SM 300 vs. Submariner

Posts
2,844
Likes
2,437
All the above are points well taken. However you will note that the 5512 variant was left out of what I was told. I'm sure the fact that a 5513 was not a chronometer where-as the 5512 and 1680 were played a part in his advise.

Regardless thanx for continuing my education.
 
Posts
2,678
Likes
9,836
All the above are points well taken. However you will note that the 5512 variant was left out of what I was told. I'm sure the fact that a 5513 was not a chronometer where-as the 5512 and 1680 were played a part in his advise.

Regardless thanx for continuing my education.

again it doesn't matter...the 5513 is an icon. The most popular sub period...and one all collectors covet. The movement is irrelevant, they are all great timepieces.
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
The Chronometer rating does not really enter into the value of these watches. Not all 5512's re Chronometer rated (4 line as they are called) and those that are are not nearly as valuable as the earlier ones that are not.
 
Posts
3,082
Likes
3,570
Want a Sub with no date? You get a 5512.
Want a Sub with a date? You get a 1680.
5512 and 1680 used the same movement. Both
Chronometer rated and adjusting weights on the balance.
1680 replaced the 5512 in the Rolex lineup.
And who doesn't get weak kneed looking at the 1680
high hat dome?
I own both and love both.
I bought the 5512 from a Seal that did 2 tours in Nam
with it and many Space capsule recoveries wearing it.
I'll save that story for another thread.
 
Posts
1,512
Likes
7,796
Since 1680s and 5512s were sold at the same time for a while, it doesn't seem correct to say that the 1680 replaced the 5512.
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
Since 1680s and 5512s were sold at the same time for a while, it doesn't seem correct to say that the 1680 replaced the 5512.
It certainly didn't, it was just the option with Date, which didn't exist until then. The 5513 outlasted and took the place of the 5512.
 
Posts
3,082
Likes
3,570
Since 1680s and 5512s were sold at the same time for a while, it doesn't seem correct to say that the 1680 replaced the 5512.
Well it was the only Chronometer Submariner when the 5512
was dropped, their top of the line if you will. Rolex made a
marketing decision to add a date to one of their Submariners.
So they decided the 5512 wasn't really needed in their line-up,
they had the non- Chronometer entry level 5513 as a non-date
choice. So instead of, replaced the 5512, it replaced the 5512
as the top of the line Chronometer rated Submariner.
Edited:
 
Posts
63
Likes
20
Personally, I think Omega have missed a trick
SubandSM300_zpsc5e88ac8.jpg
Both are Non-Date (the way I like 'em) but in my view, the SM300 looks the better of the two
Cheers
 
Posts
6,705
Likes
21,624
Comparing the 300 to the Sub is like comparing your kids - you love them both but they are clearly different in many ways.
 
Posts
30,230
Likes
35,953
I like the 1680 quite a lot, partly because its a ridiculous watch, partly because its a unique looking thing.

You can tell they had the 5512/5513 and it was good, the crystal isn't too high, has a nice dome, holds 200M and is plexiglass and that's all good stuff. Then they decide to add a date window and the problems begin.

First problem is the magnifier, its a feature of the Day-Date and Datejust, popular with older gentleman that may not be able to see tiny numbers and so it makes sense. But it became part of Rolex's signature look and so they wanted to carry it over to the Submariner.

The difficulty is if you put a magnifier on the dome, you're not magnifying the date, you're magnifying the date on a weird angle nobody can read, and it'd have to be too far over to the right to look balanced. So you need a flat crystal not a dome to do the cyclops.

So then you've got a flat top crystal but its still plexiglass and you're still needing it to pass 200M WPT to match the stronger dome of the 5513/5512, so you add plexiglass, and more, and more, until you're sticking so far out above the bezel that the watch looks plain stupid.

But you're Swiss, and you wanted your cyclops, and you wanted your 200M depth rating, and all you had was plexiglass so you've succeeded.

What an idiotic watch... glad I own one.

10994987_697926423658615_1129252256_n.jpg 10990622_1411460282490933_99689011_n.jpg
 
Posts
1,849
Likes
3,575
Interesting there seems to be more love for the Sub. I have 5 x SM300's and 2 x 5513's and definitely prefer the Omega and had always thought the Omega was the better made of the two. Comparing the stripped down cases of both models I thought the 300's had a better finish and the bezel is more secure (my wife lost a complete 5513 bezel and insert last year 😀 ) Personally I can't wear the 5513 as it looks too small on my wrist after wearing a 300 or Speedy, I always wish it were just a little bigger.
There are definitely more subs for sale at any time than 300's, however I'm sure the Rolex will always be more valuable.
 
Posts
27,607
Likes
70,229
Personally I would take the 5512, 5513, or 1680 over a vintage SM300. My preference of the 3 Subs would be the 5513 actually - although the 1520 is not chronometer rated, it still can be quite accurate, and I will always opt for less writing on the dial. Yes I know some 5512's don't have the book written on the dial, but they tend to be too much money for me anyway.

And yes I have a 1680 Red and no 5513, but if I could find one like this one I serviced last year (from a client in Qatar)...I would be very happy indeed!

 
Posts
3,082
Likes
3,570
[QUOTE="dsio, post: 255329, member: 2"

What an idiotic watch... glad I own one.

[/QUOTE]
Me too!
1 more self-indulgent pic.
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
Love the writing on this thread. Specially this last page. Refreshing to see everyone loving one or the other without putting the other down.
 
Posts
2,678
Likes
9,836
Personally, I think Omega have missed a trick
SubandSM300_zpsc5e88ac8.jpg
Both are Non-Date (the way I like 'em) but in my view, the SM300 looks the better of the two
Cheers

You are comparing two different generations. That 80's sub is hideous with the wg surrounds. This is the "real" sub 😀
 
Posts
63
Likes
20
Actually, they are both modern examples - the Sub is from 2011 and the SM is a re-build from the same period
 
Posts
2,678
Likes
9,836
Actually, they are both modern examples - the Sub is from 2011 and the SM is a re-build from the same period

huh? The SM may have been put together in 2011, but the design is from another decade
 
Posts
650
Likes
1,441
I agree with several people here, the nicest sub is the 5513 with the matte dial (the glossy dial with the white gold surrounds on the hour markers was introduced in 1983). A nice one goes for around $5.5k - $6k, i think this is a watch that will go up in value, a nice investment piece if you can find a good one!