ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

iChris2011 · 12 July 2011, 06:14 AM

Hello everyone! I'm new here and this is my first post. I don't own a Rolex yet, but I'm looking at getting a Submariner. I have small wrists, about 6.5 inches. A ceramic bezel isn't completely necessary, I'd like it to be 300m water resistant (some of the older ones were 200m), not too thick or too big, so a smaller and thinner Sub model is good for me, around 39 mm in diameter is good, and price wise, $8,000 is as high as I'll go, anything below that is good. Any suggestions for what I'm looking for?

Deep Sea · 12 July 2011, 06:16 AM

Regular 16610 Sub Date, or 14060 no date Sub. Both 40mm, obviously the ND Sub is thinner.

Both readily available on the secondary market.

Abid · 12 July 2011, 06:17 AM

you could try the classic 16610 sub date or possibly a 14060M sub no date, both a priced well below your $8000.00 price line.

R.G · 12 July 2011, 06:52 AM

For that price you could get a ceramic model, and your wrist size should be fine...

drockadam · 12 July 2011, 07:13 AM

I'd go for a 16610 or a 116610! Both have dates.

mjclark32 · 12 July 2011, 08:01 AM

Sounds like 16610 or 14060m, both will come in well under budget. Welcome to trf!

nauticajoe · 12 July 2011, 08:03 AM

Definitely look into the 16610 or 116610. Don't deduct the 16600 from the equation either.

Good luck!

The GMT Master · 12 July 2011, 08:21 AM

With your budget, I would get the 116610 ceramic Sub. Has to be the benchmark for any modern dive watch, it is truly superb

Saxon007 · 12 July 2011, 08:26 AM

14060M (no date) wears a bit smaller than the Sub-Date. It does not have the ceramic bezel or blocky case (which I think is a good thing).

Drop by a local AD and try all of them on to see which you like best. The new Date models will be ceramic but if they carry used watches chances are they will have a 16610 to try on.

hoops10 · 12 July 2011, 09:54 AM

Hi Christian, my wrist is slightly smaller that 6.5 inches and I wear a Daytona and it fits fine. I think you could wear anything from the classic submariner, 16610, the No Date 14060 or even the classic Sea Dweller not the DSSD. I have worn the 16610, 14060 and the Sea Dweller and they all fit me fine. If you check out the "Sale" section of this site you should be able to find all for under your $8,000 limit. Good luck and have fun. Personally, I would probably purchase either the No Date Sub or the Sea Dweller.

Hafrog · 12 July 2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saxon007

14060M (no date) wears a bit smaller than the Sub-Date. It does not have the ceramic bezel or blocky case (which I think is a good thing).

Drop by a local AD and try all of them on to see which you like best. The new Date models will be ceramic but if they carry used watches chances are they will have a 16610 to try on.

What he said.

ericdube · 12 July 2011, 10:42 AM

I agree. I have a 6.25" wrist size, and I wear a Sub-C without any trouble. In fact, there's still a couple more links that can be removed from the band. I think you'll do just fine with a 40mm watch.

If you have an $8k budget, get the Sub-C. I've owned them both (16610 and 116610), and the Sub-C is definitely a better watch (the clasp alone is worth the upgrade never mind the ceramic bezel.)

Danand · 12 July 2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

With your budget, I would get the 116610 ceramic Sub. Has to be the benchmark for any modern dive watch, it is truly superb

X2. Totally agree. And my wrist is smaller and I have no problem with the subc.

andrew79 · 12 July 2011, 11:23 AM

16610 or 116610 should be good ! all within your budget....

Sherwooddavid · 12 July 2011, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

With your budget, I would get the 116610 ceramic Sub. Has to be the benchmark for any modern dive watch, it is truly superb

I agree with Chris the 116610 Sub C is your best bet. Good Luck !

Time2time · 13 July 2011, 03:54 AM

I too have small wrists/hands and my Sub-c looks great!!

Get the sub-c!!!

wantonebad · 13 July 2011, 03:58 AM

I would go for a second hand 16610 that was recently serviced. you'll get a good price and the classic style.

z32turbo · 13 July 2011, 04:13 AM

Go for the LV. Ceramic or none is up to you.

jeremyam · 13 July 2011, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nauticajoe

Definitely look into the 16610 or 116610. Don't deduct the 16600 from the equation either.

Good luck!

look at the sea dweller, it blends the two sub and sub-date in one of the most appealing and seductive time pieces by rolex to date.

Hooper · 13 July 2011, 04:40 AM

Definitely the 16610 for what your looking for

drdenn · 13 July 2011, 07:30 AM

In 2000 I decided to jump from a Datejust to a 16610, but for a brief moment was also afraid it was to big. After wearing it for about 10 minutes after I bought, I knew it was just right! I have now owned 3 Sub Dates total, and just recently stepped up to the 116610 as my 3rd. I have a 6.75 in wrist, and love my Sub C, but really loved my 16610's as well.

You really won't go wrong either way, but if you can wrap your head around it, might as well get the "C" as the differenc in Bracelet link quality, Clasp, and such are great. And the lume is significantly better than even I realized until I'd spent the night w/ her!

Johny · 13 July 2011, 07:59 AM

if non ceramic then i suggest the 16610lv.

dooder202 · 13 July 2011, 12:30 PM

Personally, I would get the ceramic sub and you'll still be under budget $800 or so. So many upgrades make it a notch better IMO than the 16610, but of course that's just my opinion....

I am pretty sure a 16610 sells for $5,500-$6,000.. Meaning at most the sub ceramic will run you an extra $1500 which I feel is well worth it... Of course unless you prefer the design of the original...

gwozhog · 13 July 2011, 12:37 PM

You are fine. As a matter of fact I think it will look better on your puny wrist then most other peoples wrists. Im a shy under 7" so I speak from experience.Get the 116610. No one on here has anything bad to say about it.

ibramr · 13 July 2011, 01:17 PM

Perhaps a 14060 Sub ND used from a trusted seller here would be your best bet. You will get a very reasonably sized classic at a very reasonable price in comparison to new. Best of luck.

wokafu · 13 July 2011, 01:38 PM

16610 as a 1st...my say..

skyedog · 13 July 2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.G

For that price you could get a ceramic model, and your wrist size should be fine...

+1

rohardi · 13 July 2011, 10:27 PM

I would just get the Sub C my friend. your wrist size will be fine.

Passionata · 13 July 2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjclark32

Sounds like 16610 or 14060m, both will come in well under budget. Welcome to trf!

the best choices , forget the ceramic things it s just marketing.

James Gould · 14 July 2011, 12:10 AM

I bought an Omega Speedmaster Pro in 1995 - loved it then and still do (still have it) - popular amongst the Rolex sports watch owner community - 2002 bought a new Rolex SD 16600 from an AD - loved it but in 2010 fancied a change and sold it - bought a 2008 GMT IIC 116710 - it's a gorgeous watch but I so miss the SD - will sell the GMT and go back to a 16600 - also like the Sub ND 14060 non-COSC but might go for a BNIB/LNIB 14060M COSC - such a clean, balanced look - but watches are such a personal thing and the only thing that matters is what you like - beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

All the best.

J

PS my first post on the forum - hello everyone!

12 July 2011, 06:14 AM	#1
iChris2011 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Real Name: Christian Location: FL, USA Watch: Casio MDV102 diver Posts: 6	Need Submariner suggestions Hello everyone! I'm new here and this is my first post. I don't own a Rolex yet, but I'm looking at getting a Submariner. I have small wrists, about 6.5 inches. A ceramic bezel isn't completely necessary, I'd like it to be 300m water resistant (some of the older ones were 200m), not too thick or too big, so a smaller and thinner Sub model is good for me, around 39 mm in diameter is good, and price wise, $8,000 is as high as I'll go, anything below that is good. Any suggestions for what I'm looking for?

12 July 2011, 06:16 AM	#2
Deep Sea "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Martin Location: NC Watch: A Rolex or two Posts: 952	Regular 16610 Sub Date, or 14060 no date Sub. Both 40mm, obviously the ND Sub is thinner. Both readily available on the secondary market. __________________ Deep Sea A few Rolex & a Tudor Sub An Omega & a bunch of Breitling

12 July 2011, 08:01 AM	#6
mjclark32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: MJC Location: PHL USA Watch: IWC, Rolex, AP Posts: 29,232	Sounds like 16610 or 14060m, both will come in well under budget. Welcome to trf! __________________

12 July 2011, 08:26 AM	#9
Saxon007 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,002	14060M (no date) wears a bit smaller than the Sub-Date. It does not have the ceramic bezel or blocky case (which I think is a good thing). Drop by a local AD and try all of them on to see which you like best. The new Date models will be ceramic but if they carry used watches chances are they will have a 16610 to try on. __________________ Licensed to kill time.

12 July 2011, 11:23 AM	#14
andrew79 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Real Name: Andrew Location: Indonesia Watch: Rolex Posts: 2,277	16610 or 116610 should be good ! all within your budget.... __________________ Baume & Mercier Riviera Rolex GMT II c, DJ 116234, Sub 16610, EXP 2 16570 Panerai 111 , 232

12 July 2011, 06:17 AM	#3
Abid "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Las Vegas, NV Watch: 16610LV Posts: 466	you could try the classic 16610 sub date or possibly a 14060M sub no date, both a priced well below your $8000.00 price line.

12 July 2011, 06:52 AM	#4
R.G Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: London Posts: 419	For that price you could get a ceramic model, and your wrist size should be fine...

12 July 2011, 07:13 AM	#5
drockadam "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Adam Location: Ontario, Canada Watch: Pepsi. Posts: 5,749	I'd go for a 16610 or a 116610! Both have dates.

12 July 2011, 08:03 AM	#7
nauticajoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Joe Location: PA Posts: 14,774	Definitely look into the 16610 or 116610. Don't deduct the 16600 from the equation either. Good luck!

12 July 2011, 08:21 AM	#8
The GMT Master "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: England Posts: 8,150	With your budget, I would get the 116610 ceramic Sub. Has to be the benchmark for any modern dive watch, it is truly superb

12 July 2011, 09:54 AM	#10
hoops10 Banned Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: USA Posts: 325	Hi Christian, my wrist is slightly smaller that 6.5 inches and I wear a Daytona and it fits fine. I think you could wear anything from the classic submariner, 16610, the No Date 14060 or even the classic Sea Dweller not the DSSD. I have worn the 16610, 14060 and the Sea Dweller and they all fit me fine. If you check out the "Sale" section of this site you should be able to find all for under your $8,000 limit. Good luck and have fun. Personally, I would probably purchase either the No Date Sub or the Sea Dweller.

12 July 2011, 10:42 AM	#12
ericdube "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Real Name: Katherine Location: Massachusetts Watch: DJ, Sub-C, Daytona Posts: 218	I agree. I have a 6.25" wrist size, and I wear a Sub-C without any trouble. In fact, there's still a couple more links that can be removed from the band. I think you'll do just fine with a 40mm watch. If you have an $8k budget, get the Sub-C. I've owned them both (16610 and 116610), and the Sub-C is definitely a better watch (the clasp alone is worth the upgrade never mind the ceramic bezel.)

13 July 2011, 03:54 AM	#16
Time2time Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: U.K Watch: Milgauss GV, Sub-C Posts: 2,178	I too have small wrists/hands and my Sub-c looks great!! Get the sub-c!!!

13 July 2011, 03:58 AM	#17
wantonebad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Watch: 126600, 116500LN Posts: 12,849	I would go for a second hand 16610 that was recently serviced. you'll get a good price and the classic style. __________________ "I'm kind of a big deal... on a fairly irrelevant social media site that falsely inflates my fragile ego"

13 July 2011, 04:13 AM	#18
z32turbo "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sea Level Watch: Varies Posts: 6,877	Go for the LV. Ceramic or none is up to you. __________________ Instagram @z32turbo

13 July 2011, 04:40 AM	#20
Hooper "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: Tony Location: Ontario, Canada Watch: 16610 Posts: 3,290	Definitely the 16610 for what your looking for

13 July 2011, 07:30 AM	#21
drdenn Banned Join Date: Jun 2011 Real Name: Honey Rider Location: San Diego Watch: Rolex Sub C 116610 Posts: 143	In 2000 I decided to jump from a Datejust to a 16610, but for a brief moment was also afraid it was to big. After wearing it for about 10 minutes after I bought, I knew it was just right! I have now owned 3 Sub Dates total, and just recently stepped up to the 116610 as my 3rd. I have a 6.75 in wrist, and love my Sub C, but really loved my 16610's as well. You really won't go wrong either way, but if you can wrap your head around it, might as well get the "C" as the differenc in Bracelet link quality, Clasp, and such are great. And the lume is significantly better than even I realized until I'd spent the night w/ her!

13 July 2011, 07:59 AM	#22
Johny "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: john Location: Scotland Watch: sub 16610Lv Posts: 13,523	if non ceramic then i suggest the 16610lv. __________________ "AFTER DARK" BAR AND NIGHT CLUB GM.

13 July 2011, 12:30 PM	#23
dooder202 Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Eric Location: US Watch: DateJust Posts: 1,468	Personally, I would get the ceramic sub and you'll still be under budget $800 or so. So many upgrades make it a notch better IMO than the 16610, but of course that's just my opinion.... I am pretty sure a 16610 sells for $5,500-$6,000.. Meaning at most the sub ceramic will run you an extra $1500 which I feel is well worth it... Of course unless you prefer the design of the original...

13 July 2011, 12:37 PM	#24
gwozhog "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Point Blank, TX Posts: 2,894	You are fine. As a matter of fact I think it will look better on your puny wrist then most other peoples wrists. Im a shy under 7" so I speak from experience.Get the 116610. No one on here has anything bad to say about it.

13 July 2011, 01:17 PM	#25
ibramr "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: usa Posts: 173	Perhaps a 14060 Sub ND used from a trusted seller here would be your best bet. You will get a very reasonably sized classic at a very reasonable price in comparison to new. Best of luck.

13 July 2011, 01:38 PM	#26
wokafu "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Malaysia Watch: SM300+14060M Posts: 2,012	16610 as a 1st...my say..

13 July 2011, 10:27 PM	#28
rohardi "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Rhode Island USA Watch: 116610LN, 216570 Posts: 787	I would just get the Sub C my friend. your wrist size will be fine.

14 July 2011, 12:10 AM	#30
James Gould Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: UK Posts: 16	I bought an Omega Speedmaster Pro in 1995 - loved it then and still do (still have it) - popular amongst the Rolex sports watch owner community - 2002 bought a new Rolex SD 16600 from an AD - loved it but in 2010 fancied a change and sold it - bought a 2008 GMT IIC 116710 - it's a gorgeous watch but I so miss the SD - will sell the GMT and go back to a 16600 - also like the Sub ND 14060 non-COSC but might go for a BNIB/LNIB 14060M COSC - such a clean, balanced look - but watches are such a personal thing and the only thing that matters is what you like - beauty is in the eye of the beholder! All the best. J PS my first post on the forum - hello everyone!

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