Why the 16610 vs 116610

[ejvette]

I'm just curious as to why it is that many TRF members prefer a 16610 over the newer ceramic version ? Or perhaps the ceramic over the 16610?

[helson]

The bracelet quality and engraved bezel markers make the watch look more premium.

[Bigsykedaddy]

From what I've read it seems they like the case size and proportions. I personally prefer the 6 digit over the 5

[DramaTurtle]

The fat lugs.

[keithl]

Originally Posted by ejvette

I'm just curious as to why it is that many TRF members prefer a 16610 over the newer ceramic version ? Or perhaps the ceramic over the 16610?

The proportions of the 16610 just look better, way better to me.

[Wesley Crusher]

In before somebody says "tool watch"

[mailman]

Originally Posted by ejvette

I'm just curious as to why it is that many TRF members prefer a 16610 over the newer ceramic version ? Or perhaps the ceramic over the 16610?

I've had more than one of both. Like them both for different reasons. 16610 is comfortable, light and no nonsense. 116610 you maxi dial and hands, Glidelock, ceramic insert, solid bracelet and more heft. All depends on your preference

[Rol604]

I like the 5 digit proportions which fits my smaller wrist better.

Also, it looks less luxurious than the ceramic model. Which I prefer in some occasions.

For the GMT, I definitely prefer the ceramic model

[Rol604]

In addition, the bracelet on the 5 digit sub is very comfortable. While less "solid". It doesn't really bother me. IMO the only weakness is the clasp. Glidelock is much much better.

[DramaTurtle]

Originally Posted by Rol604

I like the 5 digit proportions which fits my smaller wrist better.

Also, it looks less luxurious than the ceramic model. Which I prefer in some occasions.

For the GMT, I definitely prefer the ceramic model

Complete opposite for me. I think a diver's watch benefits more from a ceramic bezel. A GMT less so. Also I find the old Pepsis and Cokes to be the most charming/romantic Rolex references.

Agree that the modern glossy ceramic look exudes more "luxury".

[Colin10101]

I prefer the aesthetics of the 5 digit. Woukd love to own either though.

[osamu]

definitely I prefer the proportions of the 5 digit. The lugs now just make the watch look too bulky, and a bit swollen.

Also the bezel, while I appreciate the scratch-proof ceramic, I am not a fan of how glossy it is. And the old faded bezel inserts have character to them, which you'll never get in a lifetime of owning a ceramic bezel.

I would really like to be able to try them on back to back, and feel like if I did, the heft of the bracelet and clasp of the 6-digit would probably make it feel like a higher quality product. If they were the same price, I wouldn't be surprised if I leaned towards the 6-digit, but just aesthetically, I prefer the 5.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by ejvette

I'm just curious as to why it is that many TRF members prefer a 16610 over the newer ceramic version ? Or perhaps the ceramic over the 16610?

They are living in the past.

[Hollister]

Never seen a thread like this one before, that's for sure.

16610 looks a lot nicer, and other than that, there is not a huge amount of difference. Get the bracelet fitted properly, and you don't need a glidelock, which you will only fiddle with, because you paid for it.

[beer]

squares vs circles

[Askewww]

16610 fits my wrist much better. Also as said before the portions of the 116610 look wrong to me. Love the classic look of the all 5 digit models.

[Maiden]

Can we make a "sticky" for this question?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Etschell

They are living in the past.

The same could probably be said about anyone wearing a mechanical watch.

For me, Rolex was built on classic tool watch designs that remained compact and relatively unchanged over the years. That changed with the six digit models, and I often compare it to the delineation between air-cooled and water-cooled Porsches. Some prefer classic designs, and some prefer modern tech.

The switch from 5-digit to 6-digit was a bit of a sea change, for better or worse, depending on your tastes.

[Atleo]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

In before somebody says "tool watch"

This is why we need a "like" button. Well played, sir.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MyDadsAirKing]

Historic versus modern.

[emersm]

Old school vs. new school.

[Robbyman]

Those stupid fat lugs

[nick c]

Old school for me

[UnicoJG]

The 5 digit Sub is indeed a classic, however, it's difficult for me to choose it over the SubC due to all of it's improvements. If I was buying a Sub today, it would be the 6 digit.

[mtgjr]

The ceramic versions look too square and chunky, in my opinion. An unnecessary departure from the classic Rolex profile. They could have made the lauded improvements - bracelet, clasp, bezel, etc - without changing the case profile so radically.

[efti]

Oyster clasp and ceramics are nice modern additions, lugs are too thick but I like the way it sits and wears... classic Sub wears very comfortable and it is the ultimate Sub for many out there, I don't know if I had to chose one which would I have gone with

[Danny83]

I like the ceramic better

[Melchizedek]

Originally Posted by Robbyman

Those stupid fat lugs

Those silly skinny lugs, that cheap bezel, that stamped clasp...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[douglasf13]

vs.

[Chadridv]

Mostly all simple preference. I personally find the updates of the 116610 to be improvements, however I accept most perspectives to be subjective... EXCEPT, for the glide lock bracelet. Hard to deny that the bracelet is a huge upgrade.