11610 and 116610 bezel pearls a worry?

[knoffie]

I was ready to pull the trigger on a LNIB 116610 Sub C but on a closer look I discovered for the first time the differences in the bezel pearl on the C Sub from the 11610 bezel The ceramic bezel has a raised pearl with a white gold surround which is raised slightly above the bezel and look slike it has bee glued on to the triangle. while the 11610 hasthe pearl flat on the bezel with the pearl sunk into the flat surround its self. My concern is that the Sub C pearl looks to be quite vulnerable and easily either knocked off or damaged which would ( I assume) be a costly replacement compared with the aluminium, bezel on the earlier Sub. Any thoughts? Any experiences? I dont want to make a mistake or set myself up for an expensive repair.
What do owners of the Sub C think ?

Knoffie

[luvsub]

One forum member said the pearl was cracked on subc, and looks like have to change the insert completely which is very pricy, around 600.

So I guess this one reason some people don't like the new insert. It is hard decision, go with the one makes you happy. I'd take subc.

[Rashid.bk]

Yes very expensive, the whole ceramic bezel has to be replaced on the SubC. It isn't glued on so there isn't a chance if it falling off like that. I worry a little about the pearl on my Deepsea so as a precaution I keep it at nine o'clock.
It's hard to call a modern Rolex a tool watch when you can't psychologically be free of concern for damage. That said I still love my Deepsea and would choose the SubC over the older model any day.

[Thatguy]

It's possible to damage and expensive to fix if it gets damaged. That said, I have decided not to worry and very rarely take mine off for fear of damage. So far the bezel is quite robust and my early fears of it being fragile seem unfounded. I would not let the fear of damage stop you from getting one. It's an all around great watch !

[padi56]

Originally Posted by knoffie

I was ready to pull the trigger on a LNIB 116610 Sub C but on a closer look I discovered for the first time the differences in the bezel pearl on the C Sub from the 11610 bezel The ceramic bezel has a raised pearl with a white gold surround which is raised slightly above the bezel and look slike it has bee glued on to the triangle. while the 11610 hasthe pearl flat on the bezel with the pearl sunk into the flat surround its self. My concern is that the Sub C pearl looks to be quite vulnerable and easily either knocked off or damaged which would ( I assume) be a costly replacement compared with the aluminium, bezel on the earlier Sub. Any thoughts? Any experiences? I dont want to make a mistake or set myself up for an expensive repair.
What do owners of the Sub C think ?

Knoffie

The bad news,and one of the downsides of all the ceramic inserts that have pearls, and point of interest to all Ceramic owners, is that the bezel pearl cannot be replaced on any ceramic insert. This is what I was told on contact to Rolex London who spoke with Rolex directly a few days ago on my behalf.Now in the UK new black ceramic bezel insert is £360 plus VAT. But when you think of the complete aliminum pearl and insert is just £37 except green LV complete to replace and a DIY fix.It makes me think that newer do not always mean its better just more expensive as both ceramic and the aliminum function the same.

[knoffie]

Thanks Padi the technical drawings are most helpful as they show that, indeed the bezel pearl is not glued on but located and kept in place by a post which may be chemically glued in place. But it appears that it would not be easily broken off. However your point about cost is valid. I think I will go for the 11610 .
Thanks again everyone . Most appreciated.
Knoffie

[Furbo]

I solved this problem by puting down deposit for a new GMT BLNR, beautifull ceramic bezel and no pearl to worry about. :)

[JGX]

Padi's right about the ceramic bezels not being the panacea that they are claimed to be but, don't forget about the other big difference between the 11610 and the 116610 - namely the glidelock clasp - which really is a great and worthwhile improvement!

[Billywiz]

I think you have made the right decision and I think history will back this up too...this is not Rolex finest hour from a design point of view. It happens. In the car world Mercedes went through a period like this. Strangely enough they made their cars too big and bulky...umm.

[cop414]

Originally Posted by padi56

The bad news,and one of the downsides of all the ceramic inserts that have pearls, and point of interest to all Ceramic owners, is that the bezel pearl cannot be replaced on any ceramic insert. This is what I was told on contact to Rolex London who spoke with Rolex directly a few days ago on my behalf.Now in the UK new black ceramic bezel insert is £360 plus VAT. But when you think of the complete aliminum pearl and insert is just £37 except green LV complete to replace and a DIY fix.It makes me think that newer do not always mean its better just more expensive as both ceramic and the aliminum function the same.

Originally Posted by JGX

Padi's right about the ceramic bezels not being the panacea that they are claimed to be but, don't forget about the other big difference between the 11610 and the 116610 - namely the glidelock clasp - which really is a great and worthwhile improvement!

Originally Posted by Billywiz

I think you have made the right decision and I think history will back this up too...this is not Rolex finest hour from a design point of view. It happens. In the car world Mercedes went through a period like this. Strangely enough they made their cars too big and bulky...umm.

+ 1 on the above. This in one the many reasons that I went with a 14060 instead of the 114060. Crack or loose a pearl on the aluminum bezel insert, easy peasy and cheap fix. Loose or damage the pearl on the ceramic insert not so easy and much more expensive to fix. Not bashing at all, just my .02 cents.

[mjclark32]

Originally Posted by knoffie

Thanks Padi the technical drawings are most helpful as they show that, indeed the bezel pearl is not glued on but located and kept in place by a post which may be chemically glued in place. But it appears that it would not be easily broken off. However your point about cost is valid. I think I will go for the 11610 .
Thanks again everyone . Most appreciated.
Knoffie

Just a heads up it's 16610, and it is a great watch. I wear mine every day for over two years now and it's been a champ

[padi56]

Originally Posted by JGX

Padi's right about the ceramic bezels not being the panacea that they are claimed to be but, don't forget about the other big difference between the 11610 and the 116610 - namely the glidelock clasp - which really is a great and worthwhile improvement!

While I would agree that the glidelock clasp in time could prove to be a improvement.But even that clasp has had a few problems with welds breaking thankfully most were replaced under warranty.But if you were unfortunate to damage one outside the warranty then you are talking silly money to replace. Today many call the old clasp things like Tuna can,but this Tuna Can clasp was simple far less moving parts and reliable.And after being around Rolex watches for over 30 years myself cannot recollect of any total failures with the old type clasp.

[gpfps]

Just like cop414 I went with 14060m. The pip on the new subs and DS will not last if worn a lot. It sticks out asking to be clipped off. My son's 1 year old subc pip is cracked in half but still intact. It's just to much money to replace to be worth it, new clasp or not .

[Jason71]

Everybody always goes on-and-on about the new clasp and how it is 'superior' and 'more robust' and 'better'. I own several of both and DEFINITELY prefer the old-style clasp. More comfortable and less likely to fail IMHO. I will take the old-style bracelet / clasp and aluminum insert any day.

Bah-humbug.

[AK797]

Pearl coming off is very unlikely, I don't worry about it.

[landroverking]

Originally Posted by padi56

While I would agree that the glidelock clasp in time could prove to be a improvement.But even that clasp has had a few problems with welds breaking thankfully most were replaced under warranty.But if you were unfortunate to damage one outside the warranty then you are talking silly money to replace. Today many call the old clasp things like Tuna can,but this Tuna Can clasp was simple far less moving parts and reliable.And after being around Rolex watches for over 30 years myself cannot recollect of any total failures with the old type clasp.

I did have one failure but the clasp was 30 years old at the time.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by landroverking

I did have one failure but the clasp was 30 years old at the time.

But bet it was just a spring bar or pin.

[Sous]

I'm not a pro, but I really have a hard time believing the current incarnation of the Sub will last 50 indestructible years. I have a feeling the "20 years without servicing" stories will not accompany the 116610, and most of the issues will be external.

[Broker Boy]

Maybe I'll be proved wrong, but I don't believe the pip is anywhere near tall enough to be a
a real issue.

The 116610 is so far improved beyond the older subs it's not even debatable. I don't think I'll ever wear my 16610 again.

The 116610, however, is certainly not what I would call a tool watch. It's a watch to be worn with any attire, and in any water-related activity, but it's far too nice to be worn changing the oil or mowing the yard.

[mruhland31]

I love my Sub C. I have too many other things to worry about that I just can't bring myself to stress on whether or not the pearl or clasp will fail in twenty years. Just my opinion

[stevedssd]

It is true to say that losing the pearl insert or damaging a ceramic insert is rare, but when it happens the cost is dreadful. The pearl on my 12month old DSSD came out, I hadn't even been aware of knocking it but inspection by the RSC showed impact damage so not covered by warranty.

As has been said earlier, the whole bezel insert has to be replaced, the cost in the UK two years ago was £460, it would probably be slightly cheaper for a sub.

I've since bought an LVc and had no problems with that or the DSSD in the last two years. It is one of those things that won't happen to many, but if it happens to you, you won't be happy to shell out big bucks. It made me look at the simplicity of the older models in a new light.

[Sous]

Originally Posted by stevedssd

It made me look at the simplicity of the older models in a new light.

I think that's one of the best comments on this issue, Steve

[ninotcs]

Its a Rolex. Its designed to withstand normal shocks and hits. Are you really not going to buy a watch you like because you are afraid something is going to happen to it?

[Eric88]

Nothing over which any of us should lose sleep.

[cop414]

Originally Posted by padi56

Today many call the old clasp things like Tuna can,but this Tuna Can clasp was simple far less moving parts and reliable.And after being around Rolex watches for over 30 years myself cannot recollect of any total failures with the old type clasp.

Originally Posted by gpfps

Just like cop414 I went with 14060m. The pip on the new subs and DS will not last if worn a lot. It sticks out asking to be clipped off. My son's 1 year old subc pip is cracked in half but still intact. It's just to much money to replace to be worth it, new clasp or not .

Originally Posted by Jason71

Everybody always goes on-and-on about the new clasp and how it is 'superior' and 'more robust' and 'better'. I own several of both and DEFINITELY prefer the old-style clasp. More comfortable and less likely to fail IMHO. I will take the old-style bracelet / clasp and aluminum insert any day.

Bah-humbug.

+100 to all the above!

[SWISSAHOLICS]

Never really felt it was ever an issue.

[Swift_Movement]

114060 no regrets. Out with the old tuna can and in with the new.