Unpopular Opinion: The Rolex Submariner Is Overrated

I can already hear the pitchforks being sharpened. But hear me out. I've owned a 16610 for six years and a 114060 for three. I've worn them to the office, on holiday, in the pool, at weddings. I've defended them in forum threads and convinced two friends to buy them. And yet, after all that time, I've come to a conclusion that'll probably get me banned from half the watch groups I'm in: the Rolex Submariner is the most overrated watch in modern horology.

Not bad. Not poorly made. Not undeserving of respect. Just overrated. There's a difference.

The Pedestal Problem

The Submariner sits on a pedestal so high that any rational discussion about its actual merits becomes impossible. It's become a cultural symbol first and a watch second. People buy it because it's THE watch, not because they've carefully considered whether it's the best tool watch for their needs, the best £7,000 they could spend, or even the best Rolex for their wrist.

I wore my 114060 to a GTG in Manchester last year, and three people immediately complimented it. Fair enough. But when I asked them what they actually liked about it beyond "it's a Sub", I got vague answers about "presence" and "heritage". Compare that to when someone wears a Grand Seiko or an Omega and people actually engage with the details. The dial finishing. The bracelet quality. The movement decoration.

With the Sub, the conversation often stops at recognition. It's become jewellery that happens to tell time, not a watch that happens to have cultural cachet.

Let's Talk Proportions

The modern Submariner (126610 or even the previous 116610) wears thick. Really thick. At 12.5mm to 13mm, it's a chunky piece on anything smaller than a 7-inch wrist. I've got 6.75-inch wrists, and while I can wear it, it's always there. You feel it. Every shirt cuff is a negotiation.

Rolex could slim this down. The Pelagos 39 from Tudor (same parent company, remember) is 11.8mm thick with 200m water resistance. The Omega Seamaster 300 is 13.1mm but wears slimmer due to case geometry. The Sub's thickness comes partly from the movement (the 3230/3235 is robust but not slim) and partly from design choices that prioritise visual impact over ergonomics.

And sure, you get used to it. But "you get used to it" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement when you're spending eight grand.

The Value Argument Collapsed

Five years ago, you could walk into an AD and buy a no-date Sub for £5,800. Expensive, but defensible. You got Swiss watchmaking at its most refined, a 70-year design legacy, and something you could wear daily for decades.

Today? The 124060 retails for £7,850. But nobody pays retail because you can't get one at retail. You join a list. You buy other watches you don't want to "build a relationship". Or you go grey market and pay £10,500 to £11,500 for a watch with a £7,850 price tag.

At £11,000, the Submariner isn't competing with other tool watches. It's competing with entry-level complications, with vintage Patek, with bespoke independent brands. And in that company, a time-only sports watch with 300m water resistance starts to look a bit thin on substance.

My 16610 cost me £3,200 in 2017. I sold it last year for £8,900. That's brilliant for me as an investment, terrible for the watch as an accessible icon. Rolex has become a speculative asset class, and the Submariner is the flagship of that unfortunate transformation.

The Bracelet: Good, Not Great

Let's address the Glidelock bracelet, because it's one of the Sub's genuine strong points. The system is clever, micro-adjustment without tools is brilliant, and the whole thing feels solid. But. The endlinks still have slight play after a year of wear. The half-links can pinch wrist hair (yes, even with Glidelock adjusted). And the clasp, while secure, is thick and can catch on jacket cuffs.

Compare it to the Omega Seamaster's bracelet with the quick-adjust system, or Grand Seiko's new three-fold clasp, or even the Tudor Pelagos titanium bracelet with its brilliant spring-loaded adjustment. The Rolex is very good. It's not untouchable.

What The Submariner Does Well

I'm not delusional. The Sub is excellent in many ways. The 3230 movement in the no-date is robust, accurate (mine ran +1.5 seconds per day over three years), and has a proper 70-hour power reserve. The ceramic bezel is virtually scratchproof and the lume is bright enough to read in pitch darkness. The case finishing, while not Grand Seiko-level, is very consistent across thousands of units.

And the design is genuinely iconic. There's a reason it's been copied by everyone from Seiko to Steinhart. The proportions of the dial, the Mercedes hands, the fat lugs, they all work together. It's not just hype. There's substance underneath.

But here's the thing: doing everything well doesn't mean you're the best at anything. The Sub is a very good all-rounder. So is a Toyota Camry. That doesn't make it the ultimate driving machine.

Better Alternatives Nobody Talks About

For £11,000 grey-market money, you could get an Omega Seamaster 300M and a Grand Seiko SBGH267 and have change left over. You'd have a proper dive watch and a dress sports watch, both from legitimate manufacture brands, both finishing at or above the Sub's level.

Or spend the same £11,000 on a Blancpain Fifty Fathoms Bathyscaphe and get better finishing, in-house movement, and actual dive-watch innovation instead of refinement of a 1950s design.

Or get a Tudor Pelagos 39 for £3,400 and put the remaining £7,600 towards literally anything else. A proper holiday. A vintage Speedmaster. Twelve Seiko 5s. I don't know, burn it in your garden. You'll get more satisfaction per pound than struggling to find a Sub at retail.

The Uncomfortable Truth

The Rolex Submariner is bought by many people as a status symbol who wouldn't recognise a column wheel if it hit them in the face. And that's fine. Watches have always been jewellery. But let's not pretend it's purely about the watchmaking when the same crowd wouldn't consider an equally well-made Omega or Grand Seiko because those don't have the crown logo.

I've met guys wearing Subs who don't know the difference between automatic and quartz. Who think water resistance is just a number. Who bought it because their boss wears one. And again, that's their choice. But it skews the entire conversation about the watch's actual merits.

The Submariner has become the watch equivalent of a Hermès Birkin bag. Beautifully made, yes. Deservedly expensive, perhaps. But the price and desirability have detached from the object itself and entered pure status-symbol territory.

Where I Land

If you can walk into an AD tomorrow and buy a Submariner at retail, it's a solid choice. Not the only choice, not necessarily the best choice, but a genuinely good watch that'll serve you well for decades. The problem is you can't do that. And in the real world of waitlists and markups, the Submariner asks too much and delivers too little.

It's a very good watch that's been elevated to mythical status by marketing, scarcity, and cultural momentum. Overrated doesn't mean bad. It just means the gap between reputation and reality has grown too wide to ignore.

I still wear my 114060 sometimes. It's a lovely thing. But it's not the pinnacle of modern watchmaking, and we should stop pretending it is just because James Bond wore one in 1962.