ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Watchmaster17 · 14 January 2013, 03:38 AM

Wanted to know your guys opinion ... Which watch you guys like better the older two tone blue submariner or the NEW two tone blue sub ceramic

Armyguy03 · 14 January 2013, 03:40 AM

Ceramic

brettpaul · 14 January 2013, 03:41 AM

X2 on the ceramic

Trouble15 · 14 January 2013, 03:42 AM

I think they're both very nice, however if I was going to purchase one, I would buy the ceramic, 116613LB.

HL65 · 14 January 2013, 03:45 AM

16613 or older one....Why? The dial for me. Cheers,

padi56 · 14 January 2013, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

16613 or older one....Why? The dial for me. Cheers,

Likewise myself just cannot see any point of the ceramic inserts for what they are very overpriced and do not offer any better functionality over the aluminum ones.

KBM · 14 January 2013, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

Likewise myself just cannot see any point of the ceramic inserts for what they are very overpriced and do not offer any better functionality over the aluminum ones.

Well, although it is great to know subs are real tool watches and capable of withstanding as much as your body can, many of us are not real divers and are attracted to the sub because of it's history/heritage, reliability and, not least of all, aesthetics. In this regard, many of us believe the ceramic inserts look a lot nicer than the aluminum ones. Add that to the other bonuses that come with the newer models, such as the glidelock clasp and newer improved bracelet, and it becomes an easy choice.

Again, many others - like yourself, who dives frequently, from some posts I have seen (which is great, btw) - prefer the previous subs, which are also terrific watches.

Different opinions are what the forum is all about, but it shouldn't be hard to understand the appeal of the ceramic inserts/models.

Rolexitis · 14 January 2013, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

16613 or older one....Why? The dial for me. Cheers,

I agree.

dba · 14 January 2013, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

16613 or older one....Why? The dial for me. Cheers,

The 16613 is the only way to go. But that's just me; I've been wrong before!

Ejraibeck · 14 January 2013, 03:46 AM

Ceramic all the way

bayerische · 14 January 2013, 03:50 AM

I like the deeper blue color of the old one.

TimeToGo · 14 January 2013, 03:51 AM

Welcome to the Forum!

thecoinopcollector · 14 January 2013, 03:58 AM

Ceramic, but I dislike two tone in general. I think two tone doesn't retain its resale value like all stainless or all gold. Choose stainless or gold. Two tone is for a 60 year old 1980's man IMHO.

77T · 14 January 2013, 04:02 AM

16613 - the dial is the reason.

If you ever had the chance to take it + the new Blue SubC out into the sunshine then you'd know why...

AK797 · 14 January 2013, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77T

16613 - the dial is the reason.

If you ever had the chance to take it + the new Blue SubC out into the sunshine then you'd know why...

gazp · 14 January 2013, 04:10 AM

ceramic

Furbo · 14 January 2013, 04:11 AM

Ceramic, glidelock...

z32turbo · 14 January 2013, 04:13 AM

I like the ceramic better, both b/c of the dial and the clasp.

VICI · 14 January 2013, 04:53 AM

I like the ceramic - looks fresher.

They are, IMO, flashier - get whichever YOU like.

Roller07 · 14 January 2013, 05:01 AM

I prefer the older 16613LB over the 116613LB.

kilyung · 14 January 2013, 05:27 AM

Older

topjimmi · 14 January 2013, 05:53 AM

older

GIS8 · 14 January 2013, 05:55 AM

Older on new bracelet

Brenngun · 14 January 2013, 06:48 AM

Older version has such a deep rich blue color. Hard to pick but it would have to be an older version. Bonus round if it has lug holes.

dcash0615 · 14 January 2013, 07:00 AM

116613

Cesium133 · 14 January 2013, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIS8

Older on new bracelet

If only the Gods would allow that miracle to happen.

For now, I would say 16613 because of the dial color.

xxthe_remedyxx · 14 January 2013, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thecoinopcollector

Ceramic, but I dislike two tone in general. I think two tone doesn't retain its resale value like all stainless or all gold. Choose stainless or gold. Two tone is for a 60 year old 1980's man IMHO.

Most horrible, untrue comment of the day.

I prefer the 16613 myself...

eightball76 · 14 January 2013, 07:43 AM

I think it would be the 16613 for me as the dial is stunning, I could be tempted for the 116613 black dail perhaps

Rocco22 · 14 January 2013, 09:18 AM

Ceramic

tdegroot · 14 January 2013, 09:45 AM

Ceramic. As to being overpriced, I think alot of people think they're worth it.

14 January 2013, 03:38 AM	#1
Watchmaster17 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Real Name: Cesar Location: Westchester co ny Watch: Ap Ro,Diver Gmt2G Posts: 107	Hey guys! Quick question........,, Wanted to know your guys opinion ... Which watch you guys like better the older two tone blue submariner or the NEW two tone blue sub ceramic

14 January 2013, 03:40 AM	#2
Armyguy03 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: DM[V] Watch: 16710 \| 16600 Posts: 3,546	Ceramic __________________ Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

14 January 2013, 03:45 AM	#5
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 64,006	16613 or older one....Why? The dial for me. Cheers, __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

14 January 2013, 03:50 AM	#11
bayerische "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Andreas Location: Margaritaville Watch: Smurf Posts: 19,879	I like the deeper blue color of the old one. __________________ Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

14 January 2013, 04:02 AM	#14
77T 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: PaulG Location: Georgia Posts: 42,015	16613 - the dial is the reason. If you ever had the chance to take it + the new Blue SubC out into the sunshine then you'd know why... __________________ Does anyone really know what time it is?

14 January 2013, 03:41 AM	#3
brettpaul "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Brett Location: Bahrain, Dubai Watch: Rolex and AP Posts: 5,538	X2 on the ceramic

14 January 2013, 03:42 AM	#4
Trouble15 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Real Name: Steve Location: USA Watch: A few Posts: 8,883	I think they're both very nice, however if I was going to purchase one, I would buy the ceramic, 116613LB.

14 January 2013, 03:46 AM	#10
Ejraibeck "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ct Posts: 9	Ceramic all the way

14 January 2013, 03:51 AM	#12
TimeToGo 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: North Florida Posts: 16,736	Welcome to the Forum!

14 January 2013, 03:58 AM	#13
thecoinopcollector Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Pa Posts: 409	Ceramic, but I dislike two tone in general. I think two tone doesn't retain its resale value like all stainless or all gold. Choose stainless or gold. Two tone is for a 60 year old 1980's man IMHO.

14 January 2013, 04:10 AM	#16
gazp "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: gary Location: uk newcastle Watch: SS Ceramic Sub Posts: 504	ceramic

14 January 2013, 04:11 AM	#17
Furbo "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Slovenia, EU Watch: BLNR Posts: 1,507	Ceramic, glidelock...

14 January 2013, 04:13 AM	#18
z32turbo "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sea Level Watch: Varies Posts: 6,877	I like the ceramic better, both b/c of the dial and the clasp. __________________ Instagram @z32turbo

14 January 2013, 04:53 AM	#19
VICI "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2012 Real Name: Alex Location: Gotham City Watch: IG: Mr_Right_NYC Posts: 5,672	I like the ceramic - looks fresher. They are, IMO, flashier - get whichever YOU like.

14 January 2013, 05:01 AM	#20
Roller07 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: GMT -5 Watch: HulkPepsiCoke Posts: 2,364	I prefer the older 16613LB over the 116613LB.

14 January 2013, 05:27 AM	#21
kilyung 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cave Watch: Sundial Posts: 33,940	Older

14 January 2013, 05:53 AM	#22
topjimmi "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: matt Location: USA Posts: 551	older

14 January 2013, 05:55 AM	#23
GIS8 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Earth Posts: 230	Older on new bracelet

14 January 2013, 06:48 AM	#24
Brenngun 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: Rick Location: Smokin' Heaven Watch: Rolex & Tudor Posts: 3,866	Older version has such a deep rich blue color. Hard to pick but it would have to be an older version. Bonus round if it has lug holes.

14 January 2013, 07:00 AM	#25
dcash0615 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Dave Location: CA Watch: es Posts: 4,395	116613

14 January 2013, 07:43 AM	#28
eightball76 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: england Watch: 16520, LV, SD4K Posts: 319	I think it would be the 16613 for me as the dial is stunning, I could be tempted for the 116613 black dail perhaps

14 January 2013, 09:18 AM	#29
Rocco22 Banned Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mass/Vegas/disney Watch: Hulk,114060,14060 Posts: 929	Ceramic

14 January 2013, 09:45 AM	#30
tdegroot "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Real Name: Tom Location: Wisconsin, USA Watch: 14060M & SubC Posts: 243	Ceramic. As to being overpriced, I think alot of people think they're worth it.

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