ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
29 August 2013, 09:21 AM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: -------
Location: -------
Watch: ---------
Posts: 12,609
|
16800 with a matte dial is the perfect daily wear watch IMHO, if you can find one with matching hands and pearl they should be scooped up
|
29 August 2013, 09:43 AM | #32 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Watch: 16750/16800/126710
Posts: 1,422
|
my vote goes to the 16800. love the 1680 but always preferred the 16800. perfect for daily wear. i feel i can wear this thing anywhere and not worry about babying it. if i were to buy an acrylic sub, it would be a late 70s 5513.
|
29 August 2013, 11:22 AM | #33 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 651
|
1680 all the way - not even a question for me - was my first rolex and still have it
|
29 August 2013, 01:58 PM | #34 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers
Posts: 7,973
|
My tastes have changed since the birth of this thread. I prefer a plexiglass crystal >95% of the time. My vote would now go to a 1680/5513 unless you can afford something older.
Ken and John have been a bad influence on me.
__________________
Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY |
29 August 2013, 03:09 PM | #35 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 901
|
It's a tough call whether I should flip my matte 16800 for a 1680.
As much as I love my Sub, my daily wearer is a more comfortable and flatter Seamaster 2254. The quickset date makes it easy to wear it on those special days because of the quickset. I also prefer the fast beat/smooth movement of the second hand of the 16800. I landed a nice 16800 with a gorgeous matte dial and I think I'll hold on to it and some day add the 1680 and perhaps a 5513 to the collection... I say that now.....?....we'll see, right? |
29 August 2013, 03:11 PM | #36 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 901
|
Can anyone give me the measurement of the total thickness of the 1680 vs that of the 16800???
The 1680 has a slimmer case and thinner case back, but the super thick crystal. The 16800 has the thicker case back and mid-case, but the flat sapphire crystal. Which is thinner overall??? |
29 August 2013, 03:37 PM | #37 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14,297
|
1680 - no question!
|
29 August 2013, 04:12 PM | #38 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 7,630
|
1680 for me
|
31 August 2013, 01:38 AM | #39 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Watch: 16750/16800/126710
Posts: 1,422
|
Quote:
|
|
31 August 2013, 07:09 AM | #40 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 2,205
|
Top Hat on the 1680 wins it for me :)
|
31 August 2013, 04:03 PM | #41 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 901
|
|
31 August 2013, 05:12 PM | #42 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Watch: Vintage
Posts: 2,876
|
You can't really go wrong with either. I guess it just depends on what you prefer. It's nice to have the modern features of the 16800, primarily the sapphire crystal so it holds up against abuse a little better but there's just something about that thick plastic crystal on the 1680 that you just gotta love. I wouldn't hesitate to wear either of them daily. Here's both that I had
|
31 August 2013, 07:28 PM | #43 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 101
|
Red 1680...
'White' 1680... 16800 (that's seen some action!)... |
31 August 2013, 07:46 PM | #44 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,885
|
|
1 September 2013, 08:10 AM | #45 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: Kenny
Location: northern ireland
Watch: SDs, Subs & GMTs
Posts: 5,132
|
Both beautiful watches but 1680 for me by an edge!
|
2 September 2013, 02:36 AM | #46 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 901
|
OK, can we please get some comparative measurements of the total case thickness between a 1680 and a 16800?
Here's my 16800 in mm's and inches... I don't unfortunately have a 1680, can someone please give us some comparable measurements? I think the case back is also thicker on the 16800 adding to the water resistance rating, not just the addition of the sapphire crystal. |
2 September 2013, 06:19 PM | #47 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: AJACCIO
Posts: 268
|
Quote:
https://www.rolexforums.com/attachme...1&d=1378109936 |
|
3 September 2013, 07:25 AM | #48 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 901
|
Thanks for all the opinions....but can someone with a 1680 and some calipers or a micrometer take some measurements of the thickness of the watch body please??
|
3 September 2013, 07:53 AM | #49 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Real Name: Jay
Location: TEXAS
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 7,648
|
Well it comes down to one being truly vintage and one being very collectable.
Hard choice to make. I favor vintage. |
3 September 2013, 03:21 PM | #50 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 557
|
|
4 September 2013, 02:04 AM | #51 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Real Name: Jim
Location: Northeast PA
Watch: Rolex GMT
Posts: 6
|
I have always considered myself a GMT guy, never really wanted a Submariner, but this thread has single handedly made me want a 1680 or 16800.
I think I'm leaning to the 16800. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.