5-series Rolexes vs newer ones...

[worldofoyster]

Prefer the modern Rolex

[Texasjim]

Like them both for different reasons (sports models). I usually find a 4/5 series on my wrist though.

[codecow]

They’re ok. I’m never selling mine.

[CFR]

I appreciate and own 4-, 5- , and 6-digit models, so I don't have any confirmation bias towards any of one of those series. They're simply different from each other.

Put yourself in the shoes of Rolex. Why did they move from making the 4- to the 5-digit models, and then from the 5- to the 6-digit models? Was it because of some systemic problems with the watches failing all the time (during wars, flights, dives, etc.)?

No, not at all. Their watches have generally always been robust. The decision to make the 6-digit models bigger and heavier than their 5-digit predecessors was a marketing decision -- a solution in search of problem.

So those who say that later generations of Rolex watches are more robust, durable, reliable, etc., than previous generations in typical daily use are making that up. They're conflating thicker and heavier with more robust/durable/reliable.

And the current (6-digit) models need to have more adjustability in their clasps, etc., because they're heavier, and heavier equals more noticeable for the wearer. That's not necessarily a good thing all the time. Wearing a 126660 DSSD doesn't feel better, or like I'm wearing a more durable/reliable watch, than wearing a 1680 Sub that was made 50 years earlier, or a 16710 GMT made 20 years earlier. Different? Yes. Better? Not really.

Also, we still don't know about the longer-term performance of certain 6-digit models because they're relatively new, and we've certainly heard concerns about some of the newest movements (I've had personal experience with that).

Lastly, I'm not dismissing certain clear improvements. For example, using ceramic sleeves in various newer bracelets to reduce the "stretch" effect is a practical, observable improvement.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by CFR

I appreciate and own 4-, 5- , and 6-digit models, so I don't have any confirmation bias towards any of one of those series. They're simply different from each other.

Put yourself in the shoes of Rolex. Why did they move from making the 4- to the 5-digit models, and then from the 5- to the 6-digit models? Was it because of some systemic problems with the watches failing all the time (during wars, flights, dives, etc.)?

No, not at all. Their watches have generally always been robust. The decision to make the 6-digit models bigger and heavier than their 5-digit predecessors was a marketing decision -- a solution in search of problem.

So those who say that later generations of Rolex watches are more robust, durable, reliable, etc., than previous generations in typical daily use are making that up. They're conflating thicker and heavier with more robust/durable/reliable.

And the current (6-digit) models need to have more adjustability in their clasps, etc., because they're heavier, and heavier equals more noticeable for the wearer. That's not necessarily a good thing all the time. Wearing a 126660 DSSD doesn't feel better, or like I'm wearing a more durable/reliable watch, than wearing a 1680 Sub that was made 50 years earlier, or a 16710 GMT made 20 years earlier. Different? Yes. Better? Not really.

Also, we still don't know about the longer-term performance of certain 6-digit models because they're relatively new, and we've certainly heard concerns about some of the newest movements (I've had personal experience with that).

Lastly, I'm not dismissing certain clear improvements. For example, using ceramic sleeves in various newer bracelets to reduce the "stretch" effect is a practical, observable improvement.

Bracelets are undeniably stronger and better. You’re not going to significantly stretch a 6 digit jubilee bracelet. You can look at a 1601’s jubilee bracelet and it could be a near right angle. That’s never going to happen again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CFR]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

Bracelets are undeniably stronger and better. You’re not going to significantly stretch a 6 digit jubilee bracelet. You can look at a 1601’s jubilee bracelet and it could be a near right angle. That’s never going to happen again.

Definitely. Rolex made a clear improvement to reduce or prevent stretch, and of course they made other improvements as well.

I'd respectfully suggest that it's too early to say anything conclusive about the separate but related question of long-term performance of the current bracelets vs. the older bracelets. That's just because we can't predict the future. Stretch in the older bracelets was never an issue until years into ownership, and then only with frequent wear. Similarly, none of us knows right now which bracelet or clasp components on our 6-digit models might commonly start to "fail" 20 years from now (I put "fail" in quotes because stretch isn't a catastrophic issue in the same way that having a pin or screw come out is).

The question of bracelet strength is an interesting one. Although it'd be an expensive test, I figured that by now, someone would've posted a video testing the strength of various old and new Rolex bracelets, say by comparing how much force it takes to pull apart the links on one bracelet vs. another. That'd be fun to watch, especially if clasps were attached too, to see what component fails first. I'd especially like to see how something like the 93150 performs relative to the current bracelets. I couldn't find anything, though.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by CFR

Definitely. Rolex made a clear improvement to reduce or prevent stretch, and of course they made other improvements as well.

I'd respectfully suggest that it's too early to say anything conclusive about the separate but related question of long-term performance of the current bracelets vs. the older bracelets. That's just because we can't predict the future. Stretch in the older bracelets was never an issue until years into ownership, and then only with frequent wear. Similarly, none of us knows right now which bracelet or clasp components on our 6-digit models might commonly start to "fail" 20 years from now (I put "fail" in quotes because stretch isn't a catastrophic issue in the same way that having a pin or screw come out is).

The question of bracelet strength is an interesting one. Although it'd be an expensive test, I figured that by now, someone would've posted a video testing the strength of various old and new Rolex bracelets, say by comparing how much force it takes to pull apart the links on one bracelet vs. another. That'd be fun to watch, especially if clasps were attached too, to see what component fails first. I'd especially like to see how something like the 93150 performs relative to the current bracelets. I couldn't find anything, though.

Time is a fair point. We do need more time with the 6 digits. We also may not ever see the level of wear we used to. I wear a sub or an explorer. I’ll never go deeper than a bath tub, i don’t like the ocean, i am not a huge fan of hiking or getting dirty .

The 93150, for as flimsy as that clasp can feel at times, its rock solid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jamesbondOO7]

This is 25 years of heavy duty daily wear (my first Rolex that I wore everyday until I bought a 16570). Good stuff I’d say.

[Toptimes]

The transition from Rolex 5-digit series to 6-digit series has indeed brought about advancements in technology and materials, which are often appreciated by enthusiasts and collectors.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Toptimes

The transition from Rolex 5-digit series to 6-digit series has indeed brought about advancements in technology and materials, which are often appreciated by enthusiasts and collectors.

Robot says what?

[phillyEagles]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

Robot says what?

Lmbo!

[fishingbear]

It’s these threads that make TRF so enjoyable. While there are many “upgrades” with the 6 digit references, the 5 digit sport references are special and classic.
IMO Rolex was genius in that room for both in a collection is a great thing because of the differences.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by fishingbear

It’s these threads that make TRF so enjoyable. While there are many “upgrades” with the 6 digit references, the 5 digit sport references are special and classic.
IMO Rolex was genius in that room for both in a collection is a great thing because of the differences.

This, exactly. It’s the differences within a collection that make it interesting, not the similarities.

[rmagoo57]

Originally Posted by fishingbear

It’s these threads that make TRF so enjoyable. While there are many “upgrades” with the 6 digit references, the 5 digit sport references are special and classic.
IMO Rolex was genius in that room for both in a collection is a great thing because of the differences.

Great looking handful of watches!!

[Curated]

5 digits were peak Rolex, durable, perfect size, sleek and lightweight. My 16610 is basically my beater, worn doing anything and everything.

[watchwatcher]

For me, the practical advantages of the 6 digits are in the bracelet and the clasp, both being more adjustable- fewer permanent links in the bracelet and easy link/glide lock- in the 6 digit series. Makes for a more wearable watch.

Also, the aesthetics of the so-called 'tuna can' clasp are just not up to the standard of a watch of this caliber, IMO.

Speaking of aesthetics, though, let's start by turning the watch over and looking at the bezel and dial. That's where the beauty and charm of the 5 digits more than hold their own with their newer counterparts, the Pepsi in particular. Again my opinion only, the colors on the ceramic are never going to match the striking visual impact of the red and blue found on the 5 (and even 4) digit models.

So it all boils down to this...nothing is perfect. You just have to pick your poison. As far as whatever the future holds, well, I guess that is going to be determined by whatever future collectors hold to be more important. Given the popularity of the 5 digits on this forum, which I consider to be the most knowledgeable and informed on the internet, I would say it's a pretty safe bet their place in history is secure.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by watchwatcher

For me, the practical advantages of the 6 digits are in the bracelet and the clasp, both being more adjustable- fewer permanent links in the bracelet and easy link/glide lock- in the 6 digit series. Makes for a more wearable watch.

Also, the aesthetics of the so-called 'tuna can' clasp are just not up to the standard of a watch of this caliber, IMO.

Speaking of aesthetics, though, let's start by turning the watch over and looking at the bezel and dial. That's where the beauty and charm of the 5 digits more than hold their own with their newer counterparts, the Pepsi in particular. Again my opinion only, the colors on the ceramic are never going to match the striking visual impact of the red and blue found on the 5 (and even 4) digit models.

So it all boils down to this...nothing is perfect. You just have to pick your poison. As far as whatever the future holds, well, I guess that is going to be determined by whatever future collectors hold to be more important. Given the popularity of the 5 digits on this forum, which I consider to be the most knowledgeable and informed on the internet, I would say it's a pretty safe bet their place in history is secure.

That’s really well said Larry

[orangespicy]

The 5-digit proportions were just perfect.. I have small wrists though, lol. But I do wish there was a newer model Rolex introduced to cater to that crowd. Like how Tudor released the BB58.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by orangespicy

The 5-digit proportions were just perfect.. I have small wrists though, lol. But I do wish there was a newer model Rolex introduced to cater to that crowd. Like how Tudor released the BB58.

124270 jumps to mind. Arguably better proportions than the 114270. With that design and the 36mm case, it's the closest thing Rolex has to Omega's Speedy Pro.

And of course, the 36mm DJs or OPs.

[orangespicy]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

124270 jumps to mind. Arguably better proportions than the 114270. With that design and the 36mm case, it's the closest thing Rolex has to Omega's Speedy Pro.

And of course, the 36mm DJs or OPs.

I did consider that one, although it's a bit too simple and plain for me (also no date..)! Same with OP. I may try out a DJ.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by orangespicy

I did consider that one, although it's a bit too simple and plain for me (also no date..)! Same with OP. I may try out a DJ.

The aesthetic proportions of the DJ are lovely, but on wrist they wear a bit smaller than back in the 5 digit days, gives a more jewelry vibe consistent with the modern Rolex, I guess. I think the old 5-digit domed/oyster combo was downright toolish, esp with the brushed bracelet. Could be my favorite DJ config of all time, so there's another instance where I think 5 digit was better, haha.

Like you mentioned, I think Tudor might be the ultimate answer here. There are some members here that sold their Rolexes in favor of Tudor primarily because of the more vintage proportions they offer now.

I think the drawback (that you may agree with since you seem to want a date function) is those proportions for now seem to be limited to the BB58/54 line as most of their other sports watches remained a bit too thick/big overall.

I am hoping the BB58 GMT solves this "problem", and I have one on order. I will reserve judgment until I get one on wrist and use it for a while. But I think that and the BB54 I already have may pose the question of whether any modern Rolex makes sense for a guy like me, who favors the 5 digit proportions, look, and feel but wants some of the more modern watch features like quick microadjust (T-Fit now solves this) and more modern movements.

[csaltphoto]

Lots of interesting points made here. I prefer the 5's. I hate the look of the ceramic and the blockier cases. I think the 5's are a more "livable" watch. Easy to wear and not as flashy.

One poster made the point that when Rolex moved to stiffer, heavier bracelets they introduced a new problem and that was comfort. The 5-digit bracelets have some give to them. I actually think they put a lot of thought into the design. They are oddly "grippy" too; a quality I attribute to slight flex of the links that means they are less likely to slide around when worn comfort loose. The rigidity of the 6 digit bracelets works against this; with no "give" the edges are constantly pressing into your skin if you elevate or hang your arm instead of slightly rotating away as the 5 digit links do. The slight flex of the 5 digit bracelets mean the full surface area of the link is always pressing on your skin no matter the position of your arm.

As far as durability it's a toss up. The newer bracelets may mitigate "stretch" but it's not the steel actually stretching but the pins bending and wearing out the holes and embedded grit also wearing out the holes. The bearing surfaces are the same. Durability of the cases are the same but the crown guards are actually too short now to really be functional.

I don't like the new clasp on the dive models but admit it's way more functional. The old dive extension was terrible but I prefer the aesthetic of the clasp. It's too bad they couldn't have met somewhere in the middle. The dive clasps are both too large yet don't provide sufficient adjustment to fit over a thick wetsuit or drysuit. Tudor has the best solution with the smaller
t-fit clasp and folding dive extension.

[PepsiBezel]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

…

One poster made the point that when Rolex moved to stiffer, heavier bracelets they introduced a new problem and that was comfort. The 5-digit bracelets have some give to them. I actually think they put a lot of thought into the design. They are oddly "grippy" too; a quality I attribute to slight flex of the links that means they are less likely to slide around when worn comfort loose. The rigidity of the 6 digit bracelets works against this; with no "give" the edges are constantly pressing into your skin if you elevate or hang your arm instead of slightly rotating away as the 5 digit links do. The slight flex of the 5 digit bracelets mean the full surface area of the link is always pressing on your skin no matter the position of your arm.

Well-explained write-up. This is why I prefer the 5 digit bracelets over the 6. And, for me, the clasps, as simple as they may be, are ~1mm or more thinner, which helps a lot when typing on a key board or just not rubbing the clasp on things.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by PepsiBezel

Well-explained write-up. This is why I prefer the 5 digit bracelets over the 6. And, for me, the clasps, as simple as they may be, are ~1mm or more thinner, which helps a lot when typing on a key board or just not rubbing the clasp on things.

Plus the brushed finish and "faux link stamping" helped the clasp look better for longer.

[CFR]

Originally Posted by PepsiBezel

And, for me, the clasps, as simple as they may be, are ~1mm or more thinner, which helps a lot when typing on a key board or just not rubbing the clasp on things.

This is an excellent point that I hadn't thought about before but now seems obvious.

[Seddyspaghetti]

Gun to my head i’m going with 6 digit but there is a charm and character with 4/5 digits that will always appeal to me. (Sleeker proportions, chamfers, Patina, faded aluminum bezels, etc.)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jamesbondOO7]

I know…

[7enderbender]

For the most part I’d always pick five digit over 6. Yes, the new bracelets are nicer and more substantial. The designs of the new models (with the exception of 36mm watches) is clumsy and too big in my view. The new movements have apparently more issues than rhe older ones. So, to me that sways towards five digit.

[the dark knight]

The debate over bracelets got me thinking. I quite like my Tudor BB54's bracelet, esp the modern T-Fit system. But I dare say I think I may prefer a 5-digit style bracelet, esp the clasp, for a more overall vintage feel that matches the watch. I even have a jubilee and oyster that fit a 16710 that I tried on the BB54, but neither would work.

So far my favorite "vintage re-issue" watch I've tried from any brand is the Zenith Chronomaster Revival because it even keeps the old style stamped metal friction clasp from yesteryear. Just matches the overall aesthetic of the watch.

I guess my point is I'm kind of coming back around to those 5 digit bracelets, esp because imo they fit the overall aesthetic of those watches so well.

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by brandrea

That’s really well said Larry

Thanks brother.