5-series Rolexes vs newer ones...

[L_S_SHOE]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

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).

This is spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jackie Daytona]

Originally Posted by the dark knight

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).

Very true! Enjoyed reading this input and take on it all.

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. Thank you for your feedback!

Those are awesome watches! Love those. Best of luck in your search.

[illiguy]

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.

[Golden Palomino]

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.

Astute observation my good man.

I'll have one human alcohol martini please.

[KatGirl]

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

[Kenny G]

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.

[Joearch]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agree, like both but don’t see the value in the overpriced 5 series Sub and fmt.

[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!

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Tallbark

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…

The watches / bracelets and movements are different … I wouldn’t agree that the newer is better as a blanket statement

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.

[Tallbark]

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.

[White Collar Boy]

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.

Originally Posted by Tallbark

I guess I like the more modern look, feel, and heft. .

[PepsiBezel]

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.

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)

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by PepsiBezel

Attachment 1444795

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)

You forgot to add on the fly adjustment, oh, wait a minute....

[PepsiBezel]

Originally Posted by OG1982

You forgot to add on the fly adjustment, oh, wait a minute....

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.

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by PepsiBezel

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.

I hear you, I've had easy link and it was too big. Glide lock is non-negotiable, I have it on my 41mm Sub and it would be a step backwards for me. I had a 5 digit bracelet on the Explorer, and although it was nice, it was a poor relation to the new bracelets. All IMO, of course.

[PepsiBezel]

Originally Posted by JRell

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

While the 14060M is a true classic, if you are more drawn to the jewelry side of modern Rolex but interested in trying a 5-digit, I recommend either a 16610 or 16710.

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

[rmagoo57]

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!

[JRell]

Originally Posted by PepsiBezel

While the 14060M is a true classic, if you are more drawn to the jewelry side of modern Rolex but interested in trying a 5-digit, I recommend either a 16610 or 16710.

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…

Attachment 1444796

Thank you so much for the well thought out response. I contacted my AD that sells certified Rolex. I told him preferences. The only issue I have is the preowned market for 16610LVs are more than the 12LVs at retail which I also want. I think I am going to focus on 5 sub no dates, there are better deals I can get that way. I will say swapping out bezels is appealing to me, especially the Pepsi. I love my BLNR but like the pre ceramic Pepsi better than the current, which also has flash.

[faimag]

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?

[TruthBalance]

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.

[Nads786]

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.

[worldofoyster]

Prefer the modern Rolex

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by faimag

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?

The brand new 16610LV I went to my AD with a view to buying in 2008 had a really nicely proportioned, presented and weighted case, not to mention that beautiful bezel insert, but the bracelet felt cheap and tinny and the diving extension put me in mind a recycled cat food tin. I don't doubt that they are very comfortable and durable enough for long term wear, what I questioned at the time was the asking price. I owned an Omega, two Tag Heuers and a Breitling at the time. They were perfectly comfortable, had sturdy bracelets and made the Sub Date look overpriced.

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.

[Texasjim]

Like them both for different reasons (sports models). I usually find a 4/5 series on my wrist though.

[codecow]

They’re ok. I’m never selling mine.

[thegrandseirolexguy]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

The brand new 16610LV I went to my AD with a view to buying in 2008 had a really nicely proportioned, presented and weighted case, not to mention that beautiful bezel insert, but the bracelet felt cheap and tinny and the diving extension put me in mind a recycled cat food tin. I don't doubt that they are very comfortable and durable enough for long term wear, what I questioned at the time was the asking price. I owned an Omega, two Tag Heuers and a Breitling at the time. They were perfectly comfortable, had sturdy bracelets and made the Sub Date look overpriced.

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.

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

[CFR]

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.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by CFR

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.

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

[jamesbondOO7]

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.

[Toptimes]

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.