the problem is that I really hate Rolex brand and all the hype behind it. Just my personal taste and opinion, not pretending to offend anyone here!!


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

After having worn a Sub clone from time to time (at home...I do some writing in my spare time and accessories like that help me to get in the right mindset; in this instance, I have a character who wears a Sub), I can really say, that even in a $100 sterile dial Parnis, it's a special design. Sword hands would be cooler than the Benz hands, though.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

Fullers1845 said:


> Mask the bezel. A few seconds with a butane torch lighter directly on the cyclops to melt the glue, then nudge it off with a razor blade. Then gently scrape of the residue with the blade, and wipe clean with alcohol.
> 
> I have used this method on several watches, including my Tudor Sub.


Do you use a like a cigar lighter or a creme brulee torch? I have both.


----------



## Fullers1845 (Nov 23, 2008)

Raza said:


> Do you use a like a cigar lighter or a creme brulee torch? I have both.


Cigar lighter, but either should work. As long as it is the concentrated blue flame heat, not a regular orange flame from match or Bic.


----------



## MrMisc (Nov 25, 2010)

Im really undecided. I love both designs. However if I was going to spend the money again I'd buy a fifty fathoms over a rolex. A rolex is rediculously overpriced for what it is. Your buying a name these days.


----------



## mew88 (Jun 1, 2010)

The SKX007, I liquidated my Sub shortly after picking up the SKX007.
I couldnt justify the price I paid for a Sub ND after handling the SKX007(modded with SO II/Sapphire) . Jarring design issues such as the sharp lug ends and non SEL/mid link bracelet didnt help the Sub either.


----------



## Chibatastic (Mar 29, 2010)

I prefer the Sub!









But the SKX007 makes a great gift! I picked up one for my nephews birthday and he doesn't take it off.

Chibatastic


----------



## USP45Tim (Jul 5, 2008)

I've owned them both and can appreciate the Sub more. After giving a couple away and selling the rest, I'm now wearing a sterile Sub. I don't cry whenever I beat the hell out of it and I'll just buy another if I break or lose it. Life seems simpler that way. *shrug*


----------



## Emanon9046 (Sep 19, 2011)

What I like: The Submariner, What I can afford: the 007. lol and in fact my next watch i am planning to be a 007 with a jean super oyster bracelet.


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

What would happen if you mash up a SKX007 and a Sub? An Orient Ray?


----------



## Fullers1845 (Nov 23, 2008)

bedlam said:


> What would happen if you mash up a SKX007 and a Sub? An Orient Ray?


+1 to that! (nice pic, BTW)


----------



## buddy13 (Sep 1, 2007)

Of the 2 I'll pick the Sub no question...

If you compared the sub to a serious Seiko pro diver like the Tuna, then that would be another story altogether...


----------



## kaffakid (Aug 13, 2010)

jason_recliner said:


> Both look great, and are classic designs with great heritage,but I'm not a fan of the cyclops. presonally I'd prefer to see a ND or SD.


so to confirm, you _would _say that the Seiko SKX models are the "classic" Seiko dive watches? I am looking at getting a SKX009 (pepsi bezel) and I just want to know if I'm getting something timeless. Trying to get WUS opinions.


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

NOTHING BEATS THE KING... NOTHING


----------



## tirod (Dec 17, 2011)

If you believe nothing beats the king, I might suggest Elvis is no longer with us. And the design criteria of the Sub is frozen in the same era.

Of course, my age group wanted the Sub, and still does. It's a grail watch, something we couldn't afford then, but now can. Point being, is there something that can do the job just as well, if not better.

Design of the watch is all about being a watch - can you tell the time? Overall, they both conform to Dive watch standards, but is that good enough? It's no different than claiming an AR15 should be milspec to perform, but seriously, that means burst fire and combat use. Most Dive watch owners _don't_ dive.

Case: Seiko, screwback, Rolex solid. You can service a Seiko from the back without disassembling the crystal. Even in terms of Dive standards.

Bezel: Seiko, flat, Rolex, slanted. That gives the Seiko more gripping area. It stands taller, and the outer edge protects the inner bezel ring better.

Crystal: Seiko flat, Rolex, domed. Domed crystals get more scratches and will impact hard surfaces more easily. I haven't found a collection of shattered Seiko crystals on line, the 007 comes with Hardlex, acknowledged as more durable. Rolex, sorry, hit the dome and it could explode.

Dial: First, Branding. It's an aesthetic difference, but a billboard of info to remind the owner of the watch movements construction and certification seems like a crutch for ADD or those who ask about it. Seiko owners know it's 21 jewels, and Dive compliant. It doesn't need to be COSC certified, 15 seconds difference +/- in a day isn't important in a one hour dive.

Indices: Seiko has 1) large markers that can be seen 2) no extra pipping, surrounds, or extra metal to fall off. Simple High Lume paint job, and enough to make out 8 hours after the last sunlight. Rolex? Smaller indices with poor lume.

Hands: Do they point? Good enough.

Day/date: if you want it, you can get it, both do the job.

Magnifier: It's not mandatory, or could be added to suit. Personally, it obscures the day/date at most angles except straight on, which forces the user to stare straight at the dial. That's marketing - it makes looking at it even more exaggerated, emphasizing the watch, not it's user friendliness.

The Seiko is designed to tell the user the time, the Rolex is designed to look like an expensive watch with flashing chrome highlights and detailed ornamentation. Seiko's snag more on cuffs, they don't compromise function to satisfy on-shore wear. Rolexes do - it's the philosophy of selling the watch first, and some conformance to being a Dive watch second.

If you like the king, fine, the 66 Corvette was nice, too. Things progress and advance, times change, we get older and wiser. In this day and age I'm not looking to a carbureted gas hog for transport, or carry a brass framed lockback to open boxes. There's better things around than a dial telephone, and I've seen my share of improved products vs improved marketing.

Seiko, $210.00 with Tungchoy Engineer bracelet. Rolex, $3,750? That's $250 a second daily surcharge for 15 seconds better accuracy, with less visibility or durability in design. Obviously most of us don't consider cost effectiveness in choosing jewelry, which is the point. The Seiko is a watch, the Rolex ornamentation. Justify it by it's excellent construction or contributions to watch making, it is it's own homage to itself from a different era, fine.

But, it's not a tool. There are better ones, and tools are all about design, not provenance.


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

I own/ owned both. Agree to disagree shall we?



















One is the original that all other try to be like.

If you don't have a Rolex, well... You don't have a Rolex!!!


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

arutlosjr11 said:


> If you don't have a Rolex, well... You don't have a Rolex!!!


I just threw up.


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

A lot of your statements about the watches are just flat out wrong, especially about the Rolex. Caseback, crystal, indices, even what it means to be a milspec AR. If you don't have your facts straight it kind of throws a monkey wrench into you argument.


----------



## tirod (Dec 17, 2011)

I analyzed the design aspects. You didn't like it. Rather than address the issue - design - you attack the messenger. 

Having served 22 years in the Reserves and built my own AR, I might be more familiar with the details than you expect. 

List my mistakes, I'll be glad to learn my error. Or, keep throwing molotovs. But the post is all about design aspects. After all, the Rolex is exactly that - an homage statement of itself. The Seiko is it's own design, and more effective at the JOB. Major difference in perspective - it's a tool to serve it's user, the Rolex self absorbed in it's own reflection. 

I might add, that seems to reflect the owners, too. Yeah, just like the King, all bling and showmanship. 

Thank you, thank you very much.


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

jason_recliner said:


> I just threw up.


Thanks, you saved me from saying something worse.


----------



## trekDS (Feb 18, 2012)

I would never have thought of comparing these two watches for the same points tirod brought up. One aims at being a tool for divers, the other is jewelry that you can dive in.

I think Rolex have lost their way in terms of what the Sub originally was. They emphasise marketing and status of ownership over purpose more and more as time passes and man don't their prices reflect that!! :-(


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

tirod said:


> I analyzed the design aspects. You didn't like it. Rather than address the issue - design - you attack the messenger.
> 
> Having served 22 years in the Reserves and built my own AR, I might be more familiar with the details than you expect.
> 
> ...


First of all I did not say that I don't like the Seiko, it is a fine watch, especially for the money. Also, I don't debate the fact that they both do a good job of their primary function of telling time although the Rolex will do it more accurately at a greater depth if those are important features to a particular buyer. It may not be to you but could be for some.

Now as to the inaccuracies of you post.




tirod said:


> And the design criteria of the Sub is frozen in the same era.
> 
> Case: Seiko, screwback, Rolex solid. You can service a Seiko from the back without disassembling the crystal.
> 
> ...


There are more patents and design improvement changes in the modern Rolex Submariner than the Seiko 007. It is not a design frozen in time. The movements and cases have changed many times over it's lifetime of fifty years even though the basic appearance remains similar.

The caseback of the Rolex Submariner is not solid it screws off just like the Seiko 007. The Seiko Marinemaster that I own does however have a monocoque / solid case.

The only current Rolex model with a domed crystal is the DSSD, The Submariner does not have a domed crystal it is flat with a date magnifier on the date model and a plain flat crystal on the no date Sub. Both hardlex and sapphire can "explode" or shatter; I have broken each type and the force required to do either type is similar. The hardlex however can be scratched to the point where the dial it pretty hard to read fairly easily. I think each has their advantages and I like both.

While I don't think COSC certification is normally required; I like the accuracy and not having to resest my watches for a long period of time. 15 seconds difference +/- in a day isn't important in a one hour dive, but if you were a professional diver doing saturation work and preferred to have a watch along perhaps it would over a three week long dive. But the real purpose for COSC certification as we all know is to make the watch marine chronometer grade, so that it could be used for celestial navigation if need be. While few people use this skill any more their are still some of us who know how to do it and would like to have that option in a pinch.

In over forty years of owning Seiko watches and 28 owning Rolex Subs and SD's I have yet to hear of either having applied hour markers falling off. My Seiko Marinemaster has the same design markers as the Submariner by the way and they both have lume that lasts a full 8 hours.

As to which one is designed to do the job required by Divers and which one is jewelry, I was a Professional Diver and I know a lot of others and none who own Rolex Subs and SD's have any problems diving with them, or have had problems with them. I have thousands of hours diving with SD's, Subs and Seikos.

Rolex Sub for $3750???? They are quite a bit more than that so tell me where you find that and I will pick up a dozen. You can justify buying a Seiko or a Rolex by whatever makes you happy and I will do the same, but the Rolex Sub most certainly is a capable diving watch as is the Seiko 007. I have owned both, you can have which ever one you like.

As for Milspec AR's this is definitely the wrong forum for that discussion. Good on you for your service in the Reserves but this and the fact you built an AR has nothing to do with your knowledge of this subject. I will not address this again on this forum; it is against the forum rules.


----------



## Coyote555 (Mar 27, 2011)

from a simple design asthetic, the submariner is a classic and retro. just perfect. on the wrist, not all that comfortable, the bracelet felt cheap, and not too crazy about the hands.
the Omega 2254 destroys the sub in all aspects save the bezel, fwiw.

now change the options from the sub vs. a shogun titanium, and the shogun wins by a nose.... add a domed sapphire with AR and maybe some MM hands, and you have hit it out of the park for good 
(and saved 4 large or so.)

2nd thought, change the 007 to a SNZH59 or similar, and the Seiko wins no sweat.


----------



## Fullers1845 (Nov 23, 2008)

wuxia1679q said:


> That cyclops is just the antithesis of everything I look for in a watch of any style (smooth, clean lines are a pre-requisite)...I probably don't like the rolex bezel so much either actually...and I also don't like the mercedes hands....give me a rolex diver without the cyclops anytime though and I'll get over the rest.


Then what you need is a Rolex Milsub Ref. 5517. ~$100,000 or so should do it. ;-)

(Borrowed pic.)


----------



## jlow28 (Feb 27, 2010)

I have a Rolex sub and a Helson shark diver with the ETA movement. Rolex has better overall finish but does it have over $3000 worth of more quality? No. I wear the Helson most of the time and like it more. It's time Rolex owners realize they are way over priced. I have owned two crowns in my life and still have my dads. I would rather buy a Seiko Sumo or Shark Diver every 5-7 than get the sub serviced.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

bedlam said:


> Thanks, you saved me from saying something worse.


oh..no... please don't. E-insults frighten me!


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

arutlosjr11 said:


> oh..no... please don't. E-insults frighten me!


Heh, heh. Its not you I was concerned about, its the moderators ;-)


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

bedlam said:


> Heh, heh. Its not you I was concerned about, its the moderators ;-)


Ah hell... PM me the insult... I'm a cop bro, I get insulted all day. Another one isn't going to throw me over the edge...

and a ;-) right back at ya!!!


----------



## primerak (Sep 1, 2010)

Getting back on topic although the SKX007 is a fun design that can be modded easily to suit a variety of tastes the winner is the Sub for it's timeless classic appeal.


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

primerak said:


> Getting back on topic although the SKX007 is a fun design that can be modded easily to suit a variety of tastes the winner is the Sub for it's timeless classic appeal.


The Sub could potentially be as easy to mod as any other watch. People just have rules in their head that they can't possibly because its a Rolex. They become so invested in attaining a status symbol that they then can't abide you playing around with the shibboleth of their watch world.


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

Did you just post a pic of your watch wearing a rubber?



primerak said:


>


Where is the face palm smiley?


----------



## primerak (Sep 1, 2010)

Well since they are on top of each other - it's always advisable to use protection when it comes to watch p***.



jason_recliner said:


> Did you just post a pic of your watch wearing a rubber?
> 
> Where is the face palm smiley?


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

jlow28 said:


> I have a Rolex sub and a Helson shark diver with the ETA movement. Rolex has better overall finish but does it have over $3000 worth of more quality? No. I wear the Helson most of the time and like it more. It's time Rolex owners realize they are way over priced.


I agree with you 100%, I just think its way better than the 007. I too own a Helson SD (I've owned 4 of them) and think they possess a much better value to price ratio.


----------



## Dakota2cSRT4 (Jan 16, 2012)

I did not read through this entire thread, I apologize for repetition if there is any...

I equate this debate to Nike shoes. Nikes are exorbitantly overpriced for what they are and what they cost to make. One can go out and buy a pair of New Balance shoes for half the price and in all honesty, probably get a better quality item. However, that being said, with that exorbitant price tag of the Nikes comes a status statement if you will. Though the Seiko may be a fraction of the price and, with all probability, within the realm of the same "quality," the Rolex still comes with that status statement. People notice the Rolex and know what it is and what they cost. 

Personally, I prefer the Submariner over the 007. It's a great mix of style, quality, statement, and wear-ability. With jeans and a t-shirt or a three piece suit, that Rolex is going to look fantastic. A Submariner is on my short list of watches and may very well be the next watch I purchase. This is because I want a piece that I can wear every day and do damn near anything with it on my wrist.


----------



## vokotin (Jun 2, 2011)

Speaking of design, i love them both but quality and prestige is of course different.


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

Dakota2cSRT4 said:


> Personally, I prefer the Submariner over the 007. It's a great mix of style, quality, statement, and wear-ability. With jeans and a t-shirt or a three piece suit, that Rolex is going to look fantastic. A Submariner is on my short list of watches and may very well be the next watch I purchase. This is because I want a piece that I can wear every day and do damn near anything with it on my wrist.


You could achieve the same with many watches that cost a fraction of the Submariner. My Laguna also looks fantastic with jeans, t-shirt or suit. I was in the post office today sending a watch to another WIS and the postal officer noticed my Laguna. He loved it and didn't believe me when I said it cost under $700. Would he be 6x more more impressed if I had worn a Submariner? Unlikely.

You are right, wearing a Submariner to be impressive and make a statement is like wearing Nikes to impress. IMO thats a very expensive way to be just a little bit pathetic.


----------



## Dakota2cSRT4 (Jan 16, 2012)

bedlam said:


> You could achieve the same with many watches that cost a fraction of the Submariner. My Laguna also looks fantastic with jeans, t-shirt or suit. I was in the post office today sending a watch to another WIS and the postal officer noticed my Laguna. He loved it and didn't believe me when I said it cost under $700. Would he be 6x more more impressed if I had worn a Submariner? Unlikely.
> 
> You are right, wearing a Submariner to be impressive and make a statement is like wearing Nikes to impress. IMO thats a very expensive way to be just a little bit pathetic.


To each their own. This is one of those topics that no one will change their mind. Personally, I appreciate the history that comes along with Rolex as well. If I am ever able to purchase a Submariner, it certainly won't be to impress anyone, I merely offered the Nike analogy because I think that is what a large number of people do.


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

Dakota2cSRT4 said:


> To each their own. This is one of those topics that no one will change their mind. Personally, I appreciate the history that comes along with Rolex as well. If I am ever able to purchase a Submariner, it certainly won't be to impress anyone, I merely offered the Nike analogy because I think that is what a large number of people do.


I think you were right. People spend as much as they do to make a 'statement'. It seems a little tragic. For those who know about watch history and are buying for a range of other reasons it is a different issue. Nonetheless, Rolex is making out like a bandit on you guys ;-)


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

bedlam said:


> Would he be 6x more more impressed if I had worn a Submariner?


Hell yeah he would have! On a serious note, a Rolex, isn't bought to impress others, but in reality to impress yourself. After all that IS what one strives for when purchasing anything material beyond a persons basic needs.

I for one purchased mine 10+ years ago and considered it a milestone purchase, that of course was personal. Years later, it again became a milestone re-acquisition, which again it means something personal. The watch simply tagged a moment in history to me and it continues to carry that tag with every glance.

I can assure you that most people don't go out and spend 6k + on a watch to simply impress others, as watches in general (i.e. PAMs, Seikos, JLCs, Hublot or ______ <~~~ insert ANY brand here) usually go unnoticed. They do it for them and that's why it will continue to be a personal choice.


----------



## Dakota2cSRT4 (Jan 16, 2012)

arutlosjr11 said:


> Hell yeah he would have! On a serious note, a Rolex, isn't bought to impress others, but in reality to impress yourself. After all that IS what one strives for when purchasing anything material beyond a persons basic needs.
> 
> I for one purchased mine 10+ years ago and considered it a milestone purchase, that of course was personal. Years later, it again became a milestone re-acquisition, which again it means something personal. The watch simply tagged a moment in history to me and it continues to carry that tag with every glance.
> 
> I can assure you that most people don't go out and spend 6k + on a watch to simply impress others, *as watches in general (i.e. PAMs, Seikos, JLCs, Hublot or ______ <~~~ insert ANY brand here) usually go unnoticed*. They do it for them and that's why it will continue to be a personal choice.


See, I couldn't agree more with you as long as "Rolex" isn't placed in the blank. Rolex is a brand, the Submariner with date being the model, that a vast majority of people know, recognize, and notice. Take a guess why there are so many other brands making watches nearly identical to the Submariner and why the Submariner with date is such a popular knock-off watch.

For people who _would _recognize the brands you mentioned, among a variety of others, a purchase of a Rolex would be for themselves, not others. As I said, if I can ever save enough pennies for a Submariner, you damn well better believe I'll buy it to impress myself! And as you said, it will be a milestone in my life that I was able to save that money and my children and grandchildren will be able to appreciate that milestone as well!


----------



## tirod (Dec 17, 2011)

And that has what to do with the design elements? Well, as said, the Rolex is recognizable, and very wearable in a variety of situations. That social aspect isn't functional tho. It's because the style is equated with the possession of money, and those who see it know a lot of money was spent to get it. 

That's what makes the $125 knockoffs pathetic. The person who buys and wears them might get a decent functioning watch, but no way will they be confused as traveling in the yacht and safari club. All the other traits of manner, dress, clothing, and just who they know will be sadly missing. 

It's suggested that nobody would ever buy a Submariner to impress others, which I see as naive. The entire point of spending 10% of the average American's annual salary on a Sub is exactly that, to impress at least the user, and hopefully many of their associates. You don't spend 1000% more on something like a watch to have it be ignored. 

The OP asked for a discussion of the design elements, and a lot stray off into the social aspects - which are polarizing. It's a spoof topic in one respect because of that, as so few understand technical aspects of materials and machinery to begin with. Watches are largely enjoyed by the public as Jewelry that tells time, not as a tool, and have been since the first. 

Only recently has the social structure allowed us to even consider function before form in jewelry as a statement, which is why the Sub has such a following - it does do that with a mix of the old concepts only altered enough to get the job done - but not optimally. If a diver needs high visibility in murky water, a 300t DOXA, Seiko Orange Monster, or other gets that job done better. It's fact. The high luminosity and indices present information in difficult situations better than the typical Swiss dial, one that just passes the standard. Rolex has been bypassed as the bar is set higher by others who focus on the watch as a functional aid and consider it's performance more important. 

Well, heck, Rolex can't even get the COSC standard on automatics tightened up because of the politics on the governing board. They're outvoted - best to leave well enough alone, or they could get more than they ask for. Quartz already did that to them, they've got their personal participation to look back on. 

I doubt anyone could find an coarse tool mark on a Sub, or a part that hadn't had any consideration about it's final appearance left on the factory floor. They do exactly what is expected, look like a high quality watch with all the details considered. In the tool category, however, cost justification is very important. On the factory floor, you can bet Rolex engineers don't spend one extra dime just because the cutting wheel or robotic arms look prettier that the other guys. 

They leave that as a Sales and Marketing tactic, which has worked very successfully for a long time. But that only indicts the average buyer - who's left purchasing a watch for much more than it's functional utility, and little technical justification to do it. Nike vs. New Balance. 

Plenty of us wear New Balance, I've yet to even pay 50% of retail on a pair. My SKX was a Daily Hot deal, 50% of the typical brick and mortar stores' asking price of $260. Cost effectiveness has a big part in a lot of peoples lives, and they don't waste a dime on cachet or social impression. 

Seiko built it's brand recognition in one fortuitous way, not on the wrist of fictional movie characters, but on the wrist of combat soldiers in Vietnam who brought back Diver's that hadn't failed them in harsh circumstances. And they didn't cost a months wages. That resonated far and wide in the military community and affected Seiko's acceptance in America a lot. 

If there is a contrast, you have the Hollywood watch on one side, and the actual combat/Dive watch on the other. It's no surprise there's a distinct divide between the two users, one is focused on social aspects of appearances, the other on functional aspects of service in hard duty. 

Goes to who's wearing them, and certainly underlines the continuing debate. It's really a symptom of society itself manifested in what we wear, and certainly are worn to communicate and impress people with a message of who we are. It's right there in the dial.


----------



## mngambler (Nov 2, 2009)

as a former owner of 2 different Rolex models I'll admit they make a nice watch, but just like anything else with a "big name" you are paying somewhere between 30-40% extra just to have the name "Rolex" on the dial...and that is an absolute fact. That number comes from people in the business world and is attached to many other luxury items we buy as well so arguing that fact is absolutely futile...again, buy what makes YOU happy and what YOU appreciate, in the end that is all that matters


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

Rolex & Seiko dive watches......what else is there????:-d


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

tirod said:


> It's suggested that nobody would ever buy a Submariner to impress others, which I see as naive. The entire point of spending 10% of the average American's annual salary on a Sub is exactly that, to impress at least the user, and hopefully many of their associates. You don't spend 1000% more on something like a watch to have it be ignored.


Exactly. Those who think marketing and social pressures don't influence them have the marketing men laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

bedlam said:


> Exactly. Those who think marketing and social pressures don't influence them have the marketing men laughing all the way to the bank.


Of course marketing affects our choices as we are bombarded with social pressures day and day out. That doesn't necessarily mean that the reason we are more fond of a Rolex v. a Seiko 007 is bc of stated media pressure. Maybe it's due to other influences that affect our likes and dislikes.

And in summation, it all boils down to money but not as you may think. I'm sure that by now you're thinking that the following comment will include something like" if you have the money for a Rolex then buy it" or "those that can't afford a Rolex buy a Seiko". But the reality of it is that if you have the money or can save the money you'll buy WHATEVER makes YOU happy. I've known millionaires that own Casios and nothing else and students scraping buy that own PAMs.

At the end of the day, when the wallet/ CC comes out its up to the individual.

Dead Thread btw.


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

What makes you happy is in no small part due to marketing and the socialization resulting from it. You have been trained to want certain things over others and things like watches are geared towards exactly that...and so you feel happy when you get them. Buying their products to get a happy feeling is exactly what the marketing boys have been shaping up in you for years to do. 

We have all been suckered ;-)


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

bedlam said:


> What makes you happy is in no small part due to marketing and the socialization resulting from it. You have been trained to want certain things over others and things like watches are geared towards exactly that...and so you feel happy when you get them. Buying their products to get a happy feeling is exactly what the marketing boys have been shaping up in you for years to do.
> 
> We have all been suckered ;-)


Oh, please give me a break, I am sorry but, this is such psychobable crap. I bought my first Rolex Seadweller in 1983 and had never seen one single Rolex advertisement in my life. I had a manual wind Dive Chrono from Aquadive and a Seiko titanium Tuna Quartz and a Seiko Sport 5 autowinder but, I wanted an Dive watch that was an autowinder, so I went to the store and the Rolex Sedweller 16660 is what I ended up with. I was happy with it and that is all there is to it. I have had several since along with many others from many other makers including Seiko and Grand Seiko, and I have been happy with all of them to some degree.

In the last few years I have seen more Rolex Advertisement than ever before and I do not like or own any of the current Rolex models, so I guess their marketing guys must have missed me.


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

bedlam said:


> What makes you happy is in no small part due to marketing and the socialization resulting from it. You have been trained to want certain things over others and things like watches are geared towards exactly that...and so you feel happy when you get them. Buying their products to get a happy feeling is exactly what the marketing boys have been shaping up in you for years to do.
> 
> We have all been suckered ;-)


*And after all these years, we finally know who was on the grassy knoll...!!!*


----------



## bedlam (Jul 1, 2009)

vjb.knife said:


> Oh, please give me a break, I am sorry but, this is such psychobable crap...


You bought a tool which wasn't as overpriced a long time before the watch had become the fashion item it is today. You described a situation at the polar opposite to what I am talking about with the purchase of a Sub today, by most people, as a piece of jewelry.



> In the last few years I have seen more Rolex Advertisement than ever before and I do not like or own any of the current Rolex models, so I guess their marketing guys must have missed me.


Your prior experience makes you a hard target in the Rolex area, no doubt. Are you immune to influence? No. Though many people get better at spotting it over time, we all have issues where we get drawn in by image and marketing and fail to behave purely based on rationality. Though I am assuming you are just human like me.


----------



## HomeMadeLookingBoutiqueSh (Jan 12, 2012)

The correct point of limiting returns for quality:value is the one I have chosen for myself. If you claim that a more expensive choice than the one I have made makes you happy, that's only because you've either been deceived by marketing, or you miscalculated how much that difference in quality is worth to you as it relates to your own finances, or you're just a shallow person who's merely showing off for others. 

If you disagree with the motivations I have assigned to your choices, then you obviously don't know makes you happy as well as I do.


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

bedlam said:


> You bought a tool which wasn't as overpriced a long time before the watch had become the fashion item it is today. You described a situation at the polar opposite to what I am talking about with the purchase of a Sub today, by most people, as a piece of jewelry.
> 
> Your prior experience makes you a hard target in the Rolex area, no doubt. Are you immune to influence? No. Though many people get better at spotting it over time, we all have issues where we get drawn in by image and marketing and fail to behave purely based on rationality. Though I am assuming you are just human like me.


Another point on Rolex watches that I could make is that I have had eight of them over 28 or so years but now only own the 16610 LV and with the exception of the one that had some Gold in it I have probably lost less money buying and selling Rolexes than any other brand.

As for their marketing I think the majority of it is based on famous people that wear them which I could not care less about since most actors and sports stars annoy the crap out of me anyway. And then when they tried the technical approach with the DSSD I knew it was way over the top in useless overdone technical capability but I picked one up anyway and owned it for a while but then sent it on it's way because it was just not my cuppa tea.

I still think that they have one of the top two or three best, most reliable movements of any automatic watch out there.

Lastly do you think that Seiko, Britz, Grand Seiko, Annata, Credor, etc. does not have a marketing department that is doing a similar job with similar objectives? And for that matter virtually any other producer of consumer goods.

So now we know that anytime we buy anything that has any marketing we are all mind numbed zombies at the will of the evil marketing gurus; thanks for letting everyone know of this fantastic discovery that you have made.


----------



## tirod (Dec 17, 2011)

We probably do assign more impact to the Rolex marketing that it may deserve - but the actual results are there, too. Fake Rolexes abound to be sold to all and sundry. It's an iconic design constantly copied by one and all. When a real one is seen, that's the question: Is that a real Rolex? 

Nobody says, Is that a real Seiko? More like, oh, that's a Seiko. Oh well. 

My bad on calling the Submariner a solid case back, I had it in my head the Oyster design did that - one piece case with a screw down bezel holding the special crystal. It was in all the advertising I saw in magazines my parents read. But, as it turned out, Dad was an Omega man. 

My comments on the actual design of the dial weren't refuted point by point, because the Seiko is superior in many regards. But, the OP did set the stage, asking which do you prefer? Not, which is better. I prefer dials that don't have parts that fall off - some haven't experienced that because some don't use their watches in harsh environments. I like being able to see the markings in low light, no one holds up Swiss watches for that. The acknowledged leader is Seiko. And embellishing the crystal with a magnifier is very much an individual thing. I find they actually interfere with viewing the date. 

One thing I also prefer is the ISO compliant "Diver's 200M" marking. That tells me the watch is pressure tested to 125% of the standard. It's notably absent on the Submariner, which implies pressure testing was not performed on the watch.

I know we call them dive watches, but I don't see them both as Dive watches. One is tested at pressure, the other tested against the clock and regulated. Maybe I'm wrong about that, too, but when I'm considering design and how they look, I prefer them to actually be what they are supposed to be.


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

tirod said:


> We probably do assign more impact to the Rolex marketing that it may deserve - but the actual results are there, too. Fake Rolexes abound to be sold to all and sundry. It's an iconic design constantly copied by one and all. When a real one is seen, that's the question: Is that a real Rolex?
> 
> Nobody says, Is that a real Seiko? More like, oh, that's a Seiko. Oh well.
> 
> ...


I don't know how exactly Rolex tests the Subs and older model Seadweller but my guess is that it is as well engineered and tested as any watch out there. They do pressure test the new DSSD to it's rated depth of close to 4000 meters for what that is worth. Rolex watches are guaranteed to be water proof to their rated depth. Which Seiko models will survive at 4000 feet much less 12000 feet? Again I will not say that this is a useful depth capability but it is there none the less.

Testing in the field has been done many times on Subs and Seadwellers; as a matter of fact five or six years ago a forum member who worked on research subs attached his Seadweller to the outside of his sub and took it down to 4000 feet with pictures documenting it. I know at least two commercial divers that are still in the business and dive their Rolexes all the time. One is only doing average depth work up to 100 meters or so and the other has done saturation work in the 1000 foot range many times. I did not have a Rolex when I did my deepest commercial work (in the 200 meter range) but I had one later that saw many many hours underwater mostly sport diving but some commercial work up to about 275 feet and that was without service for eight years and not one single problem.

If you think for a second that Rolex Subs, SD's or DSSD's are not capable of diving I can attest that you are sadly mistaken.  I am not saying that many other brands are not as capable but Rolex is the one that I have the least amount of doubt in.

The 4000 foot rated Seadweller is the only watch to have made dives to the two record depths. 701 meters in a wet & dry hyperbaric simulated saturation diving system and 500 meters in the open ocean in a true saturation diving environment. No other watch brand can make that claim.


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

People aren't suggesting Rolex is less capable than other dive watches for the purpose of diving, only that they are not more capable. So what are you paying for? Jewellery. 

Just because you can dive using a $5000 Rolex doesn't mean it is a good idea. Damage can happen underwater, even total loss, and it is better to damage a $200 functional piece of equipment than a $5000 functional piece of equipment. For the cost of a Rolex one can take several diving holidays, wearing a $200 Seiko (or whatever). For the cost of insuring a Rolex to go diving one can buy a brand new Monster every couple of years. Rolexes are functional but they are not practical dive watches, and are not marketed as such.


----------



## vjb.knife (Feb 11, 2006)

jason_recliner said:


> People aren't suggesting Rolex is less capable than other dive watches for the purpose of diving, only that they are not more capable. So what are you paying for? Jewellery.
> 
> Just because you can dive using a $5000 Rolex doesn't mean it is a good idea. Damage can happen underwater, even total loss, and it is better to damage a $200 functional piece of equipment than a $5000 functional piece of equipment. For the cost of a Rolex one can take several diving holidays, wearing a $200 Seiko (or whatever). For the cost of insuring a Rolex to go diving one can buy a brand new Monster every couple of years. Rolexes are functional but they are not practical dive watches, and are not marketed as such.


I just happened onto the Rolex website and it certainly does market the Submariner and the DSSD as capable and in their eyes practical dive watches.

Maybe you don't see it the way I do but, I read this comment as saying that Rolex is not a capable diving watch:



tirod said:


> I know we call them dive watches, but I don't see them both as Dive watches. One is tested at pressure, the other tested against the clock and regulated.


If I am wrong then sorry, for the stir up. As far as what they cost I certainly realize that there is a diminishing return (that is pretty f'ing obvious) on the cost of the watch and I have no problem with it. I dive them all regardless the risk and that is what insurance is for. IMO, life is too short to worry about stuff like that. I just got back from a Caribbean Cruise and wore my brand new Omega Planet Ocean 8500 Diving on three occasions, no big deal.

I have had plenty of Seikos and liked most of them; Sport 5 in the late 1960's, 7549 600m Quartz Diver, 007, 7002, Samurai, 2 Marinemaster 300m's (still own one), Landmaster 8L35, SBDB001 600m Spring drive and a Grand Seiko SBGE001. So I have run the range of the Seiko brand as well as many other brands and models. I choose the ones that I enjoy owning; as should everyone. Wear what you like and define them any way that you see fit. I call them capable pieces of equipment.

I am at a point in my life where I don't need to use low end equipment be it watches, knives, firearms, camping gear, bicycles, stereo gear or anything else that I consider important to me for whatever reason. If you don't feel that way that is fine with me. Have fun with whatever watch or other equipment that you use, but do you guys really think that it is necessary to explain to Rolex, Omega or Grand Seiko owners that their watch does not really tell the time any better than your Casio (which I also own) and that they have spent way too much for it because of that? Sometimes there are some worthwhile differences in high end equipment and other times not so much, but I think that most people who are buying these things realize this without being told by you or anyone else. If I choose to spend my hard earned dough on a Rolex or other I think I have this all figured out, so thanks anyway.

What if I told you that I think my $100, Seiko 7002 was a better watch than your Monster because I dove the crap out of it for 7 or so years and had no problems so you should not be spending the extra cash on a Monster when you could be buying some extra beer with the difference? You might just say hey f' off I like my watch and will spend my money any way that I want to because it's worth it to me and none of your business and I can still afford beer.


----------



## jason_recliner (Feb 2, 2009)

I didn't read the thread carefully enouigh (it is getting pretty long and convoluted!) because I missed the comment you quoted. That could be interpreted as saying a Rolex isn't as good a dive watch as a Seiko. I don't agree with that. But I do think that a $200 instrument is more fit for purpose than a $5000 instrument which is functionally similar. That doen't mean I am going to only buy the most fit for purpose item, because the Rolex has value beyond being an instrument, the Monster (or 7002) not as much.


----------



## arutlosjr11 (Dec 24, 2010)

vjb.knife said:


> I just happened onto the Rolex website and it certainly does market the Submariner and the DSSD as capable and in their eyes practical dive watches.
> 
> Maybe you don't see it the way I do but, I read this comment as saying that Rolex is not a capable diving watch:
> 
> ...


Well said... marketing, shmarketing... Who cares. It's my money, and I'll spend it on how I see fit. In the end, I like both as I have owned both. Both have their pros and cons and it is up to the individual user to decide what in terms of cost, those pros and cons mean to them.


----------



## serdal23 (May 15, 2011)

I would prefer Seiko SKX007 over Rolex Submariner for several reasons. 

Capt. Serdal


----------



## James Haury (Apr 10, 2008)

Dr. Robert said:


> Rolex & Seiko dive watches......what else is there????:-d


What else is there?
Tag Heuer, Citezen, Casio,Omega ,etc, etc


----------



## 31 Jewels (Oct 15, 2011)

This thread went the way of the "Timex vs the Rolex it does the same thing" arguement. The guns werent loaded at the beginning of this thread and opinion threads always go this way. Where was the moderator? I personally think that a dive watch is a tool. Its only job is to make sure you dont die underwater! Given that, how much is that worth because its going to define which tool you pick here? 31


----------



## Ramblin man (Feb 7, 2011)

serdal23 said:


> I would prefer Seiko SKX007 over Rolex Submariner for several reasons.
> 
> Capt. Serdal


+1, same mostly for the case and the lume.


----------



## robashton (Apr 18, 2012)

I love these comparisons. The designs are almost twin like minus a few minor details.. but a rolex is a rolex... Cheers!


----------



## crkline2 (Feb 25, 2008)

I like the Rolex. The band has a simpler look as compared to the Seiko. The markers on the face are not as big and have a more classical look. The font is simple and clean. I don't like how the cyclops functions - I have a hard time seeing the time, due to reflection. Bu I like the look of the actual cyclops - it is one of the iconic features that makes a Submariner.


----------



## weklund (Apr 17, 2006)

I prefer the design of my Trusty 1680 Sub vintage 1980. I have worn this watch for some 30 years and I prefer it over most other watches that I now or have owned. The Seiko 007 is tough to beat in terms of value and quality. I have owned several and still have one in the collection.

In terms of either or, I choose the Sub.









Still looks pretty good after 31 years.​


----------



## everlong (Sep 7, 2008)

...... said:


> What would happen if you mash up a SKX007 and a Sub? An Orient Ray?


Which Orient model is that?


----------



## 20DYNAMITE07 (Mar 3, 2009)

everlong said:


> Which Orient model is that?


That's an Orient EM65008B. It's also known as the Ray. It is a Mako with a new dial, better hands, and a slightly different bracelet.


----------



## everlong (Sep 7, 2008)

Thanks for the info.

Is this the watch: http://www.creationwatches.com/prod...ic-scuba-diver-fem65008b-mens-watch-3051.html ?


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

For actual diving, and any other activities; SKX007. 

For pretending I'm a secret agent or for yuppies who wear a tool-watch on their wrist while willing to ridiculously over-pay for it, and pretending it's a piece of precious jewelry; then Rolex Sub. 

Unfortunately I'm not a secret agent, and thankfully I'm not some shallow yuppie trying to impress other like-minded, shallow, individuals.


----------



## 20DYNAMITE07 (Mar 3, 2009)

everlong said:


> Thanks for the info.
> 
> Is this the watch: Orient Mako Automatic Scuba Diver FEM65008B Mens Watch ?


Yes... That's it.


----------



## seikomatic (Jul 6, 2006)

incomparable..I wish i had brought one when it was sold at$2,400...Rolex Sub for sure!


----------



## fliplock (Nov 11, 2008)

I prefer my 399 to both of them. The SEL Super Oyster II gives a little extra heft compared the the Jubilee on my 007, and the dial speaks more to the connection with the 6309, IMHO. I'm too clumsy and not vain enough to be a good candidate for sub ownership.


----------



## nobbylon (Oct 17, 2012)

I have both and bought the 007 for 2 reasons. 1/ I can go to any country, inhospitable or not and not worry that I'll be a target for my watch 2/ the dial on the Seiko is, for ageing eyes, easier to read.
I bought my Submariner 16800 new in 1986. It cost 800 British stirling. I'd wanted one since '76 but couldn't afford the 308 quid they cost then aged 12!!! Ok it was an expensive watch then but not the ridiculous money they are now. I wore that watch constantly for 25 years, working, DIY, welding, mechanics, diving, farming etc etc. I obviously babied it for the first 6 months of ownership but then it just became part of my clothes and I just wore it. It's never stopped, kept accurate time and looked near enough the same as when I bought it. OK when you see it close up with a loupe it has dents, some quite pronounced, scratches all over it and a small chunk out of the saphire at 4 o'clock that I did back in '93 whilst closing the door on an aeroplane! The strap is a little loose but still original apart from the clasp as one of the bars wore through. I'd say that was an excellent value for money watch and of course one that now has paid for itself a few times over on current values. In design it was for me the ultimate dive watch and it's a shame that it's been copied so much however there is still a difference knowing yourself that the one being worn is real and not fake. I really like the 007 for what it is. A basic everyday wearing, easy to read, utility dive watch. 150 pounds for such a watch has to be the bargain of dive watches but Submariner it is not. 
I've stopped wearing the Sub' now, gave the 007 to my eldest son and bought myself an sbbn015 Tuna as my retirement watch. It's got a dial similar to the 007 but I prefer the design. My son will get the Sub for his 21st in 5 years time.
Given the choice again I wouldn't change. Submariner all the way but the same style, not these new style ones. Maybe a Sea Dweller of the same vintage which when I bought my Sub' in 86' was just over a 1000 quid but at the time I didn't like how thick it was,
regards to all


----------



## pz93c (Sep 29, 2007)

I prefer the Submariner. Don't know why.

Either would need tweaking. 

On one hand, I'd have a "modded" Seiko.

On the other, I'd have a "FrankenRolex".

Sad how perceptions are so.... distorted.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

pz93c said:


> I prefer the Submariner. Don't know why.
> 
> Either would need tweaking.
> 
> ...


Price tag and collector interest has a lot to do with that perception.


----------



## bhall41 (Sep 28, 2010)

I have read these posts with interest. I recently ordered a SKX007, which I am waiting to arrive. I have previously owned two Subs (a 14060M and a 5513) and currently own a matte dial GMT 16750 with Pepsi bezel. Purely on aesthetic terms, I greatly prefer the Sub (both vintage or modern iterations ) to a SKX007. Such a classic design - simple, rugged yet versatile. That is not to denigrate the SKX007 however - I like its design too (apart from the arrow seconds hand, which I am not enthusiastic about) and certainly respect the fact that the watch is not a Sub clone / homage. 

The reason I no do not currently own a Sub is that it frustrates me that, in the case of a vintage Sub, the watch is no longer water proof, and, in the case of both modern and vintage Subs, I felt it necessary to baby what is supposed to be a tool watch, on account of its high market value. I don't feel that Subs are, in many ways, fit for purpose, these days.

Of course, you could argue that the Sub is more than a tool watch, in that it can be worn in a wide variety of circumstances (but not with a dinner suit / tux, if you don't mind ...). 

In the end, I decided that what I wanted was a diver that I could use as a beater, and swim with. In that capacity, I am sure that the Seiko SKX007 will acquit itself admirably.


----------



## nobbylon (Oct 17, 2012)

my Sub' is still waterproof and it's 26 years old. They just need a service. The integrity of the watch will be the same as the day it was made and left the factory. I used to drop in at the Bexley office every 6 months or so and they would pressure test it for free. I don't think Bexley Rolex is there now. I need a service on mine so I need to have a look in Nederlands.


----------



## nobbylon (Oct 17, 2012)

I phoned Rolex this morning. The service centre in the UK is in West Malling. I was quoted £430 inc vat for the basic service and £850 for a new 93150 bracelet !!! That's £500 more than I paid for the thing!!! I'll probably get it done in the new year as I'm going to have the saphire and the bezel replaced as well.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

nobbylon said:


> I phoned Rolex this morning. The service centre in the UK is in West Malling. I was quoted £430 inc vat for the basic service and £850 for a new 93150 bracelet !!! That's £500 more than I paid for the thing!!! I'll probably get it done in the new year as I'm going to have the saphire and the bezel replaced as well.


Welcome to the world of OEM Rolex replacement parts.

If you'd prefer something a bit, or perhaps a lot more, reasonable; I've seen a few genuine Rolex watches with aftermarket straps on them. It's generally the watch itself that matters most.


----------



## nobbylon (Oct 17, 2012)

I could just leave it on the Nato I've had it on. The original bracelet is still usable but sloppy so I may see if they can refurbish it. If not then I will dig deep and get an original one. A lot of people say that the 93150 always feels flimsy etc however mine has lasted 26 years with just a clasp change 10 years ago. The clasp back then was £70.
I think it's worth getting original parts because otherwise you might as well wear a fake. The reason I bought it in the first place was that I wanted a quality watch with durability.
I will also change the crystal as I chipped the edge of it around 18 years ago. It has never affected the sealing however I want it in the nicest condition to give to my eldest son. Same with the bezel. It's become loose and last time it got wacked hard it pinged off so I'm hoping a new one will be tighter.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

nobbylon said:


> I could just leave it on the Nato I've had it on. The original bracelet is still usable but sloppy so I may see if they can refurbish it. If not then I will dig deep and get an original one. A lot of people say that the 93150 always feels flimsy etc however mine has lasted 26 years with just a clasp change 10 years ago. The clasp back then was £70.
> I think it's worth getting original parts because otherwise you might as well wear a fake.


Normally, I would agree with you. It's terrible that some consider putting, for example, different hands on an old Rolex. Or a clone bezel on an old Submariner. But unless you're a die-hard collector, generally speaking a bracelet really isn't considered part of the actual working watch itself.


----------



## pz93c (Sep 29, 2007)

Michael Young can restore the old one.

He has an excellent reputation on various fora.

Google is your friend here.


----------



## ebenke (Aug 20, 2012)

I have a Yacht Master, to me it beats the Sub. But my next piece is going to be a SKX007 on a rubber strap. I in process with Narrowing down down the specific model choices right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (sucks)


----------



## jspeakman (Mar 11, 2012)

Hi 

Love the look of the Rolex Sub - just got a Steinhart Ocean Vintage Military, nicely made and it's gorgeous. So my (sub) aesthetic sense is satisfied at a fraction of the cost (certainly of a Milsub). Is the undoubted additional build quality of a sub worth the extra several grand? I find that hard to justify and wonder whether one is straying into territory of self indulgence and status which personally I would feel uncomfortable with. Then again I guess the whole watch collecting thing is a self indulgence to some extent and best not to dwell on starving children in Africa.

And on that note am about to order a Seiko SKX007 - I do think it has a fabulous sculpted shape, and its bezel, dial, hands and overall proportions are beautifully balanced. I intend to use it as my beater as I think the odd dent and scrape will add to its character (bit like a Landrover). Just would not have the heart to do that to a Sub even my Steinhart.


----------



## NickZac (Nov 14, 2012)

Purely from a design standpoint the Sub due to its bracelet. But functionally speaking, the SKX007 because you do occasionally lose watches when diving and these watches normally get pretty beat up. I've banged the crap out of watches/dive comps and if it was a Rolex I would cry a little inside each and every time.


----------



## cold_beer839 (Jul 25, 2011)

I think the SKX has a more toolish look to it. I like the bigger and thicker case and deep set dial.

The Sub is pure class though.


----------



## mpalmer (Dec 30, 2011)

The Rolex Submariner, obviously. I appreciate Seiko, but you really have to be drinking the kool aid to go this far.


----------



## liwang22 (Sep 13, 2012)

This is an interesting thread if you stick with the OP's original premise, comparing the designs. These are two of my favorite watches but fortunately Jake B has created his Milsub 007 mod, which exactly takes the best parts of both watches and combines them. This is my favorite watch in my collection.


----------



## AlphaWolf777 (Aug 11, 2012)

bhall41 said:


> I have read these posts with interest. I recently ordered a SKX007, which I am waiting to arrive. I have previously owned two Subs (a 14060M and a 5513) and currently own a matte dial GMT 16750 with Pepsi bezel. Purely on aesthetic terms, I greatly prefer the Sub (both vintage or modern iterations ) to a SKX007. Such a classic design - simple, rugged yet versatile. That is not to denigrate the SKX007 however - I like its design too (apart from the arrow seconds hand, which I am not enthusiastic about) and certainly respect the fact that the watch is not a Sub clone / homage.
> 
> The reason I no do not currently own a Sub is that it frustrates me that, in the case of a vintage Sub, the watch is no longer water proof, and, in the case of both modern and vintage Subs, I felt it necessary to baby what is supposed to be a tool watch, on account of its high market value. I don't feel that Subs are, in many ways, fit for purpose, these days.
> 
> ...


I read your comment and I have to agree it is true that in today's times a Sub certainly is not something I would take diving due to the $$$. I have heard from people that were around back in the day whom said that a Sub cost somewhere around $300 in the 1950s and early 1960s; and only around $100 through military exchange programs. Add to that the fact that it used to be the military and Navy issue watch (at least in the UK and many NATO countries. I believe some U.S. Special Forces wore them back in the 50s, 60s and 70s and probably some time after). In today's times you'll find cheaper watches (oftentimes quartz or digital) being issued because back in the day, the Sub was inexpensive, even with adjusting for inflation, it used to cost way less. I heard somewhere that adjusting for proper inflation in today's money, the current Sub should only be around $3,000. (I know, "only", but I could afford that if it were. Heck, my computer was nearly $3k. I cannot, however, afford $6,500). My $400 Swiss Made Sub homages are basically Submariners in today's times if you compare them to the cost of the Subs in the old, less inflated days. That's the conclusion I have come to.

However, where I respectfully disagree is when you said that a Sub can't be worn with a dinner suit or a tux. I have one thing to say to that. Sean Connery and Roger Moore pulled that off decades ago...;-)


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

AlphaWolf777 said:


> I read your comment and I have to agree it is true that in today's times a Sub certainly is not something I would take diving due to the $$$. I have heard from people that were around back in the day whom said that a Sub cost somewhere around $300 in the 1950s and early 1960s; and only around $100 through military exchange programs. Add to that the fact that it used to be the military and Navy issue watch (at least in the UK and many NATO countries. I believe some U.S. Special Forces wore them back in the 50s, 60s and 70s and probably some time after). In today's times you'll find cheaper watches (oftentimes quartz or digital) being issued because back in the day, the Sub was inexpensive, even with adjusting for inflation, it used to cost way less. I heard somewhere that adjusting for proper inflation in today's money, the current Sub should only be around $3,000. (I know, "only", but I could afford that if it were. Heck, my computer was nearly $3k. I cannot, however, afford $6,500) . . .


A new one will set you back $8,900. Not $6,500.

Check back in a few months, it'll be touching the $10,000 ceiling by then.


----------



## AlphaWolf777 (Aug 11, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> A new one will set you back $8,900. Not $6,500.
> 
> Check back in a few months, it'll be touching the $10,000 ceiling by then.


lol i did not know that! thats why i like homages.


----------



## jspeakman (Mar 11, 2012)

Love the submariner and I know it is superior in many ways to a Seiko 007 but serious question - why is it worth 50x as much?

Thanks


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

jspeakman said:


> Love the submariner and I know it is superior in many ways to a Seiko 007 but serious question - why is it worth 50x as much?
> 
> Thanks


Objectively it's not. But then, neither is an $8000 LV handbag worth 50x a standard leather handbag.

Will


----------



## Swengen (Nov 25, 2008)

I don't own a Rolex SUB but I have some seriously nice watches that imo are every bit as nice. As for the SKX007, I have two and both keep superior time to all the Rolex friends I have. I'm amazed at the accuracy but I realize they may be the exception. I've dressed mine up a tad but have had nothing done to the movement to make them run this way other than tweaking the movement. :-!


----------



## jspeakman (Mar 11, 2012)

And objectively that would always prevent me buying a submariner - which is a shame and I guess entirely my problem. However very happy with my Steinhart Milsub fortunately.


----------



## AlphaWolf777 (Aug 11, 2012)

Lurked this thread for awhile, for me it's the Sub design.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

jspeakman said:


> Love the submariner and I know it is superior in many ways to a Seiko 007 but serious question - why is it worth 50x as much?
> 
> Thanks


Honestly? . . . The vast majority of the price difference is due to the word "Rolex" being across the dial.


----------



## fenderstrat1184 (Feb 13, 2011)

I have the 007 and lust after the snowflake sub.


----------



## Pato Sentado (Feb 26, 2012)

I am a fan of my 007, but this comparo is like Range Rover Vs Suzuki Samurai... both are legends but...


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

Pato Sentado said:


> I am a fan of my 007, but this comparo is like Range Rover Vs Suzuki Samurai... both are legends but...


... only one of them won't cause you to think twice about taking it off-road in the mud and having fun with it. ;-)


----------



## jspeakman (Mar 11, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> ... only one of them won't cause you to think twice about taking it off-road in the mud and having fun with it. ;-)


How about this - if they were cars; Seiko 007 = Iconic Landrover Defender or Jeep which looks even better with the odd ding and bit of mud. Submariner = Aston Martin DB6(Milsub) or DB9 - (Bond references intentional) - gorgeous, sexy but not something you would contemplate taking off road every weekend

Apologies for whimsy


----------



## vokotin (Jun 2, 2011)

Both have a timeless design so, no real preference for me.


----------



## ShaggyDog (Feb 13, 2012)

Both are great designs, but I think that I prefer the more elegant and simple design of the Sub (though I'm not a fan of the cyclops at all). I do like the chunkiness of the 007's bezel and the depth that it gives looking down onto the dial, and I like how Seiko does the day & date on their divers, and the 007 is geared towards being an effective tool watch for divers. Everything about it from bezel grip to large hour markers and hands is designed for maximum functionality. But for me the Sub just looks so classy and refined (not just because of the brand name on it) that it works perfectly a dress diver, straddling the boundaries between smart, sporty and functional, so I'd have to say that it would be my preference ultimately.


----------



## theinterchange (May 29, 2010)

Personally, I could only appreciate a Submariner if it were given to me as an heirloom piece. I could never in sound mind go forth and _buy _a Submariner, there would be the biggest case of buyer's remorse you've ever seen... before I left the shop!

I'd much rather have my now sold OO7 back.

Randy.

P.S It's been interesting reading through this thread!


----------



## khador (Oct 23, 2012)

For me I like both watches, I personally wear my SKX007J1 everyday, and I love it.


Here's my plus points for the Seiko:


Dial: Unique large painted markers, day date display and I love the red "Diver's 200m" text, which is ironic as it reminds me of the red Rolex 1680 
Bezel: I really love the click of the bezel, it's not as solid as the submariner, but I like the almost safe like click that it produces.
22mm lugs: The lugs work well for any type of strap, metal bracelet or my preferred choice of rubber and nato.


Submariner pros:


Dial: Maxi dial is a huge improvement, it just oozes quality.
Ceramic bezel: Beautiful silver/white finishing on the numbers.
Movement: 3035 movement is just perfection, the finishing and level of quality is quite amazing.
Crown: Attractive and classic 3 dot with coronet signed crown.


The one thing I really hate about subs since the M series is the rehaut engravings, I just don't feel that they add anything to the design and take away from the elegance of the dial.


I agree that it is naive to not think that the watch you wear has a social impact. I used to work for a marketing company and everyone wore Rolex or Omega, no one really knew what they were wearing, but for them it definitely meant a lot to them and the image they wanted to convey. I'd enjoy wearing my Seiko SKX007, and people's reactions would be like 'oh that's just a Seiko', they'd be like that while wearing a quartz Omega, it would always put a smile on my face 


Anyways both are nice watches and both have good standing in their well known and iconic watch lines.


----------



## arejay (May 25, 2013)

Wow and here i thought i was the only one who disliked mercedes hands


----------



## VoltesV (Dec 27, 2011)

The look of the Sub takes my vote but not a fan of the cyclops and mercedes hands though. 4 o'clock positioned crown of the SKX007 is a big thumbs up.


----------



## HelloNasty1 (Jul 8, 2007)

The hands Seiko uses are painful to my eyes. Sub all day and twice on da weekends!


----------



## DiverBob (May 13, 2007)

I think Invicta kinda ruined the classic Submariner look for me...When I see a Sub, I can't help but think of the Invicta 8926, and the abundance of watches that employ that classic case design. As for as the design goes, I favor the Seiko 007. Now, the DSSM is a bit more interesting to me for some reason but I do love the Seiko 007, 6309 and 6105 much more.


----------



## ManMachine (Jan 31, 2012)

I like the SKX173 a lot more than 007. Sub design is iconic, but I'll take the Tudor snowflake design over it.


----------



## Ramblin man (Feb 7, 2011)

DiverBob said:


> I think Invicta kinda ruined the classic Submariner look for me...When I see a Sub, I can't help but think of the Invicta 8926, and the abundance of watches that employ that classic case design. As for as the design goes, I favor the Seiko 007. Now, the DSSM is a bit more interesting to me for some reason but I do love the Seiko 007, 6309 and 6105 much more.


+1


----------



## Colombo.D (Mar 23, 2013)

For me the SUbmariner design is cooler!!


----------



## Skeptical (Sep 14, 2012)

It had to be the 007. I've seen modded versions I like, but I hate, and I mean *hate* day and date on a single crown. MM, Sumo, Spork or even 7002 would top the Sub for me, but I would kill myself with a springbar tool if I had to deal with that stupid day/date crown.


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

I have had several 007's and every time I just cannot get to like it as there are just a bunch of little quirks that bother me about it. First is the Day and date. Never been a fan of that. Second, the lack of hand winding ends up being the deal breaker for me. Third, the 4 o'clock crown location is not aesthetically pleasing to me.  I don't care for jubilee bracelets but that can be changed. I don't like all the little white markers surrounding the dial, gives the watch a very busy look. The NON-sapphire crystal scratches easier and the depth rating is less(not a big deal as it is certainly enough)

The Sub, well, whats not to like. Arguably the best feeling bracelet, near perfect size, classy look, can be worn diving or to a fancy event. I do like the mercedes hands and along with the rolex logo is a distinct feature that when I see on another brand, I know they are copying rolex. It is a timeless design that has not changed longer than I have been around and besides, if it was good enough for Sean Connery and Steve McQueen, I think I am in good company. No contest, the Sub wins every time


----------



## Hex1 (May 23, 2013)

Invicta killed the sub for me, for design I go 007.


----------



## Rhino-Ranch (Oct 19, 2008)

Depends. Submariner is ICONIC Luxury Dive Watch recognized the world over. Seiko 007 is the CLASSIC dive shop watch (along w/ Citizen Aqualand. Stylistically difficult to choose. If I am going to the Yacht Club Rolex is _Soupe du jour_. If am going free-diving / spearfishing -- Seiko.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

Stellite said:


> I have had several 007's and every time I just cannot get to like it as there are just a bunch of little quirks that bother me about it. First is the Day and date. Never been a fan of that. Second, the lack of hand winding ends up being the deal breaker for me. Third, the 4 o'clock crown location is not aesthetically pleasing to me. I don't care for jubilee bracelets but that can be changed. I don't like all the little white markers surrounding the dial, gives the watch a very busy look. The NON-sapphire crystal scratches easier and the depth rating is less(not a big deal as it is certainly enough)


Problem with a sapphire crystal on a diver's watch meant to be used for diving, if you want an old-fashioned back-up to your dive computer, is that while it won't scratch easily; it will break more easily compared to mineral crystal on the 007.

Handwinding on a watch with a screwdown crown is generall not a good idea anyway. With a lot of handwinding, you risk stripping the threads.


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

Monocrom said:


> Problem with a sapphire crystal on a diver's watch meant to be used for diving, if you want an old-fashioned back-up to your dive computer, is that while it won't scratch easily; it will break more easily compared to mineral crystal on the 007.
> 
> Handwinding on a watch with a screwdown crown is generall not a good idea anyway. With a lot of handwinding, you risk stripping the threads.


I have banged sapphire crystals extremely hard and never had one break so I have never considered this an issue, I have, however, scratched mineral crystals. I also have had several screw down crown watches that I have had for over 20 years and I hand wind them weekly, never had a problem with this either.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

Stellite said:


> I have banged sapphire crystals extremely hard and never had one break so I have never considered this an issue, I have, however, scratched mineral crystals. I also have had several screw down crown watches that I have had for over 20 years and I hand wind them weekly, never had a problem with this either.


You've been very fortunate. Others have not been so lucky. Let's just say, nothing like diving in pairs with a partner who bought a luxury diver. Both of you come up, and you find out he only came up because he noticed you did too. Sapphire crystal on his watch shattered, watch not working. Meanwhile, yours' is indeed scratched up to Hell, but it's still working. It's all you can do to keep from laughing at the poor guy because he also forgot his dive computer that day too.


----------



## Skeptical (Sep 14, 2012)

Stellite said:


> I have banged sapphire crystals extremely hard and never had one break so I have never considered this an issue, I have, however, scratched mineral crystals.


Same here. Any watch I wear to work will take some knocks, and it's never shown on the sapphire, while it doesn't take much to put an unsightly scratch into mineral crystal.


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

Monocrom said:


> You've been very fortunate. Others have not been so lucky. Let's just say, nothing like diving in pairs with a partner who bought a luxury diver. Both of you come up, and you find out he only came up because he noticed you did too. Sapphire crystal on his watch shattered, watch not working. Meanwhile, yours' is indeed scratched up to Hell, but it's still working. It's all you can do to keep from laughing at the poor guy because he also forgot his dive computer that day too.


I am pretty sure that the thickness on the sapphire crystal of a 300+meter watch will offset the higher brittleness. Every broken crystal I have ever seen has been mineral. And even the numbers on this forum prove that, so in your little example, it appears it is the mineral crystal watch guy that will have the broken crystal. As for screw down crown, once again, I have lots of friends with divers watches and all of them have no problem with messing up the screw down crown so these are just points to bring up to try and deflect from the fact that not being able to hand wind downright sucks.

Here are a few links on crystals and it's funny that the majority of broken crystals are mineral not sapphire.

https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/how-many-have-broken-watch-crystal-228515.html
nuff said on crystals


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

Stellite said:


> I am pretty sure that the thickness on the sapphire crystal of a 300+meter watch will offset the higher brittleness. Every broken crystal I have ever seen has been mineral. And even the numbers on this forum prove that, so in your little example, it appears it is the mineral crystal watch guy that will have the broken crystal. As for screw down crown, once again, I have lots of friends with divers watches and all of them have no problem with messing up the screw down crown so these are just points to bring up to try and deflect from the fact that not being able to hand wind downright sucks.
> 
> Here are a few links on crystals and it's funny that the majority of broken crystals are mineral not sapphire.
> 
> ...


Sorry if the above example came off sounding like just a hypothetical one. Not all luxury divers are built the same. Some are just posers meant to look good on the wrist and go for a swim, rather than a dive. The sapphire crystals on those aren't nearly thick enough. Must admit, I agree that not being able to hand-wind is a pain indeed. But other than Nomos, I don't know of a single company that says it's perfectly fine to hand-wind their watches with screwdown crowns on a regular or routine basis. Then again, perhaps the other companies are just covering their butts, just in case.


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

Monocrom said:


> Sorry if the above example came off sounding like just a hypothetical one. Not all luxury divers are built the same. Some are just posers meant to look good on the wrist and go for a swim, rather than a dive. The sapphire crystals on those aren't nearly thick enough. Must admit, I agree that not being able to hand-wind is a pain indeed. But other than Nomos, I don't know of a single company that says it's perfectly fine to hand-wind their watches with screwdown crowns on a regular or routine basis. Then again, perhaps the other companies are just covering their butts, just in case.


There is no doubt that screwing and unscrewing a crown often increases that chances of damaging the threads. But when I switch my watches a few times a week, I have to do it anyway to set the time and date which means I have to unscrew the crown anyway. Maybe it's the old school in me but I even prefer the new seiko auto's with the winding movement. I know that a good auto watch will start moving with barely the flick of your wrist, but I just like the winding feature. My seiko divers now all have that option.

I will admit that if my 007 had had an oyster bracelet I might have kept it. If I could find one at a good deal with the oyster bracelet I might jump on it.

And yes, I have been in the ocean (not very deep - 25-30 ft) with my rolex and yes if I went to a place where I could not reach the bottom I'd probably take my seiko. Seiko makes a great product and I love all of mine. However, The Sub is the original classic in my opinion and a dive watch collection certainly isn't complete without a Sub.


----------



## Happytalk (Jun 4, 2012)

I just wish the bezel on the seiko was more like the sub.


----------



## seikomatic (Jul 6, 2006)

Happytalk said:


> I just wish the bezel on the seiko was more like the sub.


x2

Did I vote for the Rolex?


----------



## PK73 (Sep 24, 2013)

the SKX007 is a real diver unlike the luxury Rolex...


----------



## wristclock (Jul 5, 2010)

PK73 said:


> the SKX007 is a real diver unlike the luxury Rolex...


Go back into your hole troll.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## smuggled_sheep (Dec 13, 2013)

gerrylb said:


> Um, sorry, but the answer is pretty obvious to anyone with a grain of sense. Get the Rolex, then buy yourself an 007 with your own money in some other shop when the rich guy has left.


+1.;-)


----------



## ShaggyDog (Feb 13, 2012)

Which one do I prefer the look of? The Submariner by a looooong way.

Which one would I buy out of the two? The 007 without a shadow of a doubt. I have neither the inclination nor the means to spend anywhere near that amount on a watch no matter how much I might love the design. 

The Submariner is a fantastic watch, the 007 is a fantastic watch. I love both.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

ShaggyDog said:


> Which one do I prefer the look of? The Submariner by a looooong way.
> 
> Which one would I buy out of the two? The 007 without a shadow of a doubt. I have neither the inclination nor the means to spend anywhere near that amount on a watch no matter how much I might love the design.
> 
> The Submariner is a fantastic watch, the 007 is a fantastic watch. I love both.


The nice thing regarding the 007 is that you can wear it and not be concerned about babying it. I suspect quite a few Submariner owners have theirs' tossed ... er, gently placed ... into a safe or safe deposit box.


----------



## ShaggyDog (Feb 13, 2012)

Agreed, the 007 is a watch very much designed to be used and abused and worn to hell and back. It's a watch you'd be happy to wear jumping in the pool, diving, playing rough and tumble or just kicking back outdoors. It's a real take anywhere watch not something you might be scared to wear in certain environments for fear of attracting attention or it getting damaged. It's probably the Jeep of the watch world.


----------



## elGrafico (Dec 16, 2013)

Submariner 100% (I own one) but love the Seiko too and will likely get a custom yobokies Seiko Diver at some point!


----------



## iam7head (Dec 16, 2010)

ShaggyDog said:


> Agreed, the 007 is a watch very much designed to be used and abused and worn to hell and back. It's a watch you'd be happy to wear jumping in the pool, diving, playing rough and tumble or just kicking back outdoors. It's a real take anywhere watch not something you might be scared to wear in certain environments for fear of attracting attention or it getting damaged. It's probably the Jeep of the watch world.


Yes but I take my Sub anywhere as well, dare me to run my next marathon with it?

Love them both;-)


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

Okay, I'll dare you.


----------



## daath (Nov 12, 2013)

The sub is not a true tool diver ,no minute index markers on Bezel ,to me its just a flashy design with a ridiculous price . Who would buy a Sub thats been used for diving not me . Seiko all the way ,although I do want the Rolex with fluted Bezel .


----------



## Bigjamesdean (Mar 11, 2009)

Easy for me as I am not a fan of the SKX looks wise so its the Sub all the way.


----------



## goonz (Feb 4, 2014)

Really like the iconic look of the sub so I would go for that. But would I buy the Rolex over the Seiko equivalent? No. Spend the saved cash on something else.


----------



## Alessio Scala (Oct 15, 2010)

both looks great,love the crown at 4 but the submariner is the perfect iconic design


----------



## douglasf13 (Aug 17, 2013)

This is a tough call. I don't own a Sub, but it really is THE classic diver design, so it's hard to argue against it. That being said, I do love the design of the SKX007, probably more than any other Seiko diver at any price, and my particular copy keeps freakishly good time, even compared to my DateJust and other watches, so I find it hard to spend the money on upgrading to a higher end diver. 

Both are nice designs, but I think you have to go Sub. Comparing a Grand Seiko diver vs. the Sub would probably be a more fair and interesting competition.

edit: I'd also miss the day indicator of the SKX007. Very handy, to me.


----------



## wemedge (Jun 10, 2006)

I love both, but I have to go with the Sub design (I own the SKX but don't own a Sub yet- one can dream!). It seems I'm in the minority, though, in liking the cyclops...


----------



## at2011 (Jan 23, 2011)

Design wise, it's Seiko for me. The sub looks too flimsy and small for a dive watch.


----------



## Sash444 (Oct 20, 2013)

The sub has a clean and classic look. It's dial design is well proportioned and makes the skx look a bit cluttered. 
Having said that, I recently bought an skx and while at first I was wondering what all the fuss is about, now that I've worn it for a week I'm liking it more and more....actually im loving it. i have it on a super jubilee and its so comfortable, solid, almost tough, it's unpretentious and honest, it's style balances form and function, it's not a statement of anything except itself, and I really like that. This is a watch that I can wear in any situation and feel utterly comfortable. In a business meeting, in the surf, in the shopping centre, in a bar etc. I never had this with my tag nor my omega, which at various times felt conspicuous for the wrong reason. What the seiko has which the sub doesn't have, essentially, is a very japanese quality called wu, whereby an object achieves a perfect balance of form, function and utility. The sub, with its exorbitant price, doesn't have utility, it does have the other two. It's price denies the wearer other useful things or the opportunity to help others. The skx is a well designed highly functional item suitable for a wide variety of settings and its accessible- this is genius. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## crc32 (Jan 10, 2007)

Having both and deliberately not using price tags as an argument, I think that the SKX beats the older Rolex models in terms of ruggedness, bezel grip and usability. Only with the Ceramic inserts, the solid link bracelet and clasps, Rolex can keep up.

If you go into detail, Rolex uses a more refined gasket systems and durable materials (starting from hands and indices made of gold to avoid chemical reaction of the lume...).

Two things that speak for rolex (at least for me):

* You can wear a sub during a barbecue, at work or in the casino - you will never have to look or feel out of place. 
* You will never lose money with a rolex if you buy wisely and wear it carefully. In the long run it's cheaper than the $200 seiko.


----------



## tallguy (Feb 14, 2006)

Sash444 said:


> The sub has a clean and classic look. It's dial design is well proportioned and makes the skx look a bit cluttered.
> Having said that, I recently bought an skx and while at first I was wondering what all the fuss is about, now that I've worn it for a week I'm liking it more and more....actually im loving it. i have it on a super jubilee and its so comfortable, solid, almost tough, it's unpretentious and honest, it's style balances form and function, it's not a statement of anything except itself, and I really like that. This is a watch that I can wear in any situation and feel utterly comfortable. In a business meeting, in the surf, in the shopping centre, in a bar etc. I never had this with my tag nor my omega, which at various times felt conspicuous for the wrong reason. What the seiko has which the sub doesn't have, essentially, is a very japanese quality called wu, whereby an object achieves a perfect balance of form, function and utility. The sub, with its exorbitant price, doesn't have utility, it does have the other two. It's price denies the wearer other useful things or the opportunity to help others. The skx is a well designed highly functional item suitable for a wide variety of settings and its accessible- this is genius.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Dude, for a newbie, you sure hit the nail on the head with this post.....well said my friend....


----------



## tallguy (Feb 14, 2006)

christian said:


> * You will never lose money with a rolex if you buy wisely and wear it carefully. In the long run it's cheaper than the $200 seiko.


I like your post and agree with most of it.....but this statement is accurate in spirit more than hard earned dollars......it would take some serious voodoo economics to make the case that a $5-6k watch is cheaper than a well made $200 watch "in the long run", (or at least a VERY looooong run of a century or two.)


----------



## crc32 (Jan 10, 2007)

tallguy said:


> I like your post and agree with most of it.....but this statement is accurate in spirit more than hard earned dollars......it would take some serious voodoo economics to make the case that a $5-6k watch is cheaper than a well made $200 watch "in the long run", (or at least a VERY looooong run of a century or two.)


You are right, this is more a theoretical thing and noone will compare rolex and seiko (SKX) in economical terms.

But - it's the same argument that I use when someone tries to talk about his 150$ counterfeits - the total cost of ownership of a rolex sub is less than the cost of a counterfeit. If you get a good deal on a used rolex, you will always be able to sell it without loss (at least!).


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

christian said:


> You are right, this is more a theoretical thing and noone will compare rolex and seiko (SKX) in economical terms.
> 
> But - it's the same argument that I use when someone tries to talk about his 150$ counterfeits - the total cost of ownership of a rolex sub is less than the cost of a counterfeit. If you get a good deal on a used rolex, you will always be able to sell it without loss (at least!).


A popular myth. Everyone forgets to deduct servicing costs. Short-term? Yes. You can buy a used Rolex, wear it for just awhile, and then sell it for a bit more than you paid for it. Long-term is a different story. The watch will need servicing over the many years it is owned. And even one servicing is going to be very expensive. Two or three down through the years or decades? Forget it. When sold, it'll be at a loss.


----------



## douglasf13 (Aug 17, 2013)

Agreed. I bought a used Rolex, wore it for a few years, got it serviced, and then sold it, and I definitely didn't come out ahead. Spending $500-$1000 to service a watch every 4-5 years is pretty pricey. Financially speaking, you're probably better off spending the $200 on an SKX007 and then investing the extra $7K.


----------



## fgriffith (Jan 12, 2012)

The 007 is a nice watch and I hope to get one some day, but I would choose the Submariner, which I would also like to own some day.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

Yesterday I saw a brand new Rolex Submariner ND in the "flesh."

Must admit, that version looks much better in real life than in pics. (and it looks fantastic in pictures).

No disgusting cyclops bubbling from the top of the crystal. No ridiculously clownishly huge magnification of the date. (Well, no date.) Just incredible, restrained good-looks, of a classic timepiece.... And I'd never buy it. No, not because of price. Nowadays if you want a new genuine Submariner, you're going to pay an obscene premium for one. Just how it is.

I can't live without a date feature. Have tried a handful of times. Realistically tried. Failed each time. Second reason, I wear a watch and then go out and do my thing. If it gets scratched up.... Oh well. Ceramic bezels are good for one thing, and one thing only; letting your new watch look newer, longer. That's it. In every other way that matters, it's a poor substitute for a properly done aluminum bezel.

So as truly good-looking as it is.... I'll still take a Seiko SKX 007 or 009, and just put up with the Day of the Week feature.

And that's the important thing to remember.... In every way that matters, the Seiko is still a tool-watch. It is what the Submariner originally was. Namely a tool-watch. The Submariner has evolved into a status symbol item among the _average_ Rolex customer. It's no longer a tool-watch designed to take whatever abuse you throw at it. (If it was, Rolex wouldn't have fitted the latest models with a ceramic bezel.)

If you can afford either one, then ask yourself if you want something you can abuse or something that has evolved to basically look nice as its primary role.


----------



## douglasf13 (Aug 17, 2013)

Monocrom said:


> Yesterday I saw a brand new Rolex Submariner ND in the "flesh."
> 
> Must admit, that version looks much better in real life than in pics. (and it looks fantastic in pictures).
> 
> ...


 Really good points, and I pretty much agree with all of it (except I don't mind the cyclops so much on the Sub.) I missed the day/date feature with my Rolex, and I found myself wearing the SKX007 most of the time. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, my particular SKX007 keeps outrageous time. I just got lucky, and this thing is in tune with my movement, I guess, because I've had other Seikos with this movement, as well as Rolex and other Swiss movements, and nothing has kept time as well as my SKX007. I just tested it again, and it is at -1 second per day, despite me laying on its side last night. I may trying laying it flat tonight and checking again, as that could get me to even. Crazy for a "cheap" and very durable movement.


----------



## tallguy (Feb 14, 2006)

Let me tell you what I think is cool about this thread. The fact that Seiko's base model professional diver's watch is being compared, and quite favorably, to the iconic and venerable Rolex sub (the quintessential tool diver, at least originally and historically), makes the Seiko a winner in many respects. I particularly like that this isn't a "Rolex Sub vs. Marine Master or Spring Drive" thread. It proves that there is something for every budget in this category.....and that a classic is a classic; based more on history, lineage, style and quality more than just price.

My daily wearer is currently a Spa'd out 6309, but I'm keeping my 007 as a backup, and for those times when I think a bracelet watch is more appropriate (and Sub-like!b-)).


----------



## Coyote555 (Mar 27, 2011)

To concur about servicing costs, not a sub story but a rolex one, my wife as a Ladies Datejust we bought new in 2007, Sticker was $8600, we paid just over 6 iirc.
She basically never wore it, until recently, not it doesn't hold reserve power at all. Has to go in for service. Meanwhile my SKX031 that I got in 2005.....


----------



## GregoryD (Jan 31, 2009)

On design alone, I much prefer the SKX to the sub. The sub is classic, but I don't care for the mercedes hand, and the cyclops is an eye-sore. I love the SKX case, crown guards, and knurled bezel. To me the SKX really has a modern vintage feel that the sub also achieves (the pre-ceramic sub). Design-wise I love almost everything about the SKX. Now, the fact that it doesn't hack or hand-wind is whole different story...:-d


----------



## FOOGauzie (Apr 22, 2010)

Good thread, but to see some of the demeaning, critical, and ignorant judgement of people and their personalities
& motives based on what watch they own. Shame, shame.


----------



## FOOGauzie (Apr 22, 2010)

This meant to go with the above, but the edit function won't permit..

I like, own, and appreciate both watches, but ultimately prefer the Sub for its design and quality, and I don't need to justify how
I spend my hard earned dollars...I gave that up when I grew up and left home. ;-)

I certainly don't appreciate anyone who I don't know judging or putting me down based on my watch, or anybody I do know for 
that matter.


----------



## tallguy (Feb 14, 2006)

Jake B said:


> This meant to go with the above, but the edit function won't permit..
> 
> I like, own, and appreciate both watches, but ultimately prefer the Sub for its design and quality, and I don't need to justify how
> I spend my hard earned dollars...I gave that up when I grew up and left home. ;-)
> ...


I thought we were talking about watches:think::roll:


----------



## FOOGauzie (Apr 22, 2010)

tallguy said:


> I thought we were talking about watches:think::roll:


|> _*Exactly*_...


----------



## liwang22 (Sep 13, 2012)

Jake B said:


> |> _*Exactly*_...


Jake, I prefer the design of your Jack Purcells over that of the Chuck Taylor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FOOGauzie (Apr 22, 2010)

liwang22 said:


> Jake, I prefer the design of your Jack Purcells over that of the Chuck Taylor.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


LOL! Me too, Li. I collect them!!


----------



## timetellinnoob (Sep 23, 2010)

I'm down


----------



## Dr Pepper (Feb 22, 2010)

Both. \o___O/


----------



## Dr. Robert (Jun 10, 2008)

I had a lot of dive watches from different companies....but I've settled on 2 (well 3) marques.......................


----------



## ApexWildCard (Nov 3, 2013)

The logic of it all for me and now putting it into perspective for myself. May not be the most popular choice but now finding the SKX007 may be mine.

Buy and wear this SKX007 while buying and riding this 78' CB550 Honda for the same money as just this this Submariner? (looks like SKX007 will win in my book) Motto Logic I guess when you have 2 loves, watches and bikes.










Buy and Wear this while buying and riding this:











Over wearing and buying just this for the same $$:


----------



## tallguy (Feb 14, 2006)

ApexWildCard said:


> The logic of it all for me and now putting into perspective for myself. May not be the most popular choice but now finding the SKX007 may be mine.
> 
> Buy and wear this SKX007 while buying and riding this 78' CB550 Honda for the same money as just this this Submariner? (looks like SKX007 will win in my book) Motto Logic I guess when you have 2 loves, watches and bikes.
> 
> ...


'Nuff said. We have a winner and can close this thread now......and btw, two words: sweet bike!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FOOGauzie (Apr 22, 2010)

tallguy said:


> 'Nuff said. We have a winner and can close this thread now......and btw, two words: sweet bike!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well, it explains why he would choose a 007 based on price, and illustrates his point very clearly with nice pictures, but doesn't really answer the question of the OP at all... _*"If you disregard the movement and fully emphasize the design - which design do you prefer? The SKX007 or the Submariner?"*_


----------



## tallguy (Feb 14, 2006)

Jake B said:


> Well, it explains why he would choose a 007 based on price, and illustrates his point very clearly with nice pictures, but doesn't really answer the question of the OP at all... _*"If you disregard the movement and fully emphasize the design - which design do you prefer? The SKX007 or the Submariner?"*_


Let's not get technical now Jake...lol


----------



## ApexWildCard (Nov 3, 2013)

Jake B said:


> Well, it explains why he would choose a 007 based on price, and illustrates his point very clearly with nice pictures, but doesn't really answer the question of the OP at all... _*"If you disregard the movement and fully emphasize the design - which design do you prefer? The SKX007 or the Submariner?"*_


Okay fair enough, if I am riding the CB550 the design of the SKX007 goes much better for me.

Looks like they were meant for each other. Who am I to separate them?


----------



## tatt169 (May 21, 2012)

Submariner for me, i have a pretty diverse collection and a Seiko 007 isnt in it. 

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk


----------



## BevoWatch (Oct 7, 2015)

_I don't even know if it's fair to compare the two considering the price point to acquire them. Aesthetically though, I truly like them both. Both are great looking, iconic and proven. Both have their strong followers. 
So as a noob watch fan I'd just go with the 007, at least for now. I've been pretty pleased with it. Hey it's a start, baby stepping here. Maybe someday I can have a Sub. More power to you guys that has one, two or more. :-!

My be all you can be tool watch 007 says hi! 
























































































It's all good here folks.​_


----------



## Swengen (Nov 25, 2008)

Looking good!



BevoWatch said:


> _I don't even know if it's fair to compare the two considering the price point to acquire them. Aesthetically though, I truly like them both. Both are great looking, iconic and proven. Both have their strong followers.
> So as a noob watch fan I'd just go with the 007, at least for now. I've been pretty pleased with it. Hey it's a start, baby stepping here. Maybe someday I can have a Sub. More power to you guys that has one, two or more. :-!
> 
> My be all you can be tool watch 007 says hi!
> ...


----------



## Hands90 (Jun 8, 2015)

I thought my coworker was wearing a Sub and it turned out to be the SKX007
so yeah they are defiantly pretty close. 

That being said I'm saving for a sub.


----------



## atarione (Aug 10, 2015)

I like the 007/9 all day everyday... I don't actually like the sub... and given all the 'homages' out there and my personal very casual style I'm almost inclined to think everyone would just assume my sub was a fake or homage anyways (if I had one) 

If I was going to buy a Rolex it would almost certainly be a SD or DS... 

everyone should do what their budget allows and their own taste suggest... I really prefer the looks of the Seiko and I (just me) don't like the pretense of a rolex that much (SORRY I really don't want to offend ..it is just how I feel.)


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

I love the Seiko for how practical it is. The Rolex is a wonderful watch, but simply put, it's just too much money. It's expensive due to the name, not much more in my opinion. And if I damaged the Rolex, I'd be mad. But the Seiko, I'll just buy another one. Hell, I already have three....









Time to make the donuts...


----------



## jaeiger (Mar 9, 2014)

Even when just looking at design, I'm split. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, the submariner 500% - especially in a no-date incarnation. Gorgeously symmetrical, really coherent and cohesive design elements, and great finish leading to a watch which looks fantastic, as the saying goes, from beach to boardroom. 

However. 

If we're looking at the design from a purpose standpoint, as in, which one better serves the purpose of screaming the (elapsed dive) time at its owner as quickly as possible and with as much precision as possible, the SKX takes it for me. The hands, which I think can be described as ugly yet pragmatically beautiful, have such distinct, contrasting shapes that, should one find themselves needing to know the time right this instant, it's all the easier to read. Further, the SKX's bezel is fully demarckated with minute indicators. On my Trident Pro, I know it bugs me when only the first X minutes are marked, as it's uncomfortably imprecise trying to guesstimate the gap between, say, 30 and 35. And then you feel like a fool for using such an imprecise method for baking and eschewing the oven timer, and then you can no longer brag about your watch's purpose-built design language to your SO if it can't even time a darn cupcake. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Everybodyhatesraymond (Dec 21, 2015)

Love how we're keeping this thread alive after 5 years. Was worried when I got to last page and saw '2015'. 

I prefer the design of the SKX013. I like military-esque stuff and it's got that classic/vintage Vietnam feel to it. Plus the 60s, man. I do feel the Rolex sub looks better under shirts and suits, or 'dapper/snazzy' looks. But as someone going into government work, the Seiko looks more humble and 'of service'. Makes sense since it's a watch that performs very well at being of service to people as a practical and reliable tool. Not to say the Rolex isn't that too, I really like the dual function of elegance & practicality of it, but I don't have the kind of status most people who are known for wearing Rolexes do, and I personally don't want people to assume something about me I'm not. I know I'm diverging away from the design a bit but I feel like it's hard to divorce those kinds of influences and emotions from how we feel about the design. It's part of how we experience it. 

SKX for me!


----------



## Everybodyhatesraymond (Dec 21, 2015)

BevoWatch said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where did you get the bracelet? Is that a Super President? It's hard to find one for the SKX013, your watch's baby brother


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

Everybodyhatesraymond said:


> Where did you get the bracelet? Is that a Super President? It's hard to find one for the SKX013, your watch's baby brother


It's the older Strapcode Super Oyster. The new one looks like this:








Different end links and they make a HUGE difference. Flattens the watch out and wears better. Had both. Prefer this one.

David


----------



## rcd213 (Oct 7, 2010)

Sub no date or 007. Only tolerate the cyclops on the gmt variants


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## diver1954 (Feb 22, 2015)

_*Boom!*_


----------



## mplsabdullah (Jan 21, 2015)

Dec1968 said:


> It's the older Strapcode Super Oyster. The new one looks like this:
> 
> Different end links and they make a HUGE difference. Flattens the watch out and wears better. Had both. Prefer this one.
> 
> David


Looks great. I have actually started to miss it, lol.


----------



## goyoneuff (Dec 9, 2007)

I got confused... which one do you prefer because makes the watch sit flatter? 

Cheers,

G/.


----------



## goyoneuff (Dec 9, 2007)

SKX013? You got me confused. That is a smaller size 007... Were you thinking of other reference? Cheers ! G.


----------



## Everybodyhatesraymond (Dec 21, 2015)

goyoneuff said:


> SKX013? You got me confused. That is a smaller size 007... Were you thinking of other reference? Cheers ! G.


Oh, right I got carried away. I said 013 because I have one and it's the exact same but smaller version of the 007...sorry for the confusion. It's easy to forget sometimes.


----------



## ssada416 (Jul 16, 2015)

+1 Submariner


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

The Rolex has the name, but the Seiko has the smarts. To me, the Seiko says 'I am what I am and I am not pretentious about it'. 

The Rolex can be misunderstood as a pretentious item to pretend you are who you aren't. 

No Seiko owner wears their Seiko to pretend. 

I'm not knocking Rolex at all, have had a few and do now, just saying, no one mistakes why I wear a Seiko. 


David


----------



## Everybodyhatesraymond (Dec 21, 2015)

Dec1968 said:


> The Rolex has the name, but the Seiko has the smarts. To me, the Seiko says 'I am what I am and I am not pretentious about it'.
> 
> The Rolex can be misunderstood as a pretentious item to pretend you are who you aren't.
> 
> ...


Exactly why I prefer it too. I'm a humble man with humble earnings working a humble profession. If I worked in banking, law or finance I would be more inclined to choose the Rolex Sub as it suits my lifestyle more. There are less presuppositions about someone wearing an SKX than someone donning a Rolly. And yea yea, I know you all don't care what people think...


----------



## longstride (Jan 13, 2011)

Too much disparity between the two watches...I think a more equal comparo would be 6159-7001 vs Vintage Sub...









...So, 6159-7001 (above) vs Rolex Sub (Below)...









...and in my estimation the 6159 takes the prize...! I tend to favour vintage stuff...6105 is a fave 6306/6309 is another I have a SKX007 but tend to go for my vintage pieces first.


----------



## K1W1 (Apr 13, 2010)

ProHunter, the unpretentious Submariner


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

tallguy said:


> I like your post and agree with most of it.....but this statement is accurate in spirit more than hard earned dollars......it would take some serious voodoo economics to make the case that a $5-6k watch is cheaper than a well made $200 watch "in the long run", (or at least a VERY looooong run of a century or two.)







David


----------



## CM HUNTER (May 16, 2011)

Since I tend to not like the looks of any Seiko case, I'm going with Rolex here. The dials are both so straightforward between these two particulars (in all models really, goofy looking Monster aside) that it's a senseless comparison.


----------



## dcamnc (Feb 4, 2010)

Sub for me, no contest. The size is much better for my skinny wrist. Seiko makes nice watches (wearing one now), but their divers are just too clunky for me.


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

dcamnc said:


> Sub for me, no contest. The size is much better for my skinny wrist. Seiko makes nice watches (wearing one now), but their divers are just too clunky for me.


The SKX007/009 is smaller from lug to lug at 46mm, but taller by 1mm and wider by 1mm or so. What makes it clunky?

David


----------



## duc (Jan 24, 2016)

More pictures needed.

I like the lower profile design of the Sub a little better than the SKX. That said, I still wear my SKX all the time. It has replaced my two nicer watches. I like it so much that I have another being modified by Artifice right now.

The Sub was (and probably still is) my favorite watch of all times. My son is just about mature enough for me to pass it to him. When I do that, I won't have to agonize about not wearing it anymore.

Now for a couple snaps.


----------



## jrtoyman (Dec 18, 2016)

OLDBOLDDIVER said:


> Have both also.....my Seiko stopped running in a year and a half. My Rolex has been running since 1986. The Submariner is a classic.


Too bad, My SKX007 is still running, going for almost 4 years now and dived with it 37 times.


----------



## Urs Haenggi (Feb 17, 2015)

Take all branding off of both, and hands down, the Rolex. It's thinner/wears better, more versatile, and is just plain prettier.


----------



## diver1954 (Feb 22, 2015)

_*'Rolex'*_


----------



## Dec1968 (Jan 24, 2014)

Urs Haenggi said:


> Take all branding off of both, and hands down, the Rolex. It's thinner/wears better, more versatile, and is just plain prettier.
> 
> View attachment 10245466


Well it's also ridiculously more expensive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rinaldi (Mar 2, 2014)

Both are nice looking design. But I tend to prefer Rolex for the design because the image of "james bond".


----------



## ProjectQuattro (Jun 2, 2016)

All branding aside, I cannot deal with the 4:00 crown. It ruins tons of Seiko watches for me. So, Rolex, although I don't think they're worth what they charge for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chocodove (Sep 3, 2011)

Apparently this is an old thread that got bumped. 

Both are classic designs and pure winners. For what they are each individually meant to be, they have few (if any) peers at their respective price points.


----------



## traviskoh999 (Nov 9, 2021)

To answer the original poster's question, I prefer the skx's design over the sub, assuming you are talking about the 16610 and newer.

In fact, I have the skx009 on jubilee and this it is my favourite watch.

The diving capabilities, markers, hands , lume, bezel and matte finish of dial of the skx is ultimately more fucntional as a tool watch over the sub(which i had owned for a while). The newer subs with their white gold markers and the reflective shiny dial surfaces are not elements to great legibility.

The case design of the skx is also more comfortable to wear with no sharp edges.

The skx has the vibe of the 1680 matte dial. The 16610 is no where near these.

The single red text on the skx is a nod to the 1680 single red.

i would pick the skx everyday over the 16610 based on design.


----------



## 4G63T (Jul 20, 2016)

schlimmest said:


> If you disregard the movement and fully emphasize the design - which design do you prefer? The SKX007 or the Submariner?


I like the SKX007 case design more. But I wonder if you can swap the bezel from the submariner or any aftermarket similar bezels out there .


----------



## traviskoh999 (Nov 9, 2021)

GregoryD said:


> On design alone, I much prefer the SKX to the sub. The sub is classic, but I don't care for the mercedes hand, and the cyclops is an eye-sore. I love the SKX case, crown guards, and knurled bezel. To me the SKX really has a modern vintage feel that the sub also achieves (the pre-ceramic sub). Design-wise I love almost everything about the SKX. Now, the fact that it doesn't hack or hand-wind is whole different story...:-d


Put a NH36 movement in.


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

What is it with this long dead thread that keeps resurrecting it 🤔


----------



## CM HUNTER (May 16, 2011)

bigclive2011 said:


> What is it with this long dead thread that keeps resurrecting it 🤔


I think people (especially new members that just joined) missed out on sharing their opinion when the topic first came up and now they would like to do so. Seems silly to start a whole new thread on such a topic.


----------



## SkiBum (Jan 9, 2013)

As a pure dive watch, I think I like the Seiko design cues a little better. But I do love the Sub - caveat though, as long as it's steel/black or another dark color. I find the design starts to look too showy for my taste rather quickly, which to me sends me more in the direction of an SMP. The Sub isn't my favorite Rolex design, that goes to either the Explorer or the Oyster Perpetual.


----------

