like to share this interesting comparison
since I have both of them, I love both of them.... for now
I have to admit a bit of trepidation in posting review comparisons. Both references have their champions and both come from storied marques. To say one is "better" overall than the other invites a biase on the part of the reviewer that is tough to eliminate.
Secondly a watch of the calibre both models represent is an emotional journey as much as a financial journey.
Rather than get into all that my approach is to try to explore the concept upon which both references can arguably be baised--that of the "tool watch" concept.
Comming from a Military and Law Enforcement background I've had the occassion to wear watches in what can be described as less than ideal conditions. Indeed my first watch was a Rolex 1675. That watch and I built a long history and now (along with a few of it's siblings) rests in semi-retirement in a special place in my watch box.
With that let's look at the contenders.
The Rolex Submariner date.
Perhaps no watch is more recognizable than Rolex's iconic diver. From the battlefield, to space, to the ocean's deep, and the silver screen, the Sub has been there. It remains the flagship of the Rolex Professional line.
With it's upgraded case size, ceramic insert, and maxi-dial the Sub is ready to carry on in it's proud tradition.
The Ball Hydrocarbon Ceramic XV.
A new release. The XV represents arguably a step up in the Hydrocarbon series. The concentric ring dial, ceramic insert, and polished centerlinks of the bracelet give it a "movie star" look. Don't be fooled. Underneath beats the heart of a Lion.
It's side by side we start to see the personality each has.
I've never thought of the Submariner as a small watch--it isn't. However next to the Hydro we see the steps Ball went to in an effort to build a watch that was as at home in boardroom as in a hostile enviornment.
Massive lugs and screws attaching the bracelet lend to perception that Ball built a watch ready to withstand abuse.
Again we can see the strength in the size of the endlinks.
Both use a 120 click uni-directional bezel with Rolex employing the traditional coin edge where as Ball's approach is more of vertical edges. Both work amazingly well whether with wet or gloved hands.
It's is noteworthy the as to feel the Rolex is so smooth one wonders if it's easily bumped (it isn't) where as Ball's bezel has the more traditional "ratching" feel.
Ball, as is their custom, decorates the caseback while the Rolex is plain.
It's in the clasp design we see a couple different approaches.
The Rolex uses it's new glidelock system (which is amazing) where as Ball employes a depoyant system with dive extensions in either side of the clasp.
Personally I like both. I know some feel the use of a depoyant cuts into their wrist. I've not experienced that though I do wish there was a micro adjustment in the clasp.
Here we can see how they look in place.
Both give protection to the crown which arguably is a weak point in any watch, but Ball's approach is massive.
They say the Devil is in the details and one detail that jumped at me is the reaut of each reference. Rolex chose to engrave the famous (infamous" ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX while Ball gave us a sub minute counter ring. Such can have use if employing the bezel for another timming issue--nice touch.
As with any watch designed to experience the rougher side of life the ability to read the time in less than ideal conditions is important--if not critical.
Rolex, in tha past, has been critized for less than steller lume. The Chromalite solution along with the larger surface area of the maix dial indices certainly has helped. It does glow (and brightly). It has better longetivity than it's predecessors, but still must be "charged".
Ball, of course, has "the tubes"--and bright ones at that. PLUS an insert with superluminova that just jumps gives it such a clear advantage, especially over the long term it's not a contest.
This photo was taken after I took each watch from it's pouch without the benefit of charging. (OK I was wearing the Deepquest when I did this).
I'm not going to get into movements save to say the Rolex 3135 is a legendary preformer. Likewise the eta 2892 is a workhorse movment. Comparisond of the two exist all over the place done by much better people than me.
Suffice it to say my examples are accurate in the extreme.
Now,....the question.
Which do I prefer?
Well,..given the quality each piece brings the question becomes one of which is best for it's intended purpose.
My vote baised on quality, ruggness, attention to detail, and giving me every advantage possible,
"Accuracy under Adverse Conditions"
