5-series Rolexes vs newer ones...

[JRell]

Originally Posted by Jackie Daytona

I own and have owned more 6 digits than 5 digits, but really love the 5 digit watches and enjoy them more. I actually think they are a bit better than the 6 digits honestly. Much more tool like. I realize they won’t really get used in such a manner, especially not now days.

People complain about the 5 digit bracelets, but what does weight actually have to do with quality? It all just a perception. 5 digit bracelets are just fine as is and haven’t given issues in the evolution of that design, and worked often in actual tool environments.

I don’t have any numbers or real statistics, but I’ve seen a few my glidelock bracelets broken for something relatively silly and didn’t really recall or see the same or hear that many stories of 5 digit bracelets doing the same.

31xx series is so robust it has endured such a long service life with really almost no noticeable large issues to cite.

The proportions of the 5 digits are absolutely spot on.

The aluminum bezel inserts while cheaper and probably do look a little bit so are so much more sensible. Still under $100 to replace and durable as can be. Can’t quite say the same about ceramic.

I love all genres of Rolex, but I believe the transition from 5 to 6 digits kinda marked a move more to jewelry and perception of quality rather than the tool qualities that sort of brought that reputation on.

You are spot on. I represent the newer buyers. I wasn’t attracted to Rolex before ceramic. I will admit it, my eyes are drawn to the jewelry look vs tool look. I also have the perception that heavier is more luxury, even though I do realize heavier doesn’t always mean better. The heft on the wrist reminds me I have something special on my wrist, even though it isn’t anymore special than any other 5 series Rolex.

I think lifestyle also matters. I like luxury items in every part of my life. I also am not an outside person. Don’t like the beach, hiking, etc. I don’t do my own yard work and or fix anything around my house.

If Rolex leaves the jewerly look, they will lose a big part of their client base. What they should do is have new release options that attracts both tool and jewelry fans. It seems as if Tudor is more their tool watches and Rolex is more their jeweler watches now, even though there are exceptions to both.

[OG1982]

Great question.

If I could take a 5 digit case, with a 6 digit bracelet and a 31** movement, I think that would be my perfect Rolex configuration.

[Brich436]

In short the new 6 series models feel like LUXURY whereas the 5 series are much more tool focused. Bracelet on the 6 is the best in the industry. There is no right answer (other than own both)!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nicon]

Originally Posted by OG1982

Great question.

If I could take a 5 digit case, with a 6 digit bracelet and a 31** movement, I think that would be my perfect Rolex configuration.

Well, if you can source 6-digit bracelet, or for example if you have 6-digit Sub, then you can easily fit the bracelet to a 5-digit Sub/GMT with SELs.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=12902361

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by 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…

I have no idea who told you that, but my guess is that news travels the same speed to Sweden as the rest of the world. Re the 32 is better than the 31…etc, that is incorrect.

As for the rest of your synopsis, I believe the five digit is the modern day classic, probably the Apex of design production and marketing similar to the Boeing 777. Everything after that is a compromise.

[Dendi]

For me , hands down 5 digit references. More comfortable to wear. Much more classy and elegant looking when compared with the newer boxier cases of the 6 digit references. Sure the bracelets rattle somewhat, but I find myself liking that nonetheless. Don't get me wrong , I like the modern references too, but given the choice ,5 digit all the way.

[M@2]

Originally Posted by OG1982

Great question.

If I could take a 5 digit case, with a 6 digit bracelet and a 31** movement, I think that would be my perfect Rolex configuration.

I feel exactly the same, that would be my ideal submariner

[L_S_SHOE]

Originally Posted by M@2

I feel exactly the same, that would be my ideal submariner

Agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the dark knight]

Demand/price seems to vary heavily on model. Correct me if wrong, but IIRC roughly 10 years ago the delta in price between similar condition 16710s and 16610s was only about $1k? Now it seems to be anywhere from 3-6k, maybe more.

Current models also affect this imo. I think the popularity of the 16710 is partly due to how difficult it is to get a 126710, esp the BLRO, so some are seeing the 16710 as a consolation price, so to speak.

OTOH, 14270 prices seem to have declined quite a bit, I'd say this is due to the 124270, since you get almost the exact same watch (key is the 36mm) with a much more modern bracelet and movement. And the 124270 itself isn't ridiculously priced, even on the secondary market.

16570 seems to be holding steady, prob because the 226570 is bigger and that might dissuade some buyers.

16520 is valuable and holding because of the Zenith movement of course. The 116520s have come down, esp the black dial.

My personal preference also depend on the model:

Sub : My favorite is the current 126610. I much prefer the maxi-dial, and they slimmed down the case and you get all the modern tech. I dare say aesthetically I even prefer the Tudor BB54 over the 16610 and 14060.

GMT : I prefer the 16710. I like the versatility of changing bezels/bracelets, and I much prefer the colors and font of the aluminum dials.

Explorer I : I prefer the 124270 for reasons mentioned above, it's just a modern version of the same watch.

Explorer II : Pretty equal tbh, if you offered me the choice between a brand new 224270 and a NOS 16570, I'd probably take the latter in polar dial.

Daytona : Favorite would be the mid 2010s 116520 white dial. 4130 is already as modern as a movement needs to get imo, great PR and proven. I like the steel bezel, and the bracelet was updated as well.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Jackie Daytona

I love all genres of Rolex, but I believe the transition from 5 to 6 digits kinda marked a move more to jewelry and perception of quality rather than the tool qualities that sort of brought that reputation on.

I agree.

I’ve heard it said that the only adornment that it’s culturally appropriate for a man to wear is a wedding ring, a wristwatch and a pocketknife. The older I get and the less physical labor I do for work the more comfortable I am wearing a watch that’s closer to jewelry than to tool. I mean we all know that a hot fudge sundae is awesome but that doesn’t make a simple bowl of chocolate ice cream any less delightful. Either one puts a smile on my face.

[JRell]

Originally Posted by OG1982

Great question.

If I could take a 5 digit case, with a 6 digit bracelet and a 31** movement, I think that would be my perfect Rolex configuration.

I don’t care about the movement, but are you saying with the ceramic bezel? If so that is basically the new subs.

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by JRell

I don’t care about the movement, but are you saying with the ceramic bezel? If so that is basically the new subs.

No, I said 5 digit case, which wouldn't come with a ceramic bezel.

[JRell]

Originally Posted by OG1982

No, I said 5 digit case, which wouldn't come with a ceramic bezel.

That is where my suggestion of new releases comes in. They should have a vintage lineup like you suggest. I need a ceramic bezel, but they would also have that. Win-win.

[Yobber76]

I think for people that are newer to Rolex ownership like myself, it's was difficult to accept paying high prices for a 15 year old watch that you have no experience with, and pay less for a brand new 6 digit if you could buy it from an AD. As I have now owned Rolex watches and handled 5 digit Subs and GMTs, I have a greater appreciation for the 5 digit references. That being said, I don't know that I feel the need to sell my 6 digit watches to get 5's, but I would love to own a 16710 Pepsi (or Coke) at the right price.

[JRell]

Originally Posted by Yobber76

I think for people that are newer to Rolex ownership like myself, it's was difficult to accept paying high prices for a 15 year old watch that you have no experience with, and pay less for a brand new 6 digit if you could buy it from an AD. As I have now owned Rolex watches and handled 5 digit Subs and GMTs, I have a greater appreciation for the 5 digit references. That being said, I don't know that I feel the need to sell my 6 digit watches to get 5's, but I would love to own a 16710 Pepsi (or Coke) at the right price.

Agree, but would still need some ceramic! How about a green no date sub ceramic with the 5 case. Wow.

[Cru Jones]

I would buy a 5 series today at 5 series pricing when they were new. But, when used 5 are priced today like new 6, then I will take the 6 series. That's just me, though.

[rohada]

To me (and as others have said), the 6 is definitely jewelry leaning with a more expensive and luxurious look. While I've admired the brand, I really didn't take notice until the clasps lost the visible adjustment holes. That one thing, to me, cheapened the appeal, given the price range we are talking about. I'm very happy with my 6 digit references.

However, I was recently drawn by the tool watch aspect of the 5 series with the visible holes in the lugs and clasp, the smaller more refined indices on the dial, and the rather raw (merely functional) integration of the fliplock. I'm particularly partial to 1997-2003ish Sub (of which I have a 14060M) and the Explorer II. I'm growing to be a fan of the utilitarian design of this particular era of Rolex watches.

[Gearjockey]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

Current models also affect this imo. I think the popularity of the 16710 is partly due to how difficult it is to get a 126710, esp the BLRO, so some are seeing the 16710 as a consolation price, so to speak.

Consolation prize?

Please.

Anyone can acquire a BLRO, maybe not at retail, but attainable.
If we wanted a BLRO that’s what we would buy.
Some if us, many of us, want a neo-classic reference which reflects the old Rolex philosophy of aesthetics design and engineering. I have modern ceramic sports models and although they’re awfully pretty, they just do not offer the same feel as 5 digit. Maybe you feel like it’s a consolation prize and if so, you will never be happy with the 5 digit BLRO. I would not settle if I were you.
What about 4 digit BLRO. Consolation? C’mon man.

[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.

[Jackie Daytona]

Originally Posted by JRell

You are spot on. I represent the newer buyers. I wasn’t attracted to Rolex before ceramic. I will admit it, my eyes are drawn to the jewelry look vs tool look. I also have the perception that heavier is more luxury, even though I do realize heavier doesn’t always mean better. The heft on the wrist reminds me I have something special on my wrist, even though it isn’t anymore special than any other 5 series Rolex.

I think lifestyle also matters. I like luxury items in every part of my life. I also am not an outside person. Don’t like the beach, hiking, etc. I don’t do my own yard work and or fix anything around my house.

If Rolex leaves the jewerly look, they will lose a big part of their client base. What they should do is have new release options that attracts both tool and jewelry fans. It seems as if Tudor is more their tool watches and Rolex is more their jeweler watches now, even though there are exceptions to both.

Absolutely agree. There is a time and a place/occasion for every watch.

Lifestyle is huge in it all as well. As a society we we have changed and Rolex as a brand with it. Still love the 6 digits, and with us all changing in a way it’s really the perfect evolution of the brand truth be told despite my 5 digit being slightly superior argument. In order for the brand to be as strong as it is and survive and be relevant I think it leads us here. They’re all great watches and serve what is needed of them.

[Jackie Daytona]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

I agree.

I’ve heard it said that the only adornment that it’s culturally appropriate for a man to wear is a wedding ring, a wristwatch and a pocketknife. The older I get and the less physical labor I do for work the more comfortable I am wearing a watch that’s closer to jewelry than to tool. I mean we all know that a hot fudge sundae is awesome but that doesn’t make a simple bowl of chocolate ice cream any less delightful. Either one puts a smile on my face.

Well said man! Good analogy.

[JRell]

Originally Posted by Jackie Daytona

Absolutely agree. There is a time and a place/occasion for every watch.

Lifestyle is huge in it all as well. As a society we we have changed and Rolex as a brand with it. Still love the 6 digits, and with us all changing in a way it’s really the perfect evolution of the brand truth be told despite my 5 digit being slightly superior argument. In order for the brand to be as strong as it is and survive and be relevant I think it leads us here. They’re all great watches and serve what is needed of them.

This thread has me looking at pre-ceramic subs 2 liners. A big reason I am here is to learn and appreciate others experiences. Thank you for your feedback!

[rohada]

Originally Posted by JRell

This thread has me looking at pre-ceramic subs 2 liners. A big reason I am here is to learn and appreciate others experiences.

The 14060M was my choice once I decided on a two liner from the turn of the century era. Clean, refined dial and a movement that was later COSC, if I recall correctly. If it isn't, someone will correct me. Not sure if there is a notable, impact on quality of life performance difference between the M and non-M. I think you'll be happy with either one. I say this being a fan of modern ceramic bezel Rolex watches.

[0nly5iv3Digits]

0nly5iv3Digits for me. I don't personally care for what rolex has become. Sticking to the watches, more specifically, however, I do believe their best days are behind them in terms of design aesthetic, proportionality, comfort, wearability etc.

I own a few 6 digit pieces, but nothing gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling like the 5 digits. Simply the best era of Rolex for me (and many seem to agree!).

"New" does not mean "better". Not by a long shot. Would I give up my 6 speed 355 for an automatic 488 Pista? God no! Would I give up my 73' G body 911 RS tribute for a 992 Carrera S? Hell NO!!

As far as pricing, the 5 digits will continue to creep up steadily. No big "appreciations" or "drops." - Inflation raises all boats ~

[JRell]

Originally Posted by rohada

The 14060M was my choice once I decided on a two liner from the turn of the century era. Clean, refined dial and a movement that was later COSC, if I recall correctly. If it isn't, someone will correct me. Not sure if there is a notable, impact on quality of life performance difference between the M and non-M. I think you'll be happy with either one. I say this being a fan of modern ceramic bezel Rolex watches.

Great feedback. Will look into the 14060M. Good to hear from a ceramic fan!

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Jackie Daytona

I own and have owned more 6 digits than 5 digits, but really love the 5 digit watches and enjoy them more. I actually think they are a bit better than the 6 digits honestly. Much more tool like. I realize they won’t really get used in such a manner, especially not now days.

People complain about the 5 digit bracelets, but what does weight actually have to do with quality? It all just a perception. 5 digit bracelets are just fine as is and haven’t given issues in the evolution of that design, and worked often in actual tool environments.

I don’t have any numbers or real statistics, but I’ve seen a few my glidelock bracelets broken for something relatively silly and didn’t really recall or see the same or hear that many stories of 5 digit bracelets doing the same.

31xx series is so robust it has endured such a long service life with really almost no noticeable large issues to cite.

The proportions of the 5 digits are absolutely spot on.

The aluminum bezel inserts while cheaper and probably do look a little bit so are so much more sensible. Still under $100 to replace and durable as can be. Can’t quite say the same about ceramic.

I love all genres of Rolex, but I believe the transition from 5 to 6 digits kinda marked a move more to jewelry and perception of quality rather than the tool qualities that sort of brought that reputation on.

I think the transition in "spirit" happened before that, in the 1970s and 80s due to the quartz crisis. The most popular Rolex of the 80s was probably the 5-digit Datejust, which is firmly in the jewelry over tool camp.

But I get the sense Rolex was quite well positioned due to their smart marketing and legacy in tool watches, the paradigm back then was professional/tool = quality. Substance over style. If the Average Joe saw professional pilots, divers, cave explorers etc wearing the GMT, Sub, Exp II, etc, they perceived that as quality, and Rolex capitalized with how they did marketing back then. That's how a watch like a Submariner could become a status symbol decades before the 6 digits.

I think the transition to 6-digits was a "physical" manifestation of that watch as jewelry transition that had already started a long time ago. The consumer no longer saw professional/tool as quality, they wanted advances in movement tech, fancy bezels, heftier bracelets, etc. Marketing reflects this, Rolex doesn't tout the technical abilities of their watches (you too can wear what a Pan Am pilot wears) but rather WHO is wearing them (Roger Federer).

[racerx]

In the past couple of years I upended my collection selling all but my 6 digit Sub. I then set about buying 5 digit references. I like my Sub, but the 5 digits are all I seem to wear anymore.

[GMT Aviator]

Have 5, 6 and 32 movement GMT’s.

It’s fair to say the newer 6 digits are more robust than the 5 digits they replaced BUT it doesn’t make them better.

The 5 digits, especially the GMT’s, I feel, are the last of an era that will never be repeated.

The world was a better place when the 5 digits had their reign. 5 digits were worn by real professionals and classy celebrities. It’s their achievements that made the (4) and 5 digits what they became. Infamous for a reason.

I feel the newer 6 digit models simply trade off their predecessors fame and real world achievements.

As for the bracelets, whilst the 5 digits may feel flimsy, they are more than up to the job for which they were designed, they are functional and simply work just fine.

The 6 digits will never replace the 5 digits completely and for those reasons, my 5 digits are keepers.

[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!

[ROlesorusLEX]

.

Sent from my CPH2583 using Tapatalk