The big debate

[yourule40]

Alright guys, which do you guys think is superior, vintage or modern line Rolex's?

[Syed117]

Vintage for aesthetics.

Modern for advancements.

Give me a red 1680 made with today's advancements like modern bracelets and clasps, but with vintage case sizing, lugs, and dial.

[Juantxo]

Modern. Technology, materials, standards.

[Danny83]

Originally Posted by yourule40

Alright guys, which do you guys think is superior, vintage or modern line Rolex's?

Long time no see Chris ....depends what model?

[sinncollector]

vintage for styling

modern for materials, technology and maybe durability?

[masyv6]

Modern! Sorry vintage lovers, but if the vintage watches were superior, they wouldn't have stopped making them.

*runs for cover*

[Chadridv]

depends on the watch really.

Style is 100% subjective.

As far as innovations and technology is concerned, modern models are superior.

[kilyung]

I don't see a debate. Two very different types of watches. Room for both in any collection.

[speedmaster73]

what you like better is a better question as obviously modern Rolex are 'superior'...

I wish Rolex would have stayed true to the SUBMARINER lineup like Omega did with the Speedmaster Professional...meaning that one version of the submariner should have the aluminum bezel, old tin bracelet etc...they could still have their 'modern' submariners as well

Theres many speedmasters but only one speedmaster Professional

Rolex should consider this

[watchwatcher]

Plenty of love on here for both...and rightly so.

The modern line is more 'wearable', IMO, with the more adjustable bracelets (fewer permanent links) and clasps.

But, for sheer sex appeal, the vintage line has a charm that will most likely never be duplicated.

[SemperFi]

Modern only for me.

[AK797]

Modern for now, when I'm older these will be the vintage and the vintages will be the ancients.

[yourule40]

Which modern/vintage models are your favorites?

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by yourule40

Which modern/vintage models are your favorites?

VINTAGE: Explorer 1016



MODERN: Submariner 16610

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I don't see a debate. Two very different types of watches. Room for both in any collection.

[Sublovin]

Well, if you're speaking of superior as far as build and quality, obviously modern is the answer or the Rolex design and development team has a lot of explaining to do.
Some may prefer vintage purely for style and aesthetics, but it would be tough to argue that they are "superior"

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I don't see a debate. Two very different types of watches. Room for both in any collection.

X2 👍🏻


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dysondiver]

no manufacturer purposely says , lets build a new product , and see if we can make it worse .
if things didnt improve they wouldnt keep changing things .. so new is better.
whether or not you like the aesthetics i guess thats just personal taste.

[Snow-Dweller]

Modern. By a long way.

How you doing Chris? I'll let you know when I'm coming to SF.

[crowncollection]

they are two different animals imho

[smallcandle]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I don't see a debate. Two very different types of watches. Room for both in any collection.

Totally agree...

[Robb]

Im a modern guy

[Bluside]

Modern with warranty (if possible).

[Viffer]

Each of them are of it's time, nothing to do with superiority.Be grateful for the wide range available to choose from.
As mentioned, no debate.

[Peterandwatches]

In my heart, I prefer vintage, but I always buy modern.

Too many expensive pieces and pitfalls in the vintage market for a novice like myself.

[lostis4d]

The thin bezel on the vintage Daytona > the new wider bezels