Do any of you own BOTH the 16600 and 16610? Which do you prefer and why?

[FrankCastello]

Are these two models differentiated enough to warrant owning both? Am I the only one here nuts enough to even consider this?

[emersm]

I went with the 16600 and could not be happier!

[IR201]

If you want to talk nuts, I had the 16610, 16600, and 14060m at the same time. Then traded them all. Have since bought back the 16610 and 14060m. Am now considering re-acquiring the 16600.

In my experience/opinion, the 16610 wears the best/most comfortable. However, the substance (height) of the 16600 is a nice feeling, as is feeling different from the masses in having picked a SD. The 16600 actually looks best on my 6.5 inch wrist of all of them.

[Jeanf]

I have the 14060, 16610 and 16600. They are all great watches but prefer the 16600 as bulkier (in a good manner), sits higher on the wrist, heavier and not as common as the 2 others.

[russ86]

I picked up 16600T few years ago and absolutely love it. I got it because it doesn't have the cyclops window mainly and later on I also acquired 116660 mainly because again no cyclops window.

[Vishy26]

Have both. Prefer 16600 but not comfortable to wear. 16610 is better in that department

[Tzachi]

Originally Posted by IR201

If you want to talk nuts, I had the 16610, 16600, and 14060m at the same time. Then traded them all. Have since bought back the 16610 and 14060m. Am now considering re-acquiring the 16600.

In my experience/opinion, the 16610 wears the best/most comfortable. However, the substance (height) of the 16600 is a nice feeling, as is feeling different from the masses in having picked a SD. The 16600 actually looks best on my 6.5 inch wrist of all of them.

Own all of them AND 116600 and a Deepsea.

The 16600 and deepsea are the most worn ones, the form factor of a SD or DSSD and the feel are second to none . The 16610 feels like a Daytona in comparison, low, light, but something is missing.

6.5 wrist too

[Luv rolex]

In the past i owned the 16610 lv and the 16600 and i remeber i prefered the seadweller mainly because of the proportion of the case

[rmwill]

I have a 16600, but also plan on picking up a 16610 when the right watch comes along.

[IR201]

Originally Posted by Tzachi

Own all of them AND 116600 and a Deepsea.

The 16600 and deepsea are the most worn ones, the form factor of a SD or DSSD and the feel are second to none . The 16610 feels like a Daytona in comparison, low, light, but something is missing.

6.5 wrist too

I’ve had all those also and agree, though I’d say the 14060m sits so flat it makes the 16610 feel beefier by comp. All relative I guess. I moved the 116600 and SD 43 on cus the protruding caseback was giving me some discomfort. Otherwise I’d still have them. The DSSD I wish I’d kept. Might get the new iteration if I can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

This was part of my very first Rolex journey …. Ultimately I decided on the 16600.

I wore that watch for about 16 years before I stupidly traded it in

[Chester01]

I have the 16610 and would not consider another as its really too similar for my taste that is. Now, the choice was made for me as my 16610 was gifted to me back in like 1998.

That said, the SD is larger and heavier and for me, who actually uses the watch to live in rather than an investment; the extra heft of the watch flopping around playing tennis, golf, baseball, basketball, cycling is not an advantage. The sub is more versatile due to its proportions and lack of heft. Many get the SD to be different or like to think they are going against the grain (they are not as it looks from about 1 foot away identical to a sub) but unless one is actually using for saturation diving or some such thing, there is no advantage and only downside to the SD. Not a SD hater, but its not as versatile but too close to justify owning both in my opinion.

[Gerry62]

Having had both multiple times, only 16600T will remain with me

[Jmbarrack]

Owned both and prefered the look and wear of the 16600. It's slightly narrower across the round of the case. Wears really well.

[Lamontsanders]

Not quite the answer but I have the 16800 and 16660. I prefer the 16660.

[IR201]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I have the 16610 and would not consider another as its really too similar for my taste that is. Now, the choice was made for me as my 16610 was gifted to me back in like 1998.

That said, the SD is larger and heavier and for me, who actually uses the watch to live in rather than an investment; the extra heft of the watch flopping around playing tennis, golf, baseball, basketball, cycling is not an advantage. The sub is more versatile due to its proportions and lack of heft. Many get the SD to be different or like to think they are going against the grain (they are not as it looks from about 1 foot away identical to a sub) but unless one is actually using for saturation diving or some such thing, there is no advantage and only downside to the SD. Not a SD hater, but its not as versatile but too close to justify owning both in my opinion.

Honestly I agree 100 percent. I believe the 16610 is the perfect watch. I don’t want to but I do. It’s annoying that it is so common so copied so recognized. It gives the impression I’ve put zero thought into my choice. That I am another sheep. So I’ll try to be different. No date, SD etc. But really it’s that version of me that is the inauthentic one. Not the 16610 wearing one. After trying them all, it is the best - for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by IR201

Honestly I agree 100 percent. I believe the 16610 is the perfect watch. I don’t want to but I do. It’s annoying that it is so common so copied so recognized. It gives the impression I’ve put zero thought into my choice. That I am another sheep. So I’ll try to be different. No date, SD etc. But really it’s that version of me that is the inauthentic one. Not the 16610 wearing one. After trying them all, it is the best - for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I struggle with the ubiquity of the watch as well. I mean for me, i was a kid and had no idea of what Rolex really was or the status aspect. Back then I remember seeing them in the malls, and would go in and something drew me to the design, and the decision was made for me in some way because mine was a gift.

However, if one wants to go against the grain, there are other watches for that. For example, I have the 16610, but also a seiko h558. Other than on the forum here, never seen one of those in the wild, not since the 80’s anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IR201]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I struggle with the ubiquity of the watch as well. I mean for me, i was a kid and had no idea of what Rolex really was or the status aspect. Back then I remember seeing them in the malls, and would go in and something drew me to the design, and the decision was made for me in some way because mine was a gift.

However, if one wants to go against the grain, there are other watches for that. For example, I have the 16610, but also a seiko h558. Other than on the forum here, never seen one of those in the wild, not since the 80’s anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting perspective, you’re absolutely right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyboy123]

I love Rolex, but I sometimes wish we had more pictures than references. Google will be my friend.

[Devildog]

I traded my old 16610 for a 16600. Sold that, but recently reacquired.

For me (and it is of course a vey personal preference) the 16600 is hands down the better watch.

Thicker (deeper) bezel, thicker crystal, polished bracelet sides, and IMO better proportions with the lightly smaller dial. The extra depth rating & HEV is of no practical value to me but it makes the watch more special.

I don't see the point in having both, because the 16600 makes the 16610 redundant for me.

[direwolf]

I will echo others’ opinions. I have had the opportunity to wear many of the 5digit and 6 digit models; the 16610 is simply the best overall watch imo on multiple levels. I think it would be cool to have both if possible, but I find the protruding caseback of the Sea Dwellers to be a bit more uncomfortable if you are actually engaged in sports while wearing. That said I think the 16600 and 16610 are the pinnacle of Rolex watches in many ways. I have tried so hard to love the ceramic divers and ironically I find them to be less useful when boating, fishing, surfing, and snorkeling primarily due to their weight and overall bulkiness.

[Joearch]

Own both. The 16600 gets much more wrist time. Like the case size and no date window.

[freynolds]

Hey guys - new to the forum. Can I consult your expertise, please? I just picked up a GlideLock clasp at a super reasonable price, and would love to know if it will fit the original bracelet on my 16600? I believe it's a GlideLock from a 116600. Any joy??