Rolex Submariner 16610

[bobswatches]

Ok, thoughts and comments on the rolex 16610 compared to the rolex 116610. i hear the comments from customers and vintage rolex fans all the time and would love to hear some commentary from rolex forum members. Some folks for instance do not like the way the bracelet attaches to the head of the watch on the new ceramic submariner 116610.

[J!m]

I'm a plastic crystal guy, so my comments aren't worth much...

That said, I do covet the Y serial LV 16610...

AND I like the new 116600 Seadweller, which surprised even me when I tried it on.

And the 16610 is so prevalent, I think it is the perfect every day beater watch. No so precious you can't ever wear it, rugged, durable, and rather inexpensive in Rolex terms. Newer and older are both more money generally. I think I'm talking myself into one but I really prefer the maxi dial of the LV model...

Is any of that relevant???

[Etschell]

the 116610 improves the bracelet, clasp and bezel insert / click spring system (now 4 ball bearings).

i would try both on. you cant go wrong either way. i went with the 114060 because i dont need the date complication.

[4vCoupe]

Both models are great. The sub c will have more wrist presence.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by 4vCoupe

Both models are great. The sub c will have more wrist presence.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OP keep in mind that is a 16610lv with the maxi dial and a black insert.

[4vCoupe]

Originally Posted by Etschell

OP keep in mind that is a 16610lv with the maxi dial and a black insert.

Yes, sorry I didn't mention that. Now I really want the Hulk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[asleep]

16610 I think is better for NATO and other non-OEM straps.

116610 bracelet and clasp are excellent, and while I noticed the square vs tapered lugs in pictures I don't ever notice the square shape on my wrist. YMMV

[bobswatches]

great comments guys. here is a side by side comparison of the 116610 and the 16610: please note the difference in the bracelet width where is assembles to the case of the watch. A lot of the negative comments i hear center around this - that the new bracelets are too wide. but there are some major improvements overall to the watch.

[asleep]

Originally Posted by bobswatches

great comments guys. here is a side by side comparison of the 116610 and the 16610: please note the difference in the bracelet width where is assembles to the case of the watch. A lot of the negative comments i hear center around this - that the new bracelets are too wide.

I'm not understanding, where is the 116610 bracelet too wide compared to the 16610?

The outside of the lugs width is wider, the clasp is longer... but the bracelet?

[strafer_kid]

Originally Posted by asleep

16610 I think is better for NATO and other non-OEM straps.

116610 bracelet and clasp are excellent, and while I noticed the square vs tapered lugs in pictures I don't ever notice the square shape on my wrist. YMMV

Would agree - the new Sub lugs do not 'feel' so square on the wrist when compared to pics. Mine is a 114060 just picked up new recently and whilst I have always been a four of five digit model guy, the new one is very nice indeed. 16610 is a good bet in every way though for anyone wanting a solid all rounder at a competitive price!

[Basque1]

I think some people are sort of splitting hairs here, maybe i can't see the difference of how the bracelet fits the case here...

[Rags]

I love my 16610 but I would love the new bracelet for it.

[Jwalker]

Originally Posted by Rags

I love my 16610 but I would love the new bracelet for it.

Me too.