5-series Rolexes vs newer ones...

[Tallbark]

A consensus in comparison reviews is that 6-series Rolexes are technically superior to 5-digit ones. That is obvious I guess.

The last 5-series sports models are now around 15 years old. I guess most new Rolex buyers seek the latest model, and watch geeks may like the older ones despite not having the same level of tech. The 5 series are now old, but not that old if you compare them to for example a 1675 GMT. That means that many of us still remember when we could buy them at the AD’s.

Do you see a fading interest in the 5-series as the year passes? Will they increase in demand or have they stabilized with regards to price do you think?

Relating to the quality/level of tech issues. As an example – I know that a 6-digit bracelet trumps a 5-digit one. The 32-movement is better than the 31 etc. But in reality – what practical consequences have you experienced around these things? Besides being nice to have more advanced things…

[bp1000]

I’ve not noticed any practical consequences of the technical changes.

I prefer the newer bracelets with glide lock for obvious reasons.

But it’s worth pointing out that the movement in the new 6 digit sub was the same calibre as used in the 5 digit. I wouldn’t even go as far as say base calibre, it was the same apart from a shock absorber and new hairspring which is meant to be more resilient and stable. The movement has been around since the 80s and it’s a fantastic movement with or without the tweaks in about 2012 for the 6 digit subs.

I have both 5 and 6 and they behave the same. I don’t have anything with 3235. So can comment there. P.s. I’m not bothered about case size or shape, or ceramic bezels but I do like the newer bracelets.

[tzwick]

Great topic! I think the interest in 5-series Rolexes will continue to hold steady. While the 6-series has undeniable technical advancements, the charm and nostalgia of the 5-series models keep them appealing to many collectors and enthusiasts. The older designs have a classic look and feel that's hard to beat.

[Andad]

I have 5's, 6's, and 32** movements.

I am interested to read other's thoughts.

[Gargamel]

5 digits movements were and still are stellar quality.
5 digits bracelets are a laugh in comparison to the 6 digits. That is, when you have them in the hands. When strapped, it's so-so.
Comfort wise, we love the easylink on the 6's. The 5's don't need easylink as it much more flexbile and light.

All in all, 5's will soon be recognized as great band for the buck and stealth watches.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

5 digits movements were and still are stellar quality.
5 digits bracelets are a laugh in comparison to the 6 digits. That is, when you have them in the hands. When strapped, it's so-so.
Comfort wise, we love the easylink on the 6's. The 5's don't need easylink as it much more flexbile and light.

All in all, 5's will soon be recognized as great band for the buck and stealth watches.

But even the cal 3035,3000,3135,3186,had a few problems but rectified over the production years.Myself prefer the 5 series watch especially in the sports lineup as not a fan of ceramic inserts.Only one watch with the 32 series movement when bothered to check which is not very often it runs accurate enough for me, not anal about any watch running to the exact second.As for bracelets my 16600SD expect it seen more use and sometimes abuse that today's pampered watches will see in ten lifetimes, bracelet have never let me down even with hard daily use.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by padi56

As for bracelets my 16600SD expect it seen more use and sometimes abuse that today's pampered watches will see in ten lifetimes, bracelet have never let me down even with hard daily use.

This is a really important point. For all that people call them flimsy, the 4 and 5 digit bracelets have stood up to decades of abuse and easily are fixed if something goes wrong.

The 6 digit bracelets for all their heaviness that people like haven't actually proven themselves yet.

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

Coincidentally last week I traded a 14060m in on a 116600 so the contrast is fresh in my mind. The light weight of the Sub made it supremely comfortable although that was mitigated by the lack of adjustment in the bracelet. The Sea-Dweller while heavier is more crisp in every respect and more substantial in every way. While I may add another five digit at some point I won’t replace any six digits with one.

In fairness your particular SD is sort of the last 5 digit in a lot of ways.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Scholar

In fairness your particular SD is sort of the last 5 digit in a lot of ways.

Agreed, that’s part of what makes it super neato!

[geoach]

5s for me I dabbled with newer but came back home to 5s ......but I'm old so big part of it

[dba]

Originally Posted by geoach

5s for me I dabbled with newer but came back home to 5s ......but I'm old so big part of it

This is where I'm at also.

[Harry-57]

The late era 5 digit references were my first hands on Rolex buying opportunity. In my case it was the 16610LV which I had wanted from the moment I saw one on display. It represented a big outlay for me at the time compared to any other watch I had owned, which made it all the more disappointing when I got to meet one in person at the AD. The bracelet and clasp were flimsy and rattly and the diving extension was a joke. The 116610LV addressed all this and more. It was more up to the build quality and finish of the competition, not to mention cheaper brands that made the 16610LV look overpriced. That's the beauty of this hobby/illness, there is something for everyone. Fans of the rattly and/or non ceramic models down the years have an enormous choice. I love the designs but I'm not interested in owning them. Maybe if they were cheaper, but probably not.

[MitchSF]

Having choices with both five and six digit references, I find myself wearing the 16610 more often than anything else. And six digits, evenings out to dinner and events.

[brandrea]

I think 5 digit references will always have their fan base.

Objectively, they are more comfortable on the wrist than 6 digits (for me) due simply to their lighter weight. Yes the bracelets and clasp seem flimsy compared to the 6 digits, but IMHO they are still very robust and provide a better feel on the wrist

That said, I’m a total hypocrite and no longer own any

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I think 5 digit references will always have their fan base.

Objectively, they are more comfortable on the wrist than 6 digits (for me) due simply to their lighter weight. Yes the bracelets and clasp seem flimsy compared to the 6 digits, but IMHO they are still very robust and provide a better feel on the wrist

That said, I’m a total hypocrite and no longer own any

I think sometimes the argument about cheapness/robustness of 5 digit construction doesn't quite land. As you mention the lighter weight (and still strong build) of the pre-ceramic models is more comfortable in extended wear, and this doesn't just matter for the wearer–it means that there is less strain on the watch itself! So there is an argument to be made that the additional (static) robustness of 6 digit over 5 is beyond diminishing returns, whereas some of the additional benefits of 5 (lighter weight, more easily field repairable) outweigh that.

I find that this is a bit overlooked now.

It's also why I think the comparison of Tudor's BB lineup to 4/5 digits doesn't quite land (even though I like the look of both compared to 6 digit Rolex), because the Black Bay line essentially has modern Rolex bracelets complete with the weight, so that strain is still there. (The Pelagos, being made of titanium, gets away with the modern chunkier bracelet style because of the material's low weight.)

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Scholar

I think sometimes the argument about cheapness/robustness of 5 digit construction doesn't quite land. As you mention the lighter weight (and still strong build) of the pre-ceramic models is more comfortable in extended wear, and this doesn't just matter for the wearer–it means that there is less strain on the watch itself! So there is an argument to be made that the additional (static) robustness of 6 digit over 5 is beyond diminishing returns, whereas some of the additional benefits of 5 (lighter weight, more easily field repairable) outweigh that.

I find that this is a bit overlooked now.

It's also why I think the comparison of Tudor's BB lineup to 4/5 digits doesn't quite land (even though I like the look of both compared to 6 digit Rolex), because the Black Bay line essentially has modern Rolex bracelets complete with the weight, so that strain is still there. (The Pelagos, being made of titanium, gets away with the modern chunkier bracelet style because of the material's low weight.)

Well said.

It’s sort of difficult to describe to those who may not have ever owned 5 digits. I think sometimes the bracelet aspect is overdone.

The 5’s seemed to straddle the line between lighter weight and melt into the wrist comfort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joli160]

Since the beginning of the year the interest has been fading if you look at prices.
There is a fan base for the 5 digits on TRF.
Checking the huge amount of 5 digits for sale on chrono i.e. it seems that there is not so much interest outside the WIS community.

I prefer the 6 digits with its blocky case and solid overall feel.
If you are into vintage than the 4 series are a more charming choice imho.

[rolexpatek363]

The 4 and 5 digit Subs are so much nicer looking than the ceramic ones, IMO. I've never needed glidelock as my wrists don't swell up.

The only 6-digits which appeal to me are the OP line, they have the classic lug profile.

I wish Rolex would headhunt whoever is head of design at Tudor.

[911991]

Other than the bracelet, I dont really notice a difference, and find the older less heavy watches more comfortable to wear all day...

[Sailman]

5 series all the way. Smaller, lighter and more comfortable for me.

4 series are even better !

[javier]

Originally Posted by Sailman

5 series all the way. Smaller, lighter and more comfortable for me.

4 series are even better !

This

[THC]

Love the later 5 digits that included the rehaut engraving.. once on the wrist, which is where every watch belongs, the bracelet is moot

[jamesbondOO7]

5 or nothing. Perfect design, incredible comfort, no waiting list. The acme of Rolex.

[travisb]

The 5 digits will always have a very strong following.
There are many collectors that prefer the aluminum inserts, slimmer proportions and lighter weight. Not to mention the 31xx movements are some of the most solid work horse movements created.

[MDR143]

Originally Posted by jamesbondOO7

5 or nothing. Perfect design, incredible comfort, no waiting list. The acme of Rolex.

I think this is absolutely true for PM and two tones like you have listed, but I’d rather buy two SS Tudors than one SS 20 year old Rolex for same $. They have the aluminum inserts, better movements and T-Fit clasps/modern bracelets. Also no waitlist!

[996marty]

The 4 and 5 digit references get my vote

[Dan Pierce]

The 5 digit era will always be the Rolex pinnacle for me. The best of design & execution. There is certainly an argument to be made about the difference in robustness vs modern bracelets but as previously mentioned repeatedly once on the wrist the lighter weight becomes a benefit.
dP

[PepsiBezel]

I tried to love the 6-digits, but for me the 5-digits win out.

I may be in the minority but I find their bracelets to be better - lighter, thinner, has natural flex and give through out the day.

[S.Explorer]

Depends on the model... but generally prefer 6 digit for design and bracelet.

5 digits had the best box and papers though!

[JRell]

I think it is what you are used to. I have only worn 6 digits, so the weight and more bling from the ceramic is the norm to me. The ceramic bezel is what attracted me to the brand, but it I started with the 5s I’d probably be a 5 guy.

[77T]

The watch market, and customer demand, is cyclical in a way like other markets.

Classic cyclical markets like construction, automotive, retail, and travel are sectors that tend to fluctuate in demand based on economic cycles and consumer preference patterns.

I think the 6-digit FOMO phase is beginning to get rinsed out of the horology space.

As it does, the appreciation of 5-digit models will rise as people notice the value proposition: still serviceable, reasonably priced, and elegant compared to chunkyism.

4-digit models will likely rocket into 6-digit orbit - but I mean 6-digit $$$$$$


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro