Has anyone else "downgraded" from a 116610LN SubC to 16610LN?

[SubMarine]

I could never get over the fat lugs, and I find the lighter older style bracelet to be much more comfortable than the heavy glidelock. Four years ago, when I was considering the SubC, it was precisely the glidelock that tilted me towards the ceramic model. Now, it's exactly the same reason that has tilted me back in the opposite direction. After having owned the SubC for a good four years, as strange as it sounds, I think I actually enjoy the 16610LN better. This goes against the grain of popular thinking because most Rolex aficionados gravitate (rightly so) towards the newest models in the lineup because they are superior watches from a purely technical perspective.

Rolex really got the proportions on the older model correct, which over time, is a subtlety I have come to acquire and appreciate. What also helped me in making the switch was getting a minty unpolished no-holes SEL M series example with engraved rehaut. I feel much more comfortable with the older model Rolex.

[hbombkid]

I don’t see it a downgrade. Both are great. I have a Sub C and I love it, but I could easily wear the 16610 as well.

The only way I would wear a 16610 would be the following

1. Glidelock. No comparison in bracelets.
2. Spare Green bezel for easy swaps.

[SubMarine]

Originally Posted by hbombkid

I don’t see it a downgrade. Both are great. I have a Sub C and I love it, but I could easily wear the 16610 as well.

The only way I would wear a 16610 would be the following

1. Glidelock. No comparison in bracelets.
2. Spare Green bezel for easy swaps.

The glidelock is a much heavier bracelet and can be obtained separately for around $2k. When mounted on the lighter 16610 head, it can unbalance the watch. It's also very blingy and shiny compared to the older style bracelet.

[hbombkid]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

The glidelock is a much heavier bracelet and can be obtained separately for around $2k. When mounted on the lighter 16610 head, it can unbalance the watch. It's also very blingy and shiny compared to the older style bracelet.

Ohhh I agree it can be bought and that’s why I am not doing it. If I could do a like for like swap and not pay anything I would get rid of my sub C for the 16610, but with current prices not going to happen so I am good right now.

To be really honest only reason I would get the 16610 is to give it a different look with swapping the bezel. If I had the tool and ability to source a ceramic green bezel I would have no need for the 16610.

[antbkny]

looks great, congrats!

[henrylee]

That's the charm of the 5 digit watches. But i prefer having both. When I go from my 16710 and then my SubC I appreciate how luxurious and solid the watch is made.

[Atlantic]

I understand completely. Lately I find myself wearing my two line 14060M more than my 114060. It’s far more comfortable and has understated elegance that the SubC lacks.

[mjclark32]

Started with a M serial 16610, I wear it 99% of the time. Perfect for me. Test drove a 116618 a few months ago and couldn't get used to the case...
Also, never felt the need to have the ability to adjust the clasp. 5 digit subs for me are just fine

[azs.77]

The 16610 is the perfect watch. The 116610 is also the perfect watch with fatter lugs and glidelock bracelet. You wasted your time reading this comment. I like them both.

[rgwarden]

I swapped a BLNR for a 16570 because once I’d tried it on I preferred all the proportions (and yes the older bracelet and clasp over the PCLs and Easylink too) and I couldn’t unsee them. I have exactly that with the subs. I like the ceramics, until I see an aluminium next to it and there’s no contest, superior build or no. I just prefer the way the five digit models look. But hey there are plenty who feel the other way and that’s fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Watchflair]

I've had a number of subs and by far the Sub C is my favorite. Keep in mind I'm only 2 months in at this point but lots of positives.

Personally love the glidelock - quick easy adjustments are great. Depending on the temperature outside and what I'm doing the ability to have a little extra room on the fly is a nice touch.

The Ceramic bezel is just perfect in my opinion. Yes I still have love for the aluminum inserts but the Ceramic just wears so much better and gives the watch a great look.

I don't see myself ever getting rid of this as I did with previous subs - this ones a lifer. I could picture myself adding a vintage sub to the collection at some point.

[marcotagudelo]

I sold most of my modern pieces or lets say traded them.
I now have 2 modern pieces DD40 and SD4K
Have (2)5 digit kermit and pepsi.
I wear more the pepsi or kermit than the modern ones.
Like another poster said, its more subtle more comfortable

[jrs146]

Not quite what you asked but I used to own a 116610LV and a 16610lv. Sold the LVc and kept the LV. I think I actually upgraded though lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SubMarine]

Originally Posted by jrs146

Not quite what you asked but I used to own a 116610LV and a 16610lv. Sold the LVc and kept the LV. I think I actually upgraded though lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Engraved LV models are more expensive than the LV Ceramic.

[jrs146]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

Engraved LV models are more expensive than the LV Ceramic.

They certainly can be. I didn’t think you were posing your question based on cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thuilln]

5 digit > 6 digit IMO.

[Rolexavidfan]

I never own a 5 digits Sub but when I had the opportunity to try it on, I still prefer the 6 digits reference for the ceramic bezel, the maxi case and the glidelock clasp and bracelet. That’s also the reason why I was not in the hunt for vintage or pre-ceramic model and prefers the model version. The wear of the modern was just perfect for my wrist. I am in the hunt for a Sub C ND to complement my LVc.

[rolexryan329]

you know what they say... "the grass is always greener.."

the 16610 is nice but the bracelet feels a bit too cheap to me. I really like the relative heft of the 116610 and ceramic bezel just shines and shines. Maybe in another 4 years, you'll come back around

[MinMay]

Originally Posted by rolexryan329

you know what they say... "the grass is always greener.."

the 16610 is nice but the bracelet feels a bit too cheap to me. I really like the relative heft of the 116610 and ceramic bezel just shines and shines. Maybe in another 4 years, you'll come back around

+1...

[chad362wiley]

I just got a 14060m for some diversity. I love the 5 digit look. I think the subC is a much better daily, but the 5 digit offers something a little special and "classier" imho. build quality, hands down no questions, 6 digit though.

[Dr. Robert]

I prefer the lightweight strength of the 5 digit models.....16610, 16610LV, 14060 & 16600. PS those rattly oyster bracelets with the tin foil clasps are plenty strong. I wear my brother in law’s 116610 & it’s way too heavy & uncomfortable for me.

[DGB]

IMO you have upgraded to 5 digits,

maybe one day you'll upgrade to a 4 digits

[Rokoru]

I went from a 114060 to the 16610LV. I love both watches. I really like the solid glidelock bracelet but I do like the proportions much better of the 16610. It feels just right on my wrist. I do however miss the glidelock with the sunny days...

[Loevhagen]

I found the perfect compromise between 5 digit and 6 digit; the 5,5 digit model - i.e. an LN insert on the 16610LV.

[Tomas Eriksson]

I have wen't back and forth multiple times by now. As a daily wear to work or travel piece I prefer six digit, as a weekend watch four and five digits are a nice change.

My 116611LN in South Africa:

[brandrea]

I owned 4, 5 and 6 digit Submariners. I love them all for different reasons.

[Wools]

Beautiful!

As other have said, it's not a downgrade, it's a pure subjective opinion.

Every watch carries with it history, subtle bits of unique design that are not found anywhere else and that combine with an individuals preference for objects they like. It sounds like you've found yours!

Personally, I'm not keen on the 5 digit references after handling several examples but adore the modern materials and case sizes of the 6 digit.

You're not wrong and neither am I, it's how we're wired. :)

[SubMarine]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

I found the perfect compromise between 5 digit and 6 digit; the 5,5 digit model - i.e. an LN insert on the 16610LV.

That looks absolutely stunning! Is the bracelet you're wearing it on original to the watch?

[Loevhagen]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

That looks absolutely stunning! Is the bracelet you're wearing it on original to the watch?

Thanks - yes the bracelet is the original 93250. The 93250 is a tad upgraded 93150 on the older Submariners.

[SubMarine]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

Thanks - yes the bracelet is the original 93250. The 93250 is a tad upgraded 93150 on the older Submariners.

Wow, it seems you have the best of both worlds!