Comparative review of Submariner and Yacht-Master

[TeeJay]

It's been a while since my last review, and I felt a prime subject had come up from a recent purchase. Due to my lack of quality pictures of either watches, this will be a solely written review, but, I'm sure we all know what these watches look like

About my review:

In writing this review, I am going to follow the style of a review which ultimately led to my interest in Omega watches, and ultimately reps, John B. Holbrook, II's excellent comparitive review, Omega Seamster Professional Vs Rolex Submariner.

I am going to be judging the watches as objectively, and honestly as possible, giving justifications for my reasonings as I go. These scores are purely based upon my own observations and opinions about the watch, people are free to agree or disagree as they wish.

A note about my 'scoring system':

I will be scoring on a scale of 0 - 10, with 5 being the mid-way score. A score of 5, would mean that the 'aspect' performs its intended function. And no more. A score of five, in academic terms, would be considered 'a pass', but the lowest possible pass, and single lower mark would have meant a failing grade. Respectively, a 0 reflects a total failure to perform the designated role, and a 10 represents a performance of the designated role which goes 'above and beyond', and could not possibly be better.

The watches I am reviewing and comparing, are, as mentioned above, the Rolex Submariner, and Rolex Yacht-Master. Similar, but different. I wouldn't go so far as to call these watches 'Night and Day', rather negative reflections of the other. So, let's get started...

CASE:

Both watches feature the classic Rolex Oyster case, and are definitely 'functional sports watches', as opposed to an elegant 'dress watch', such as the DateJust. However, the two cases are not identical. The case of the Yacht-Master is entirely polished, and has much more rounded edges and sides, compared to the more angular Submariner. Personally, I feel that this gives the Submariner a more 'utilitarian' feel and the Yacht-Master a more elegant feel. Both watch cases have crown guards to protect the crown, but, unlike the crown guards of the Omega Planet Ocean, these guards are not integrated into the line of the case.

RATING:

Submariner: 7

Yacht-Master: 8

I am giving the Yacht-Master the higher score, because of the additional work in the finish (rounded edges) which give the watch a more tactile quality.

BEZEL:

Similar, but different. Both watches feature a notched bezel, which is easy to grasp and rotate, however, where the Submariner bezel is uni-directional, the Yacht-Master bezel is bi-directional. A uni-directional bezel is certainly safer for timing calculations, as the period can only decrease. The bezel inserts of these watches are very different. The Submariner insert is 2 Dimensional, where the Yacht-Master insert is 3 Dimensional. This does not make any difference to the functionality of the bezels, it is simply an aesthetic observation. However, the Submariner insert features a luminous pearl, which the Yacht-Master does not, which means the Submariner bezel can be used to measure or indicate a certain time in darkness, which the Yacht-Master bezel cannot.

RATING:

Functionality:

Submariner: 8

Yacht-Master: 6

Aesthetic Appearance:

Submariner: 6

Yacht-Master: 9

Overall Average:

Submariner: 7

Yacht-Master: 8

In terms of pure functionality, the Submariner bezel would be a hands-down winner, but, when aesthetics are brought into play, the 3 Dimensional aspect of the Yacht-Master cannot be ignored. I would also point out, that the 3 Dimensional aspect cannot truly be appreciated solely from a photograph, as, although the contrast between brushed and polished surfaces is obvious, the tactile quality adds a level of appreciation which many other diver's watches simply do not have.

CASEBACK:

Identical casebacks on both watches. They are functional, and that is all they need to be. As Rolex do not decorate their movements, there is no aesthetic gain from a display back.

RATING:

Submariner: 9

Yacht-Master: 9

Normally, I would rate a solid caseback lower, but, as the movements inside are not decorated, there would be no gain to seeing them, thus, there can be no loss by not seeing them.

CROWN:

Both watches feature the same Trip-Lock crown. They are identical in appearance and operation. Rolex crowns are easy to operate.

RATING:

Submariner: 10

Yacht-Master: 10

DIAL:

Both dials follow a similar pattern, featuring clear, luminous indices and date-windows. While one might say that the choice in dial color is simply a matter of personal preference (light or dark), there are actually functional differences as well. The Yacht-Master features the Maxi-Dial, which allows for greater visibility than the Submariner dial. One difference, is that the Yacht-Master does not feature a depth-rating.

RATING:

Submariner: 7

Yacht-Master: 9

I have scored the Yacht-Master higher, as I feel the dial exceeds the Submariner in two instances: One, being the texture of the dial. It is visually more interesting than the texture of the Submariner dial. The second instance, I shall expand upon below...

HANDS & MARKERS:

As mentioned above, the Yacht-Master features the Maxi Dial, which means it has larger indices and hands than as on the Submariner. Quite simply, that translates to better visibility. While there are indeed now variants of the Submariner which feature the Maxi-Dial, the 'bog standard' 16610 does not feature it, and that is what I am basing this review on.

RATING:

Submariner: 7

Yacht-Master: 9

I have not rated the Yacht-Master as 10, simply because there are other dive watches, such as the Omega Planet Ocean, which feature dial markers and hands, which are even larger and easier to read. While that does not detract from the level of the Yacht-Master over the Submariner, one should be mindful that there are still better hands/markers available. I believe the best result someone could get with Rolex parts, would be a Maxi-Dial, coupled with the military sword hands of the 5517-model Submariner. That combination would still not be as good as the Planet Ocean markers, but as good as it gets for Rolex...

CRYSTAL:

Identical crystals. Both feature magnifying cyclops' over the date-window. Personally, I don't like them, as I feel they spoil the line of the crystal, compared to other watch brands which feature a cyclops on the underside of the crystal, such as Panerai and Ulysse Nardin. Yes, the 'exterior cyclops' is iconically 'Rolex', and has helped me identify a Rolex from TV, when no clear dial shots have been provided (the Air-King with date window worn by John Barrowman in his portrayal of Captain Jack Harkness) but, that still does not excuse the fact that the finish of the watch could be improved by using an internal cyclops (which would also provide increased magnification, by being closer to the date font) Seeing the travesties Rolex released at Basel, I can't see them deciding to improve the appearance of their crystals with such a simple alteration.

Rating:

Submariner: 7

Yacht-Master: 5

I am giving the Yacht-Master a lower score, despite the identical crystals, because although neither watch crystal is AR coated, on the Yacht-Master, this really is a missed opportunity on Rolex's part, as it would allow for better visibility of the textured dial, which, would not only allow for a better appreciation, but also make it more obvious that the dial actually is textured, rather than simply being matte. On the Submariner, the crystal is simply a case of 'could be better', but not actually hampering the dial. On the Yacht-Master, it prevents an attractive aspect of the watch from being more visible, so in my mind, it then becomes a design flaw, because it does not take other factors of the watch into account, and causes obstruction, rather than enhancement.

BRACELET:

Both watches feature the same bracelet. The mid-links of the Yacht-Master bracelet, however, are polished, and the end-links of the bracelet protrude beyond the case-lugs, and while some might like this feature, personally, I feel it makes the end-links appear mis-matched to the case size, and as with the above issue of the crystal, I feel this detracts from the overall appearance of the watch. Regardless of the finish of the links or the appearance of the watch, both bracelets are comfortable to wear.

RATING:

Submariner: 8

Yacht-Master: 7

CLASP:

The clasp is often cited as the weakest aspect of the Oyster bracelet, and many feel that it is too 'flimsy and cheap' to feature on a premium watch. I used to agree with this opinion, until it was pointed out to me, that the Submariner was not originally intended as a prestige product, but a functional, professional tool watch, and compared to a stripped down racing car, rather than a comfortable family saloon, in terms of build. In my opinion, that viewpoint certainly makes the clasp more tolerable, although I am still of the opinion that there are better engineered clasps on the market, as used by Omega and Ulysse Nardin, for example. Also, Rolex have recently made upgrades to their clasps, as with the Rolesor bracelet, and the Glide-lock clasp, as featured on the Deep Sea Sea Dweller, which at least shows Rolex have decided to actually make a change, rather than keep churning out the same product.

RATING:

Submariner: 5

Yacht-Master: 4

I have rated the Submariner higher in this aspect, because the clasp features a diver's extension. Some might argue that a Yacht-Master is not a diver's watch, so why should it require a diver's extension? Well, I would point out that the Explorer II is a caving watch, and that also does not feature a diver's extension, despite the fact that it would be useful to enable the watch to be worn over gloves or an insulated jacket. I would make the same point in the Yacht-Master's case: Just because it is not intended as a diving watch, it does not mean that the watch could not benefit from the diver's extension, and indeed, there are many situations on a yacht when the wearer might want to wear the watch over their gloves or jacket, but be unable to. Again, I view this as a design flaw, as it does not take into account potential requirements when the watch is worn and provide for those potential requirements. Afterall, even if it is not a diver's watch, the Yacht-Master (and the Explorer II) is still a sports watch, and would be expected to be able to be used in sports situations, rather than simply looking good in the yacht club's bar...

VERSATILITY:

Both watches are relatively versatile, and it is not uncommon to see people wearing a Submariner with a suit. The polished case, mid-links and 3 Dimensional bezel insert of the Yacht-Master certainly make it the more 'dressy' of the two watches, and I think it would be safest to say that the Yacht-Master 'dresses down' better than the Submariner 'dresses up', however, that itself is not true versatility, as it is not an adaptation to all scenarios.

RATING:

Submariner: 9

Yacht-Master: 7

I have rated the Submariner higher in this aspect, because the watch looks equally good on a rubber or leather strap as it does on it's SS bracelet. The Yacht-Master does not look good on straps at all, only on bracelets, so it is simply not as versatile as the Submariner. While the Yacht-Master could be considered a more 'universal' watch, as it does look good with a variety of wardrobe options, it's inability to blend with a strap means that it is not as versatile, as there may be circumstances and situations where only a strap would be appropriate (for either aesthetic or functional reasons)

CONCLUSIONS:

POSSIBLE SCORE: 100

OVERALL SCORE:

Submariner: 76

Yacht-Master: 76

Wow. I was not expecting that to be the result I am genuinely surprized, and would have expected a clear winner on points I guess the only explanation for this, is that for every instance where the Yacht-Master beats the Submariner in aesthetic terms, the Submariner wins those points back through functional and practical terms. However, I must note that I did withhold points from the Yacht-Master, for what I consider to be, if not exactly design flaws, certainly design oversights, where things simply could have been better, had the designers thought of them. I think if the Yacht-Master had been built without any of those oversights, then it would have topped the Submariner, but only slightly. Both are fantastic watches, and I would recommend either to anyone. I would recommend that anyone who has previously dismissed a Yacht-Master to consider treating themselves to one, even if it is only of Canal St quality, simply so they can experience the higher aesthetics compared to the utilitarian Submariner. This was a shootout between the 'girl next door' and the 'prom queen', and they both proved their worth in different ways

There is one aspect of the watches which I want to quickly touch upon, and that requires me to quote from John's review of the Yacht-Master:

Even though the Yacht-Master has the Rolex Triplock crown, Rolex only rates the Yacht-Master for 100 meters of water resistance (compared to 300 meters for the Submariner). That water resistance rating is fine enough for a sporting watch like the Yacht-Master. It's not designed to be a diving "tool" watch like the Submariner or Sea-Dweller.

John raises a point in his review which I do not entirely understand. If both watches are using the same case and crown, why are they both not equally water-resistant? I believe one possible answer may come from previous research on the Rolex Sea-Dweller, where watches which were tested and found to have water-resistance greater than the rated depth, were fitted with new dials with an updated depth rating. I wonder if it might simply be an instance of the Yacht-Master not being officially tested beyond 100 meters, even if the construction itself, would be able to withstand depths beyond the rated tolerance. Who knows...

As stated above, these opinions are solely my own, and others are free to agree or disagree with them as they wish. I hope this has been an informative review, thanks for reading

[Edit to add]

Following a Judges Decision, the crown score has been revised

[Slartibartfast]

TeeJay, what a fantastic narrative comparison. As they say, radio stimulates the imagination much better than TV. I was amazed how I could see just about every aspect of these watches in my minds eye just from your description.

My comment would be to disagree with your scoring of the crowns.

CROWN:

Both watches feature the same Trip-Lock crown. They are identical in appearance and operation. Rolex crowns are easy to operate.

RATING:

Submariner: 7

Yacht-Master: 7

I would have given these a 10/10. They are simple, functional, secure and promote the brand all at the same time. What more could they do?

Thanks for taking the time to share your findings.

[TeeJay]

TeeJay, what a fantastic narrative comparison. As they say, radio stimulates the imagination much better than TV. I was amazed how I could see just about every aspect of these watches in my minds eye just from your description.

My comment would be to disagree with your scoring of the crowns.

I would have given these a 10/10. They are both simple, functional, secure and promote the brand all at the same time. What more could they do?

Thanks for taking the time to share your findings.

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it I do agree with you about the crowns, my only gripe is that they could be a little bigger, but never mind It wouldn't affect the overall result as a winning/losing scenario. I was just so surprised by the draw