Which Sub you prefer? 16610 LN vs 116610LN

[myporsche]

Get the 6 digit, as much history as the 5s have along with the respect I have for them, the 6 digit iteration has vast improvements. I remember the 5 to 6 digit transition was one of the best set of improvements and features I have ever seen on a consumer product, it made the 6 digit sub pretty much a perfect watch that would make it almost impossible to improve.

[Woody]

I would probably stick with what you have......you could then use the cash you have saved to go on a holiday

[padi56]

Originally Posted by s.m.b.

Yeah, you don't want to let go of that rare 16610...

Rare the 16610 was made in there 10s of thousands and changed very little since introduction in 1988.Main changes the change from Tritium lume around 1998 to Luminover,introduction SEL around 2000,non lug hole case around 2003/4 and some minor escapement part changes end of the run and thats it.Apart from the case serials basically all the same and perhaps a million of them in this world today.

[brandrea]

I’m a 6 digit guy, but I can see why some prefer the 5 digit references.

If you have an opportunity, try the 6 digit first to see how it fits your wrist. YMMV

[dr35mm]

Glidelock has me spoiled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rolex.c6]

I would go for the 6-digit. mostly because of, as stated several times above, the improvements on the bracelet and clasp.

[Chilly Coconut]

Originally Posted by padi56

Rare the 16610 was made in there 10s of thousands and changed very little since introduction in 1988.Main changes the change from Tritium lume around 1998 to Luminover,introduction SEL around 2000,non lug hole case around 2003/4 and some minor escapement part changes end of the run and thats it.Apart from the case serials basically all the same and perhaps a million of them in this world today.

Dude, your sarcasm meter is flat busted. What you just typed in tedious longhand....that was exactly his point, only in witty shorthand.

[s.m.b.]

Originally Posted by Chilly Coconut

Dude, your sarcasm meter is flat busted. What you just typed in tedious longhand....that was exactly his point, only in witty shorthand.

[Loevhagen]

Neither. I prefer the comprise; a 16610LV with black insert gets you the "right" case profile with the maxi dial.

[mbdurham]

I went through this dilemma recently when purchasing my sub and ultimately chose the 6 digit for all of the advancement previously mentioned although I like the look and heritage of the 5 digit. If you are the original owner of the 5 digit I wouldn’t get rid of it as that is something you can’t get again. If you are not the original owner I’d make the switch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Gerry62]

116610

[inadeje]

I think that the 16610 is the connoisseurs sub. The new one has no cred

[Cru Jones]

From technical specs to design, 116610LN for me.

But, since you’re the original owner, I’d keep your 16610LN and add a 116610LV.

[blacke90]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

From technical specs to design, 116610LN for me.

But, since you’re the original owner, I’d keep your 16610LN and add a 116610LV.

Did he say he's the original owner?

I would go for the 6 digit Sub. Technically speaking your 6 digit sub will be a Vintage in the future as Rolex will keep on updating the Sub.

[nikesupremedunk]

If I had to choose one to buy it’ll be the 6 digit but since you already have the 5 digit this makes it tough. I can’t comment since I’ve never had a 5 digit sub but the 6 digit is what I expect a Rolex to feel like. It feels meaty and has a nice heft that makes it feel far more luxurious than the older model. But if you trade, you might miss the older sub down the road. The best solution is to add a hulk that way you have 2 very different watches.

[DoctorA]

Originally Posted by superstarmar

If you have a 2010 16610 one of the last
Mighty 5 digits it might behoove you to hold on to it ...
116610 Dime a dozen ...

I’ll give you $1 and you get me 120 SubC

[juktagt]

I vote 5 digit. 16610 for me.

[jps3b]

Originally Posted by superstarmar

If you have a 2010 16610 one of the last

Mighty 5 digits it might behoove you to hold on to it ...

116610 Dime a dozen ...

Yes. This. Don’t sell/trade it. It was one of the very last models of that reference. Mine is from 1997. I’m looking at a NOS 16618lb with stickers. I love the case size so much better. But the ceramic bezel and clasp are really nice on the six digits

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by s.m.b.

Yeah, you don't want to let go of that rare 16610...

Originally Posted by superstarmar

Lol, I know what you mean but if OP has a random
serial 16610, there’s not that many around ...

Originally Posted by DoctorA

I’ll give you $1 and you get me 120 SubC

16610 as a whole, dime a dozen... obviously not rare...
16610 random serial full set not so much.

If it's not a random serial or engraved rehaut set then
I agree 116610... Clasp could be swapped out for a glidelock
too...

[mosanman]

For a smaller wrist, 16610!

I have same size wrists as yours, and went from 116610ln to 16610ln and haven't looked back. The SubC looked too boxy on my skinny wrists.

Best advice is to try it on first.

[0ptimus_1]

16610, especially if you like to wear them loose.

[dafuture]

I personally prefer the look of the 116610. The 5 digit model just doesn't do it for me.

[crazycarlitos]

I prefer the maxi dial of the 116610, as well as the improved clasp... but I just can’t get over the square lugs of the super case.

16610 wins for me with it’s lovely shape.

[SconnieBT]

Originally Posted by waikeekee

In my humble opinion. The 6 digit version wins. The Glidelock clasp is an engineering marvel. With a small wrist, it is more balance. My wife, she is wearing my 116610LN now. The watch is sized to the minimum. Not including the SEL, she wears 4-link & 3-link on the 12 & 6 o’clock sides respectively.

That’s why I have 3. Gotta love the Glidelock.



I have a 16570 EXPII Polar. She liked it but for her small wrist, even when you minimize the bracelet, it does not fit her. Ironically, the new 116610 fits perfectly for those with small wrist. For her to wear the 5-digit, we have to break one permanent link or wear it on a RubberB rubber strap.



The above is just me. If you fell sentimental about your 16610LN, you should keep it. Rolex are made to last a lifetime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I apologize for hijacking the thread, but your post really interests me. You talk about the minimum bracelet sizing on a 6digit bracelet. I'm assuming you were talking about when your wife wears it. How big is her wrist?

I have slim wrists at 6.5 inches, but I'm worried about how the large diver clasp would fit on my wrist.

My 16570 clasp is centered on my wrist, but it is shorter than the diver clasp, so if I did have a diver clasp I feel like it would be off center. Now on the 6 o'clock side of my 16570 I am as short as it will go, and on the 12 o'clock side I have one link to spare.

So are the new 6 digit bracelets different? Allowing me to take out more links than the 5 digit bracelets?

How do you think the 6 digit bracelets work on a small wrist (6.5")? Thanks in advance.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[tbjerm]

116610LN. Thicker lugs are better proportioned to the dial.

[TimingIsEverything]

6 digit is my favorite.

[waikeekee]

Originally Posted by SconnieBT

I'm assuming you were talking about when your wife wears it. How big is her wrist?

So are the new 6 digit bracelets different? Allowing me to take out more links than the 5 digit bracelets?

How do you think the 6 digit bracelets work on a small wrist (6.5")? Thanks in advance.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Having a 6.5” wrist is not small. In fact it is very normal. My wrist used to be 6.5” too until I gained 30 pounds and now my wrist is 7.25”

My wife’s wrist, the last time I measured it, is 6” or 150MM. She wears a Panerai as well so measured it to order straps. The bottom is her. She is wearing a 40MM Panerai whereas I am wearing a 47 Panerai. Notice the lugs protruding?



The new bracelet (78200 - I think) is definitely much better than the one on their 5-digit. The smallest it can go is 4/3 links which is a perfect fit for my wife’s small wrist.



Hope the pictures helped and I have answered your questions.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SconnieBT]

Originally Posted by waikeekee

Having a 6.5” wrist is not small. In fact it is very normal. My wrist used to be 6.5” too until I gained 30 pounds and now my wrist is 7.25”

My wife’s wrist, the last time I measured it, is 6” or 150MM. She wears a Panerai as well so measured it to order straps. The bottom is her. She is wearing a 40MM Panerai whereas I am wearing a 47 Panerai. Notice the lugs protruding?



The new bracelet (78200 - I think) is definitely much better than the one on their 5-digit. The smallest it can go is 4/3 links which is a perfect fit for my wife’s small wrist.



Hope the pictures helped and I have answered your questions.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

yup, thank you sir.

Sent from my Google Pixelbook using Tapatalk