TJGladeRaider Posted July 30, 2006 Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 I am so tempted to say, "Who has the Perfect Sub?" I don't know how many other sick puppies waste tons of time and money playing with horological dolls, but I figure that if I have to have an obsession, this isn't so bad. As I sit here with more than twenty Subs and SDs, looking at dial print with my loop, examining CGs, gauging rehauts, turning Bezels, studying pearls . . . and re-re-reading the reviews and tutorials posted by our experts, I would like to have some of you guys who know this stuff better to make a specific comparison. Just before Joshua stirred everything up with his "Perfect" stuff, and his serviced stuff, there was a transition where he changed the watches he had been selling from this: Classic Sub On His Photobucket To this: Classic Sub On Perfect Clones Site This watch is not expensive, but I have several of both and they are absolutely not the same case - look at the CGs, but the case curves are different too. I can easily tell which is which in the dark because the old case was flush with bezel where new case is undercut - you can see the rim of the bezel from the back and the feel is very different. When I compare this to TW Best Contemporary and MBW contemporary (no lug holes), I can see that they are most definitely completely different in many ways - and they should be at about twice as much money. My confusion is that I don't see that the expensive watch is better. I do see that the TW/MBW cyclops is closer inboard than the Josh Sub - and more correct that way. The problem is, cyclops placement isn't as obvious to me as the way the date mag looks, and Joshuas looks bigger and brighter. To my eye the dials look virtually identical, but I can read the print a little clearer on the Josh Sub - but it is very, very close to the same - at least to my amateur eye, even with a loop. The bezel inserts seem identical to me, but the pearls are different. Even under the loop, I don't know which is more correct though. Although the bezel mechanism is SERIOUSLY different when you handle the versions of the Classic that Josh and EL sell with the lug holes, that firm, tight, precise bezel click feel is not carried over to the TW/MBW contemporary Sub. I cannot tell any difference in feel between the Josh Contemporary Sub, and the Contemporary TW/MBW Sub, but they are definitely not the same - the TW/MBW bezel is obviously thicker, so the bezel is flush with the face of the crystal, whereas the crystal is a mm or so taller on the Josh Sub - again, I don't know which is better. The huge, immediately obvious difference is the crown. The TW/MBW is obviously thicker than the Josh Sub, making the CGs look smaller. I can clearly see the difference, but I don't know which is best. I like the feel of the big crown in my sausage fingers, but it looks too big to me. As a package, without bracelets, the TW/MBW is heavier - the case, bezel and case back all seem heavier constructed to me, but I don't have a clue which is correct. Both are tested waterproof to 132 feet (by me) and both keep time within a few seconds a day. It seems odd to me that this new case/cg version of the Josh Sub hasn't gotten much comment - I guess it got "lost in the sauce" when he came out with the "Perfect" stuff, or maybe I'm just too dense to see why I shouldn't like the cheap one better. It's important to me as I am going to buy a dozen Subs as gifts -- since the price is about two for one, I'd feel pretty stupid to find out later I bought the wrong watch. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted July 30, 2006 Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 Hi Bill. I'm pretty sure that this is the same watch as the watch that we used to refer as "CN Sub". Joe used this watch as a base of his modification packages. King, PureTime and Joshua were all selling the same piece. It has excellent dial (probably still the best one), but as you said the cyclops/datewheel placement is wrong (too right), it has shallow, non-smooth "plasticy" rehaut... but very nice crown, datefont and overall quality feel. I'm not sure (because I traded my CN Sub long time ago) but I think the cg's have been improved a bit. Check my signature link for the pics of my old CN Sub. It looks the same to me. It's very nice, but some details aren't correct. But then again it's the same issue with all reps. Submariner just isn't replicated very well, it's a sad fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJGladeRaider Posted July 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 Hi Bill. I'm pretty sure that this is the same watch as the watch that we used to refer as "CN Sub". Joe used this watch as a base of his modification packages. King, PureTime and Joshua were all selling the same piece. I'm not sure (because I traded my CN Sub long time ago) but I think the cg's have been improved a bit. Check my signature link for the pics of my old CN Sub. It looks the same to me. I looked at that, but the easiest comparison for me is to look at the prior CN Sub he sold me, and compare it to this new CN Sub he sold me - you're absolutely right, the CGs are night and day different, even to me. Is there something I would have no clue about that would make it sensible for me to spend twice as much to buy the expensive ones? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted July 30, 2006 Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 I looked at that, but the easiest comparison for me is to look at the prior CN Sub he sold me, and compare it to this new CN Sub he sold me - you're absolutely right, the CGs are night and day different, even to me. Is there something I would have no clue about that would make it sensible for me to spend twice as much to buy the expensive ones? Bill I don't think it's wise to invest double for another Sub which can be easily called out as a fake anyway. We (and serious collectors) can always tell from the reps... always. So what difference would it really make? They're all good (or bad) enough. And it's impossible to say which one is the best...depends what you like. The old TW models had better case but this one has superior dial and many other details. It's old CN vs. TW debate. Perhaps one day we'll get one that passes the "RWG test" but I doubt it. This is a nice Sub enough to pass as a genuine for 99,9% of the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAHLER Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 An example of my "perfect" sub : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornerstone Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 An example of my "perfect" sub : Excellent! What, no periscope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAHLER Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 @Cornerstone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornerstone Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 @Cornerstone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJGladeRaider Posted July 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 An example of my "perfect" sub : Oh that would be too cool -- "Photoshop?" Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.