5 Digit Sub versus 6 Digit

[214270Explorer]

Hi all. Hope this question belongs here more so than in the Vintage section.

I want to get a Sub Date and have an interest in the older 5 digit.

The thickness [width] of the 6 digit lugs is not as attractive to me as the narrower 5's, and I have read various posts about 6's being overall too large for some tastes.

My wrist is about 6-1/2 to 6-3/4. (My 39mm Explorer is a great fit, and the total lug distance across the watch is about 46mm).

As far as the lug distance across the watch [6 o'clock to 12 o'clock, NOT side to side], is there a major difference between the 6's and 5's?

Anyone have any rough dimensions?

I tried out a new PM Sub at the AD and did not like the wider lugs. Also the distance across the long dimensions of the lugs was just about too much, although "wearable". Is the 6 digit far in excess of 46mm?

I am researching if the 5 digit is better for me, not having one to check in person.

Thanks in advance for your inputs.

[037]

Just measured my 14060M and it's 47.5mm lug-to-lug with a 39.5mm bezel OD. The 16610 Sub Date bezel is a bit larger (I believe right at 40mm).

[Finslayer83]

I got SubC (114060) and shortly thereafter went with the 14060M.

Best move ever.

My wrist is also 6.75-7”

[ltmgeller]

There is. noticeable difference between the 5 and 6 digit subs.

[jrs146]

Originally Posted by ltmgeller

There is. noticeable difference between the 5 and 6 digit subs.

I agree. Without getting into measurements I’ll just say that they feel like two entirely different watches. The maxi-case has a much larger wrist presence. It’s more square and feels chunkier. Not good or bad. Just different. I appreciate what both have to offer and I own both and wear them both equally. To me it’s like having the best of both worlds without having to choose. As for which is right for you? Try them both and either one will stand out or you will be hooked on both like me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob78h]

I used to have a Sub-C, currently own a 39mm Explorer and just got a 16610. I'd say the 16610 proportions are very close to the 214270, the main difference being case thickness. IMO the 16610 wears slightly smaller than the 214270 due to the smaller dial, and both wear smaller than the Sub-C.

I believe the lug to lug is the same (or very close) for 5 and 6 digit Subs, but the extra width of the lugs is what makes it wear larger.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by 214270Explorer

The thickness [width] of the 6 digit lugs is not as attractive to me as the narrower 5's, and I have read various posts about 6's being overall too large for some tastes.

Yes. They're also fat.

[joli160]

I prefer the 6 digit for it's clasp and bezel. Wise to try a 5 digit before buying. 5 digit does not feel high quality as the 6 imho.

[Busyboy]

I think the Kermit is the best of both worlds
Change to ln if you prefer the traditional look

[fania123]

Had the 6 and sold it for the 5 one of the best watch decisions I’ve ever made. Sure there are some improvements on the 6 digits but I personally get such a better feeling when strapping on my 5 digit then I ever did with my 6 digit. Good luck

[faimag]

My wrist is 6.75" and I absolutely prefer the 5-digit ones size-wise.

[brandrea]

It all comes down to fit, feel and aesthetics. Personally I’ve never been too hung up on dimensions.

[1William]

I prefer the 6 digit for a lot of reasons but have owned the 5 digit and it is fine. With the smaller wrist I would go look at the Tudor Black Bay 58. A beautiful watch. I have a friend with a similar wrist size and he picked the 58 up and loves it. He also has a TT 5 digit Submariner and a 36 mm TT DJ.

[subprimero]

Here is a picture of my 14060 on my 7.25" wrist.

[rolexpatek363]

Similar wrist here, and yes I prefer the 5-digit (and 4-digit) subs to the current shape. The new ones just look "wrong" to me (uncanny valley), and so I would never own one.

Which is just as well for me as the availability appears to be tending to zero, unless you are prepared to pay well over the value.

[offrdmania]

When I was in the market I tried on a 6-digit but it felt really bulky on my wrist but I absolutely loved the glide lock clasp. I ended up going with the thinner lug 5-digit 14060M and then upgraded the clasp to a glide lock. IMO it is the perfect combination. It is beyond comfortable and fits my wrist perfectly.

[Joearch]

I like both 5 and 6 digits. Jump back and forth between Subs and GMT’s. Love them all.

[101031-28]

Originally Posted by Joearch

I like both 5 and 6 digits. Jump back and forth between Subs and GMT’s. Love them all.

This

[austinp]

I love my 14060m but I would love it more if it had a maxi dial. My old eyes would appreciate it.

[Jason71]

I own both a WG ceramic sub and a number of aluminum insert subs as well. I love both versions for different reasons, but I prefer the aluminum insert watches more and wear them WAY MORE frequently.

With that said, I’ll never part with my WG Sub.

[javier]

Originally Posted by 214270Explorer

Hi all. Hope this question belongs here more so than in the Vintage section.

I want to get a Sub Date and have an interest in the older 5 digit.

The thickness [width] of the 6 digit lugs is not as attractive to me as the narrower 5's, and I have read various posts about 6's being overall too large for some tastes.

My wrist is about 6-1/2 to 6-3/4. (My 39mm Explorer is a great fit, and the total lug distance across the watch is about 46mm).

As far as the lug distance across the watch [6 o'clock to 12 o'clock, NOT side to side], is there a major difference between the 6's and 5's?

Anyone have any rough dimensions?

I tried out a new PM Sub at the AD and did not like the wider lugs. Also the distance across the long dimensions of the lugs was just about too much, although "wearable". Is the 6 digit far in excess of 46mm?

I am researching if the 5 digit is better for me, not having one to check in person.

Thanks in advance for your inputs.

I have a 6,5 wrist as you have. I bought two years ago a 6 digit Sub and felt it too large. Sold it and bought a 5 digit Sub and "got the perfect size"

[m j b]

Originally Posted by joli160

I prefer the 6 digit for it's clasp and bezel. Wise to try a 5 digit before buying. 5 digit does not feel high quality as the 6 imho.

I went from a 5 to a 6. I concur with @joli160. The bracelet and clasp on the 6 makes up for what you lose on the 5, IMHO.

I too have a small wrist (about 6.5") and so the 6 digit is pushing it, size-wise, for me.

[Gerry62]

the match in a draw .........................

[yannis]

Both 5 and 6 digit Subs are great but maxi dial (only on 16610LV on 5ers), bracelet - clasp and ceramics put 6 digits ones on another league.

[ILuvSubs]

The tuna can clasp of the 93150 has always been its weakness. I love this mod!

Originally Posted by offrdmania

When I was in the market I tried on a 6-digit but it felt really bulky on my wrist but I absolutely loved the glide lock clasp. I ended up going with the thinner lug 5-digit 14060M and then upgraded the clasp to a glide lock. IMO it is the perfect combination. It is beyond comfortable and fits my wrist perfectly.

[importstunna]

I like the proportions of 5 digits best on my 6.5" wrist, but I do like the modern updates of 6 digits as well. The ceramic bezel and the bracelet feel/look much more advanced than its 5 digit counterparts IMO.

I will own a 6 digit next...

[rolexpatek363]

My three.

[Onikage]

Enough said. Very nice. I can't understand this 'I don't like how it looks, but the 'upgrades'..' It's a watch. How it looks is pretty important.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Onikage

Enough said. Very nice. I can't understand this 'I don't like how it looks, but the 'upgrades'..' It's a watch. How it looks is pretty important.

Thanks. Yes, I couldn't give a toss about the new bracelet/clasp. Completely irrelevant. If I want micro-adjustment (I don't see the need) I'll get a fabric strap, but IME it's really not necessary.