ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Smoak352 · 11 July 2011, 02:50 AM

Now that I have a sub with the new clasp I am spoiled! I figure my SS sub is worth a little over half the price I could get a new or like new 116610 sub for. Has anyone done away with the old one for the new one. Just wondering if it is justified for essentially the same watch.

Dr. Robert · 11 July 2011, 02:51 AM

:c rying:

nauticajoe · 11 July 2011, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

:c rying:

I saw that coming Doc.

Caraptor · 11 July 2011, 02:54 AM

My curmudgeon status requires that I tell you to keep the old one.
However, it's your money and if the 116610 changes really do it for you, then why not? Hey, you'll get better lume as an added bonus!

Jason71 · 11 July 2011, 02:57 AM

Don't do it. The old one is better.

Bah Humbug.

dddrees · 11 July 2011, 02:57 AM

Crumudgeons all over the world are now crying.

alexlt730512 · 11 July 2011, 02:57 AM

don't do it. u can buy a new one later on.

Paracentesis · 11 July 2011, 02:59 AM

The new one is nowhere near as elegant as the old, IMO.

So: no.

The Joker · 11 July 2011, 03:04 AM

I wouldn't,
I think I can hear the Curmudgeon mob marching down your street with their torches and pitchforks.

z32turbo · 11 July 2011, 03:20 AM

DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

drockadam · 11 July 2011, 03:34 AM

Keep it!

MichDui · 11 July 2011, 03:36 AM

I just got a new one and man it is sweet!

gwozhog · 11 July 2011, 03:37 AM

The new sub is better but not worth twice the money since you already own one.

Paracentesis · 11 July 2011, 03:41 AM

Branch out a bit, rather than getting yet another boring submariner.

Save up for something like this, perhaps? Might make a nice change.

dddrees · 11 July 2011, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

Branch out a bit, rather than getting yet another boring submariner.

Save up for something like this, perhaps? Might make a nice change.

I second that motion. Very nice.

ansharma · 11 July 2011, 03:47 AM

The old one is better.

Don't like the maxi dial or the added size. The new just looks a bit overweight, the classic lean and far more sexy!

Paracentesis · 11 July 2011, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dddrees

I second that motion. Very nice.

Cheers Dan. There are so many more interesting and elegant alternatives around than the new Super-Clumsy Maxi-Cased (and deeply unpopular, so I'm told) Rolexes.

Others that spring instantly to mind are Dan Pierce's lovely new Tudor Chrono, or almost anything from JLC. If the OP really must go with Rolex, then there's no end of nice vintage pieces to be had.

Mirx · 11 July 2011, 04:03 AM

You will never, ever find your peace until you own both of them . . . EVER!

Personal experience that I never regretted!

Buck I · 11 July 2011, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ansharma

The new one is better

fixed, to reflect facts.

Good luck OP in your decision, there is no wrong choice.

Eric88 · 11 July 2011, 05:23 AM

You might enjoy this thread I did last year on the topic.
I loved my Sub-C, but ultimately moved away from it.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=147497

Megalobyte · 11 July 2011, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

Branch out a bit, rather than getting yet another boring submariner.

Save up for something like this, perhaps? Might make a nice change.

'Till you get it wet.

Megalobyte · 11 July 2011, 05:35 AM

I vastly prefer the C to the prior versions. Perfect size, very wearable, the whole watch screams quality and technology, ie. ceramic, more lume, easier to read dial, glidelock, even the in house PC hairspring, the AR treated cyclops is nice too. I honestly feel the C is a worthwhile and significant upgrade, though I'll concede the transition of lugs to bracelet isn't quite as graceful as the older Subs. Big deal, still looks fine :)

To be honest, a big part of why I prefer the C is the fact it seems larger and more substantial. I have large wrists and huge hands, so I always felt the older Subs were just a little small for me, the C fits me perfectly. But I like the other upgrades too, I like the whole package.

fstnlgl · 11 July 2011, 05:40 AM

Don't upgrade! Diversify. Try something different if you got the bucks to spend....

ericdube · 11 July 2011, 05:46 AM

I just did it. I sold my 10 year old 16610 for quite a bit more money than I original paid for it (and I originally bought it new in 2001.) The way the market has been going, it is pushing the prices up on the used 16610's. They've been fetching a premium over their original MSRP, so to be perfectly honest with you, I just couldn't pass up selling it.

I took the cash and ended up buying a 3-day old 116610 from one of the forum members here for a really great price. In the end, it didn't cost me much money at all to do the upgrade to a new watch.

I'm suspecting that after 10 years of owning the 116610 that I probably should be able to do the same thing all over again given the way Rolex keeps hiking the prices up. It's like I'm getting paid to wear the watch! :)

Sherwooddavid · 11 July 2011, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwozhog

The new sub is better but not worth twice the money since you already own one.

Agree,

al_bongo · 11 July 2011, 05:48 AM

Your money, but it seems like quite a lot of money for a new clasp (the other changes being almost entirely cosmetic).

dddrees · 11 July 2011, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

Cheers Dan. There are so many more interesting and elegant alternatives around than the new Super-Clumsy Maxi-Cased (and deeply unpopular, so I'm told) Rolexes.

Others that spring instantly to mind are Dan Pierce's lovely new Tudor Chrono, or almost anything from JLC. If the OP really must go with Rolex, then there's no end of nice vintage pieces to be had.

James, will these work?

Paracentesis · 11 July 2011, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

'Till you get it wet.

Why on earth would I get a watch wet? Is it even possible? [FWIW, the PP is WR to 60 metres, which is 58 metres deeper than I've ever been.]

Dan, yes those would be most acceptable!

dddrees · 11 July 2011, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

Why on earth would I get a watch wet? Is it even possible?

Dan, yes those would be most acceptable!

Thank you, and I really like that Patek.

Megalobyte · 11 July 2011, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paracentesis

Why on earth would I get a watch wet? Is it even possible? [FWIW, the PP is WR to 60 metres, which is 58 metres deeper than I've ever been.]

Dan, yes those would be most acceptable!

I figured the WR would be 30 or 50, but isn't it true that people advise against swimming with and submerging a watch with a WR of 60m or less, since those minimal ratings are somewhat theoretical under static conditions? I've heard that 100m is where you don't have to worry about swimming/snorkeling, and that 60 or less is only borderline for swimming. I don't know, you hear and read so many conflicting things on WR.

Regardless, beautiful watch! I was mostly just joking about getting it wet, as opposed to the Sub which we KNOW you can't get wet. :)

11 July 2011, 02:50 AM	#1
Smoak352 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: FL Posts: 201	Should I sell my 16610 for the 116610? Now that I have a sub with the new clasp I am spoiled! I figure my SS sub is worth a little over half the price I could get a new or like new 116610 sub for. Has anyone done away with the old one for the new one. Just wondering if it is justified for essentially the same watch. __________________ Submariner TT 16613 U Submariner SS 116610 Random Submariner YG 116618LB

11 July 2011, 02:51 AM	#2
Dr. Robert 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Bob Location: U.S.A. Watch: 1655 Posts: 64,256	:c rying: __________________ Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

11 July 2011, 02:57 AM	#5
Jason71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Jason Location: USA Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers Posts: 7,973	Don't do it. The old one is better. Bah Humbug. __________________ Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY

11 July 2011, 02:57 AM	#6
dddrees "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: Dan Location: USA Watch: This N That Posts: 34,253	Crumudgeons all over the world are now crying. __________________ When it captures your imagination, that's when you know you have found your passion. Loyal Foot Soldier of The Nylon Nation. Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

11 July 2011, 03:20 AM	#10
z32turbo "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sea Level Watch: Varies Posts: 6,877	DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!! __________________ Instagram @z32turbo

11 July 2011, 02:54 AM	#4
Caraptor Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: North Carolina Watch: me save for it. Posts: 444	My curmudgeon status requires that I tell you to keep the old one. However, it's your money and if the 116610 changes really do it for you, then why not? Hey, you'll get better lume as an added bonus!

11 July 2011, 02:57 AM	#7
alexlt730512 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,248	don't do it. u can buy a new one later on.

11 July 2011, 02:59 AM	#8
Paracentesis Banned Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: James Location: UK Watch: Tissot Posts: 1,454	The new one is nowhere near as elegant as the old, IMO. So: no.

11 July 2011, 03:04 AM	#9
The Joker "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Gotham Posts: 9,641	I wouldn't, I think I can hear the Curmudgeon mob marching down your street with their torches and pitchforks.

11 July 2011, 03:34 AM	#11
drockadam "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Adam Location: Ontario, Canada Watch: Pepsi. Posts: 5,749	Keep it! __________________ - Adam Instagram: @GMTSUBTIME

11 July 2011, 03:36 AM	#12
MichDui "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Detroit Posts: 68	I just got a new one and man it is sweet! __________________ NEW: ROLEX DEEP SEA ~ Rolex SS/PLT Yacht Master Rolex SS GMT IIc ~ Rolex Explorer II White Rolex Sea Dweller ~ Franck Muller Conquistador Panerai PAM 51 Chrono LE ~ Omega 007 Sea Master Breitling SuperOcean Black ~ Ball Aviator

11 July 2011, 03:37 AM	#13
gwozhog "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Point Blank, TX Posts: 2,894	The new sub is better but not worth twice the money since you already own one.

11 July 2011, 03:41 AM	#14
Paracentesis Banned Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: James Location: UK Watch: Tissot Posts: 1,454	Branch out a bit, rather than getting yet another boring submariner. Save up for something like this, perhaps? Might make a nice change.

11 July 2011, 03:47 AM	#16
ansharma "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: UK Watch: Lange 1 Moonphase Posts: 1,916	The old one is better. Don't like the maxi dial or the added size. The new just looks a bit overweight, the classic lean and far more sexy!

11 July 2011, 04:03 AM	#18
Mirx "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: UK Watch: RLX Posts: 437	You will never, ever find your peace until you own both of them . . . EVER! Personal experience that I never regretted!

11 July 2011, 05:23 AM	#20
Eric88 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: 88 keys Posts: 2,241	You might enjoy this thread I did last year on the topic. I loved my Sub-C, but ultimately moved away from it. http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=147497

11 July 2011, 05:35 AM	#22
Megalobyte "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Real Name: Ari Location: Florida Watch: ...me go broke Posts: 2,428	I vastly prefer the C to the prior versions. Perfect size, very wearable, the whole watch screams quality and technology, ie. ceramic, more lume, easier to read dial, glidelock, even the in house PC hairspring, the AR treated cyclops is nice too. I honestly feel the C is a worthwhile and significant upgrade, though I'll concede the transition of lugs to bracelet isn't quite as graceful as the older Subs. Big deal, still looks fine :) To be honest, a big part of why I prefer the C is the fact it seems larger and more substantial. I have large wrists and huge hands, so I always felt the older Subs were just a little small for me, the C fits me perfectly. But I like the other upgrades too, I like the whole package.

11 July 2011, 05:40 AM	#23
fstnlgl "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: california Posts: 136	Don't upgrade! Diversify. Try something different if you got the bucks to spend....

11 July 2011, 05:46 AM	#24
ericdube "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Real Name: Katherine Location: Massachusetts Watch: DJ, Sub-C, Daytona Posts: 218	I just did it. I sold my 10 year old 16610 for quite a bit more money than I original paid for it (and I originally bought it new in 2001.) The way the market has been going, it is pushing the prices up on the used 16610's. They've been fetching a premium over their original MSRP, so to be perfectly honest with you, I just couldn't pass up selling it. I took the cash and ended up buying a 3-day old 116610 from one of the forum members here for a really great price. In the end, it didn't cost me much money at all to do the upgrade to a new watch. I'm suspecting that after 10 years of owning the 116610 that I probably should be able to do the same thing all over again given the way Rolex keeps hiking the prices up. It's like I'm getting paid to wear the watch! :)

11 July 2011, 05:48 AM	#26
al_bongo "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 444	Your money, but it seems like quite a lot of money for a new clasp (the other changes being almost entirely cosmetic).

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)