![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
![]() |
#61 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Tennessee, USA
Watch: 16800
Posts: 514
|
Quote:
This is spot on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Brian
Location: Nashville
Watch: 16750
Posts: 6,337
|
Quote:
Those are awesome watches! Love those. Best of luck in your search.
__________________
16750 | 6516(wife’s) | 126334 | 16570 | SBGA413 | SRPE33 | 126610LV |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UTC/GMT -5
Posts: 3,613
|
Prefer 5 digits overall, especially Submariner line. 16610LV, 14060M, and Zenith Daytonas. Own 6-digit Subs, and like them for what they are, but the 5 wins out.
The only line that stand out to me in the 6-digit lineup is the Daytona. 116520 and 116500, specifically, for the more classic case size. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: California
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
I'll have one human alcohol martini please. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Real Name: Kat
Location: CA, USA
Watch: 126233 Wimbledon T
Posts: 6,805
|
5-series Rolexes vs newer ones...
I really miss my 16610. I never noticed any problem with the bracelet. It was a bit flimsy, but so what! It was light and comfortable. The watch was the perfect size. If I decide to get another Sub, I will call a trusted seller and get the latest year available of the one I used to own, which would be 2010, same as the one that was stolen from me. I’ve tried on the latest Sub date, and did not get the same feel, fit, or feeling that I did from my 5 digit. I have no desire for one, not really miss my 16610. Color me a fan!
![]() Kat Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,020
|
I do love 6 series Rolex (and all series for that matter) but feel the 5 series was the pinnacle. It blended vintage aesthetic with modern tech.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#67 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Joe
Location: Los Angeles
Watch: Daytona + GMT BLNR
Posts: 4,694
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#68 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: CA
Watch: 126710 BLNR
Posts: 48
|
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!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#69 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: gus
Location: East Coast
Watch: APK & sometimes Y
Posts: 26,174
|
Quote:
Smaller wrist presence may be preferred, the tried and tested movements of the 5 digit have proven to be reliable as have the bracelets. One of the main changes in the new movement solves a problem that doesn’t really exist in an automatic movement. Power reserve. In all of the years of wearing a 5 digit Rolex as a daily, I never once had to wind it aside from the rare (1) occasion that I didn’t wear it for a couple of weeks. New or old are all fine watches and the reason that they remain in such demand. Specifically, what would suit you best is all I would focus on.
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#70 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Sweden
Posts: 130
|
As the thread's starter, I have read through all the posts. A lot of great insights... I have a very mixed feeling toward the 5-digit versions;
- Represent the Rolex "golden era" - A lot of history that pushes sentimental buttons in me (remembering the 90's/early 2000s, Magnum, etc. - Low key - A watch that you see on many people's wrists that they wear year after year This is how I see the 5-digit ones before ownership and before having them on my wrist. If I wasn't interested in watches but would like a nice watch a 5 series Explorer or SUB would be perfect. The thing is that they feel too insubstantial as I see it. It is not only a time-telling piece that should look nice, it is a hobby on my wrist and I would like to be aware of the watch in a more solid way. So, as I have found out, I love the 5-digit concept. But every time I give in to this romantic idea I get frustrated after a while and let the watches go… I guess I like the more modern look, feel, and heft. Very subjective. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#71 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Feb 2020
Real Name: Matt
Location: .
Watch: PAM111
Posts: 2,789
|
Interesting thread. All I can say is my own interest in five-digit Rolexeses (hat tip to CJ) is not waning at all, and I hope prices keep going down. :)
Some six-digit models just didn’t come in earlier versions and are watches I would gladly own if money was no object: the Deepsea Sea-Dweller (D-Blue), the 36mm Wimbledon Datejust, even the unfairly maligned ‘Bloodhound’ Air-King. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#72 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Watch: Neo-Vintage
Posts: 1,194
|
Quote:
IMG_7831.jpeg Here you go — the perfect Rolex! Just add a 97200 Oyster Bracelet (from the 114060/116610) and you are all set. (I’m keeping the thinner, more flexible, and lighter bracelet and clasp) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#73 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2020
Real Name: Ollie
Location: UK
Watch: Sub, DJ36 & BB54
Posts: 1,761
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#74 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Watch: Neo-Vintage
Posts: 1,194
|
Not really needed, as the hollow links have natural flex, so they will adjust and give as your wrist may swell.
If you really need it, super easy with a tooth pick, paper clip, etc, to move it ~1-2mm. Only the Submariner has glidelock, while the easy-link of the Explorers and GMTs is pretty useless, as 5mm is a pretty big shift. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#75 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2020
Real Name: Ollie
Location: UK
Watch: Sub, DJ36 & BB54
Posts: 1,761
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#76 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Watch: Neo-Vintage
Posts: 1,194
|
Quote:
The 14060M has a unique case (it’s not the same as the 16610), and as such it was the only 5-digit to not transition to solid-end links (SELs). If you are jewelry inclined, you want to first consider a 5-digit with SELs (so you can swap a modern 97200 bracelet, if inclined (or 63600 Super Jubilee) (not sure if the current GMT jubilee fits, never tried it). You’d also likely want one from the no lug holes era (2003 and later). As per my earlier post, the 16610LV is the perfect blend of modern and neovintage. For collector geeks, there are like 9 “mark” variations over time, different bezel shades over production years. While not as versatile as the 16710, it can swap between LV and LN. I’m wearing it with LN this morning… IMG_5839.jpeg |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#77 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Ron
Location: Detroitish
Watch: GMT II/Sub/Exp II
Posts: 2,444
|
I tried a few 6's but they wear a little too chunky for my taste. The 5's feel just right so I went all in and bought a couple in NOS condition. Bracelets/clasps still stiff, lugs, bezel and case in original condition - hard to beat a brand new 15-year-old watch!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#78 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Pittsburgh
Watch: 126710BLNR Jubilee
Posts: 6,952
|
Quote:
__________________
126710 BLNR Jubilee |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#79 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: US, SG, DK, GR
Watch: Reverso
Posts: 3,084
|
There is no question that 6-digit watches are technically superior than 5-digit watches, at least on paper. I doubt this has any practical consequences for the wearer, however. The differences are a bit exaggerated in my opinion because we typically compare 5-digits that are more heavily used (due to them being around for longer) than the corresponding 6-digits. If you ever handle a "NOS" 5-digit, it also feels like a tank and much closer to the "robustness" of the 6-digit. Yes, 6D are flashier, but how can they compete with the charm of a slightly rattling 5D bracelet?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#80 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 1,675
|
I have both a 16610 (2009) and a 114060 (2020). They do present and ware differently. If I had to choose one, it would be the 6 digit. Prefer the maxi dial, ceramic bezel and redesigned clasp. The 5 digit has become a safe queen, only worn about 10 times since I had it serviced in 2020. So +1 for the 6 digit.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#81 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2023
Real Name: Nadeem
Location: Chicago
Watch: GMT BLNR
Posts: 955
|
interesting and timely topic - I've tried on five digit subs numerous times and really enjoyed the feeling on the wrist, recently I tried a 2005 Polar Explorer and was quite shocked at how substantial the bracelet was in comparison to my 2024 GMT.
Should a 2005 Exp2's bracelet feel so similar to a six digit modern watch? I ask because the SA was light on the details of the watch servicing and tried to simply sell it to me via their CPO program. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#82 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2019
Real Name: Vincent
Location: 215
Watch: SS Sub
Posts: 2,143
|
Prefer the modern Rolex
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#83 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Real Name: Harry
Location: England
Posts: 10,283
|
Quote:
Personal preference, eye of the beholder and all that. However, from my experience there is no comparison with the 11 series bracelets and clasps, which are sturdier, better finished and ooze quality engineering. It's not about the weight per se. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#84 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Real Name: Jim
Location: Lone Star State
Watch: ...this!
Posts: 171
|
Like them both for different reasons (sports models). I usually find a 4/5 series on my wrist though.
__________________
114060, 116010lv, 126710BLRO, 126600, 126610, 116600, 16600, 8x 5513, 4x 1675, 2x16610, 2x 1680, 16800, 16610LV, 14060M, 16710, 116500, 16803, 5512, 114300, 1016, 116520 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#85 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Real Name: Louis
Location: Bay Area, CA
Watch: PP 5131R
Posts: 5,062
|
They’re ok. I’m never selling mine.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#86 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2023
Location: Asia
Posts: 453
|
Quote:
I agree. Quality wise, the new Rolex bracelets are miles ahead of the previous 5 digit series. My own personal ownership experience with other brands such as Omega, GS, Longines, Tudor etc… Rolex bracelets feel are best in class. Solidly constructed and user friendly. Aesthetically pleasing and taper is also well thought out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#87 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: US
Posts: 1,072
|
I appreciate and own 4-, 5- , and 6-digit models, so I don't have any confirmation bias towards any of one of those series. They're simply different from each other.
Put yourself in the shoes of Rolex. Why did they move from making the 4- to the 5-digit models, and then from the 5- to the 6-digit models? Was it because of some systemic problems with the watches failing all the time (during wars, flights, dives, etc.)? No, not at all. Their watches have generally always been robust. The decision to make the 6-digit models bigger and heavier than their 5-digit predecessors was a marketing decision -- a solution in search of problem. So those who say that later generations of Rolex watches are more robust, durable, reliable, etc., than previous generations in typical daily use are making that up. They're conflating thicker and heavier with more robust/durable/reliable. And the current (6-digit) models need to have more adjustability in their clasps, etc., because they're heavier, and heavier equals more noticeable for the wearer. That's not necessarily a good thing all the time. Wearing a 126660 DSSD doesn't feel better, or like I'm wearing a more durable/reliable watch, than wearing a 1680 Sub that was made 50 years earlier, or a 16710 GMT made 20 years earlier. Different? Yes. Better? Not really. Also, we still don't know about the longer-term performance of certain 6-digit models because they're relatively new, and we've certainly heard concerns about some of the newest movements (I've had personal experience with that). Lastly, I'm not dismissing certain clear improvements. For example, using ceramic sleeves in various newer bracelets to reduce the "stretch" effect is a practical, observable improvement. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#88 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
Bracelets are undeniably stronger and better. You’re not going to significantly stretch a 6 digit jubilee bracelet. You can look at a 1601’s jubilee bracelet and it could be a near right angle. That’s never going to happen again. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#89 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Real Name: BondJamesBond
Location: The Algarve
Watch: Rolex or nothing
Posts: 4,035
|
This is 25 years of heavy duty daily wear (my first Rolex that I wore everyday until I bought a 16570). Good stuff I’d say.
![]()
__________________
♛ 5-digit Rolex or nothing ♛ 16030, 16613, 16713, 18038. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 115
|
The transition from Rolex 5-digit series to 6-digit series has indeed brought about advancements in technology and materials, which are often appreciated by enthusiasts and collectors.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.