Wactch101 Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 BK's TW 16610 sub or Ceramic Sub, which one would you go for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 BK TW... I don't like the ceramic subs, they're too 'fussy' and blingy with the rehaut engravings, and the cerachrome insert is much less durable than the 16610's insert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_rymeister Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 +1 on Tw sub 16610, you can't go wring with a classic sub, you won't be dissapointed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wactch101 Posted May 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 BK TW... I don't like the ceramic subs, they're too 'fussy' and blingy with the rehaut engravings, and the cerachrome insert is much less durable than the 16610's insert If I didn't already own a classic sea dweller 16600 I would be getting the TW, but as it is quite similar to that I am stuck between if I should order the ceramic or TW. And you say that the ceramic bezel insert isn't as durable? I am always knocking my watch on things, is the ceramic likely to crack easily in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneed12 Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 I like the ceramic sub and have built several of them, but frankly by today's standards the ceramic sub isn't a very good rep. On the other hand the TW is excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woof* Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 The classic 16610's have come so far recently with Bk, TC and Sean's. In my opinion the sub C is still in the infant stages and not really ready for prime time. I'd go for a top shelf 16610 now and in a couple years when they truly make headway on it, then get a subC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 4, 2012 Report Share Posted May 4, 2012 If I didn't already own a classic sea dweller 16600 I would be getting the TW, but as it is quite similar to that I am stuck between if I should order the ceramic or TW. And you say that the ceramic bezel insert isn't as durable? I am always knocking my watch on things, is the ceramic likely to crack easily in your opinion? I guess it depends on how hard you may ding your watch... A knock against a door frame might not crack the insert, but I have heard of inserts in the GMTIIc (so the same composition) cracking when watches have been accidentally dropped, like knocked off a wash basin onto a tiled floor... Something I've said before in my musings about the Submariner line, and the cerachrome inserts, is that if a metal insert takes a whack, it might get a dent or a scratch, but that just adds character to the watch, where if the cerachrome inserts get chipped/cracked, it is just going to look like ugly damage (IMHO ) While I do eventually have plans for a GMGIIc-themed build, I wouldn't trust the insert to take the same level of (ab)use which I would throw at a metal insert without a second thought, so while it would be a vacation watch, I don't think I would trust it as a daily beater... Also, something I hadn't mentioned before, but feel is an equally salient point, is I've heard of folks losing the pearls from DSSDs and Ceramic Subs and having a hassle replacing them... They certainly appear to stand higher from the surface of the insert than the 16610-era pearls, and I have to admit, I can see them presenting an easy snag hazard, so just something else to consider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsterRider Posted May 5, 2012 Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 I guess it depends on how hard you may ding your watch... A knock against a door frame might not crack the insert, but I have heard of inserts in the GMTIIc (so the same composition) cracking when watches have been accidentally dropped, like knocked off a wash basin onto a tiled floor... Sound a lot like the stuff people were saying when they made the switch from plexi crystals to sapphire. By and large, the cerachrome will be more durable (well, certainly the genuine will.) than the aluminum/alloy insert in the 16610 in much the same way sapphire is over plexi. Just don't knock it off a wash basin!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 5, 2012 Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 Sound a lot like the stuff people were saying when they made the switch from plexi crystals to sapphire. By and large, the cerachrome will be more durable (well, certainly the genuine will.) than the aluminum/alloy insert in the 16610 in much the same way sapphire is over plexi. Just don't knock it off a wash basin!! Not really... Folks have reported damaged inserts just like folks reported welding failures of the DSSD glidelock clasp, so it can happen, and ceramic can crack easily under impact. What it would certainly be safer to say, is that if an insert was to be damaged accidentaly, aesthetically, it will look damaged, and the appearance of the watch will be ruined, where damage to a metal insert would not look as unpleasant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wactch101 Posted May 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 Thanks guy, I suppose the ceramic is better material to protect from scratches as its so hard, but then that does add a negative of a possible breakage. I think I will be going for the TW 16610. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsterRider Posted May 5, 2012 Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 Not really... Folks have reported damaged inserts just like folks reported welding failures of the DSSD glidelock clasp, so it can happen, and ceramic can crack easily under impact. What it would certainly be safer to say, is that if an insert was to be damaged accidentaly, aesthetically, it will look damaged, and the appearance of the watch will be ruined, where damage to a metal insert would not look as unpleasant Eh, I've own both a DSSD and a GMT-II C for the last coupla years and neither of mine have cracked, despite being banged around as much as any of my other watches. They are both, however, scratch-free. Can it happen? Of course it can, just as it's possible to shatter a sapphire crystal. But it's such an unlikely occurrence that I wouldn't pass on one over that concern. Besides, if it does crack, just get a new insert. In any case, going with the TW is a good choice as it's definitely the superior rep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkay Posted May 5, 2012 Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 Do you want to spend $150 or $600 ? LOL ... good question. Look in your wallet and decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 5, 2012 Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 Eh, I've own both a DSSD and a GMT-II C for the last coupla years and neither of mine have cracked, despite being banged around as much as any of my other watches. They are both, however, scratch-free. Can it happen? Of course it can, just as it's possible to shatter a sapphire crystal. But it's such an unlikely occurrence that I wouldn't pass on one over that concern. Besides, if it does crack, just get a new insert. In any case, going with the TW is a good choice as it's definitely the superior rep. That's fair enough I guess I'll find out for myself when I built my GMTIIc hybrid project Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkay Posted May 5, 2012 Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 and let me add ... I accidentally dissolved the glue in my DSSD insert with the chemical in Cape Cod cloth, and it fell out onto the cement floor of my garage. It hit upright on it's edge and rang like a silver bell TIIIING TING TING as it bounced across the concrete. No breakage. Picked it up and glued it back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ado213 Posted May 5, 2012 Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 Hi, I have the cerachrom on a sub, just recently I forgot to take it off before I I went to work, I am an engineer. Later that day one of the guys asked me to hold some steel while he tacked it up with MIG, like a fool I did, forgetting I had my watch on. Later that evening whilst in the shower I noticed "weld spatter" on the bezel, [censored], there goes $50!. Next day I "picked" the spatter carefully off the bezel and re-polished with a paste and mop, you cant even tell its been done under 10x magnification !!. (luckily no spatter had got on the numerals) So I would suggest to anyome that cerachrom wins hands down By the way, are the bezels you guys are fitting cerachrom or the sandwhich type ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wactch101 Posted May 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 and let me add ... I accidentally dissolved the glue in my DSSD insert with the chemical in Cape Cod cloth, and it fell out onto the cement floor of my garage. It hit upright on it's edge and rang like a silver bell TIIIING TING TING as it bounced across the concrete. No breakage. Picked it up and glued it back in. I had a ceramic sub at one point, I think it came from pure time. And the same thing happened, the bezel insert fell out, and I lost it. They are expensive to replace, at least the aluminum ones are cheap. So another reason I think I will go for the classic 16610 sub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkay Posted May 5, 2012 Report Share Posted May 5, 2012 I know Trevor sells them for $27. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wactch101 Posted May 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 I know Trevor sells them for $27. A ceramic bezel insert? That's a pretty good price. They are about £65 ($105) on ebay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkay Posted May 6, 2012 Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 Wow nothing like being eRaped ... The entire DSSD watch sells for $98 with a21j movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 and let me add ... I accidentally dissolved the glue in my DSSD insert with the chemical in Cape Cod cloth, and it fell out onto the cement floor of my garage. It hit upright on it's edge and rang like a silver bell TIIIING TING TING as it bounced across the concrete. No breakage. Picked it up and glued it back in. Hi, I have the cerachrom on a sub, just recently I forgot to take it off before I I went to work, I am an engineer. Later that day one of the guys asked me to hold some steel while he tacked it up with MIG, like a fool I did, forgetting I had my watch on. Later that evening whilst in the shower I noticed "weld spatter" on the bezel, [censored], there goes $50!. Next day I "picked" the spatter carefully off the bezel and re-polished with a paste and mop, you cant even tell its been done under 10x magnification !!. (luckily no spatter had got on the numerals) So I would suggest to anyome that cerachrom wins hands down By the way, are the bezels you guys are fitting cerachrom or the sandwhich type ?. That's interesting reading, the inserts're clearly more durable than I've been lead to believe I'll stand by my previous comment about finding the Ceramic Sub a bit fussy and blingy, though Rolex didn't really need a new sub, creating this was just corporate greed, so for those reasons alone, the 16610 would still be my preference and suggestion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsterRider Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 That's interesting reading, the inserts're clearly more durable than I've been lead to believe I'll stand by my previous comment about finding the Ceramic Sub a bit fussy and blingy, though Rolex didn't really need a new sub, creating this was just corporate greed, so for those reasons alone, the 16610 would still be my preference and suggestion I don't know. On one hand all you hear from folks is how Rolex is too slow to change, never produces anything 'new', the Sub is an 'old mans watch', and can't compete with the likes of Omega, Breitling, etc. Their bracelets are cheap, they don't use AR, etc, etc, etc. Then they go and produce a new sub, with a much improved bracelet, fancy new ceramic bezel, AR on the cyclops, and give it a slightly beefier case ('cause, you know, the Sub is just too small) and people complain that they shouldn't have changed the 'classic' Sub. This isn't aimed at you, TJ as I've seen all of the above mentioned on many different watch boards. Personally I think they did a good job of updating the Sub, while still keeping the overall look intact. It's definitely more 'bling' than the previous model, but it's on par with it's contemporaries from Omega and others. That being said, I bet the new Sub would look sharp if they could give that insert a matte finish. At least they didn't polish the center links! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wactch101 Posted May 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 Just ordered the TW sub, wooo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pman Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 I've owned a couple subs including a SSD. My new favorite is the BK Ceramic Sub. Either way, make sure you buy from a good dealer and remember, you get what you pay for. Best of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irolexu Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 I would get a TC sub over a TW any day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 I don't know. On one hand all you hear from folks is how Rolex is too slow to change, never produces anything 'new', the Sub is an 'old mans watch', and can't compete with the likes of Omega, Breitling, etc. Their bracelets are cheap, they don't use AR, etc, etc, etc. Then they go and produce a new sub, with a much improved bracelet, fancy new ceramic bezel, AR on the cyclops, and give it a slightly beefier case ('cause, you know, the Sub is just too small) and people complain that they shouldn't have changed the 'classic' Sub. This isn't aimed at you, TJ as I've seen all of the above mentioned on many different watch boards. Personally I think they did a good job of updating the Sub, while still keeping the overall look intact. It's definitely more 'bling' than the previous model, but it's on par with it's contemporaries from Omega and others. That being said, I bet the new Sub would look sharp if they could give that insert a matte finish. At least they didn't polish the center links! I totally agree with you, the only thing I would say, is about how Rolex have updated an already popular classic, rather than releasing something new, like the Skydweller. As for the improved clasp, I would agree that it's a beefier design than the older oyster clasps, but I've read several instances of welds on both rep and gen clasps failing at the same point (especially if the watch is worn too tightly ) so to me, while it's clearly an attempt to modernize, it misses the mark, by being unreliable in a way an oyster clasp could never fail I guess as with everything, to each his own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now