![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
![]() |
#91 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UTC/GMT -5
Posts: 3,613
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2011
Real Name: George
Location: Alabama
Watch: GMTsSubLVEx2SDDayt
Posts: 4,508
|
It’s these threads that make TRF so enjoyable. While there are many “upgrades” with the 6 digit references, the 5 digit sport references are special and classic.
IMO Rolex was genius in that room for both in a collection is a great thing because of the differences. ![]()
__________________
___________________ GMT II 126719 Meteorite + GMT II 126710BLRO + Daytona 116500LN (White) + Submariner 16610LV + Explorer II 16570 Polar + Submariner 116610LV + GMT II 16713 Rootbeer + Sky-Dweller 336934 (Blue) + GMT II 16710 (Pepsi & Coke) + Sea-Dweller 116600 Breitling Premier B25 Datora 2FA Security Active |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: East Coast
Posts: 33
|
5 digits were peak Rolex, durable, perfect size, sleek and lightweight. My 16610 is basically my beater, worn doing anything and everything.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#94 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Larry
Location: Kentucky
Watch: Yes
Posts: 34,808
|
For me, the practical advantages of the 6 digits are in the bracelet and the clasp, both being more adjustable- fewer permanent links in the bracelet and easy link/glide lock- in the 6 digit series. Makes for a more wearable watch.
Also, the aesthetics of the so-called 'tuna can' clasp are just not up to the standard of a watch of this caliber, IMO. Speaking of aesthetics, though, let's start by turning the watch over and looking at the bezel and dial. That's where the beauty and charm of the 5 digits more than hold their own with their newer counterparts, the Pepsi in particular. Again my opinion only, the colors on the ceramic are never going to match the striking visual impact of the red and blue found on the 5 (and even 4) digit models. So it all boils down to this...nothing is perfect. You just have to pick your poison. As far as whatever the future holds, well, I guess that is going to be determined by whatever future collectors hold to be more important. Given the popularity of the 5 digits on this forum, which I consider to be the most knowledgeable and informed on the internet, I would say it's a pretty safe bet their place in history is secure. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Doghouse
Watch: Ingersoll Mickey
Posts: 3,128
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#96 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Doghouse
Watch: Ingersoll Mickey
Posts: 3,128
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#97 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: US
Posts: 1,072
|
Quote:
I'd respectfully suggest that it's too early to say anything conclusive about the separate but related question of long-term performance of the current bracelets vs. the older bracelets. That's just because we can't predict the future. Stretch in the older bracelets was never an issue until years into ownership, and then only with frequent wear. Similarly, none of us knows right now which bracelet or clasp components on our 6-digit models might commonly start to "fail" 20 years from now (I put "fail" in quotes because stretch isn't a catastrophic issue in the same way that having a pin or screw come out is). The question of bracelet strength is an interesting one. Although it'd be an expensive test, I figured that by now, someone would've posted a video testing the strength of various old and new Rolex bracelets, say by comparing how much force it takes to pull apart the links on one bracelet vs. another. That'd be fun to watch, especially if clasps were attached too, to see what component fails first. I'd especially like to see how something like the 93150 performs relative to the current bracelets. I couldn't find anything, though. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#98 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 24
|
The 5-digit proportions were just perfect.. I have small wrists though, lol. But I do wish there was a newer model Rolex introduced to cater to that crowd. Like how Tudor released the BB58.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#99 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
I would love to get a 16710 again but the price premiums on those are a little tough to swallow now, so I'm tempted to get a 16570. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#100 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
And of course, the 36mm DJs or OPs. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#101 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 24
|
I did consider that one, although it's a bit too simple and plain for me (also no date..)! Same with OP. I may try out a DJ.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#102 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
Like you mentioned, I think Tudor might be the ultimate answer here. There are some members here that sold their Rolexes in favor of Tudor primarily because of the more vintage proportions they offer now. I think the drawback (that you may agree with since you seem to want a date function) is those proportions for now seem to be limited to the BB58/54 line as most of their other sports watches remained a bit too thick/big overall. I am hoping the BB58 GMT solves this "problem", and I have one on order. I will reserve judgment until I get one on wrist and use it for a while. But I think that and the BB54 I already have may pose the question of whether any modern Rolex makes sense for a guy like me, who favors the 5 digit proportions, look, and feel but wants some of the more modern watch features like quick microadjust (T-Fit now solves this) and more modern movements. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#103 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Real Name: Stephen
Location: Beach
Watch: 16660
Posts: 9,264
|
Quote:
I did this as well. Over the past year, I added a NOS 16570 polar and a NOS 16613lb to join my 16710. And I agree wholeheartedly, it’s a great feeling to have that squeaky bracelet and perfect case on a ~15 year old watch. The eventual and inevitable battle scars will be all mine. ![]() ![]() ![]()
__________________
"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." --- RWE |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#104 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Ron
Location: Detroitish
Watch: GMT II/Sub/Exp II
Posts: 2,444
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#105 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Ron
Location: Detroitish
Watch: GMT II/Sub/Exp II
Posts: 2,444
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#106 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: US
Watch: Two tone Sub
Posts: 206
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#107 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Brian (TBone)
Location: canada
Watch: es make me smile
Posts: 75,934
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#108 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: David
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Watch: 16710
Posts: 2,661
|
This is where I'm at also.
__________________
Current: 16710 Previous: 16760 Fat Lady, 16613 Bluesy, 16800, 14060, 16710 Pepsi, 216570 Polar, 116710LN, 16610, 216570 Polar (again), 16713, 216570 Polar (yet again), 16710 Black w/ Pepsi Insert Hope is not a strategy. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#109 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: US
Watch: sub
Posts: 2,370
|
Lots of interesting points made here. I prefer the 5's. I hate the look of the ceramic and the blockier cases. I think the 5's are a more "livable" watch. Easy to wear and not as flashy.
One poster made the point that when Rolex moved to stiffer, heavier bracelets they introduced a new problem and that was comfort. The 5-digit bracelets have some give to them. I actually think they put a lot of thought into the design. They are oddly "grippy" too; a quality I attribute to slight flex of the links that means they are less likely to slide around when worn comfort loose. The rigidity of the 6 digit bracelets works against this; with no "give" the edges are constantly pressing into your skin if you elevate or hang your arm instead of slightly rotating away as the 5 digit links do. The slight flex of the 5 digit bracelets mean the full surface area of the link is always pressing on your skin no matter the position of your arm. As far as durability it's a toss up. The newer bracelets may mitigate "stretch" but it's not the steel actually stretching but the pins bending and wearing out the holes and embedded grit also wearing out the holes. The bearing surfaces are the same. Durability of the cases are the same but the crown guards are actually too short now to really be functional. I don't like the new clasp on the dive models but admit it's way more functional. The old dive extension was terrible but I prefer the aesthetic of the clasp. It's too bad they couldn't have met somewhere in the middle. The dive clasps are both too large yet don't provide sufficient adjustment to fit over a thick wetsuit or drysuit. Tudor has the best solution with the smaller t-fit clasp and folding dive extension. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#110 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Uranus
Watch: 116500LN
Posts: 4,758
|
Gun to my head i’m going with 6 digit but there is a charm and character with 4/5 digits that will always appeal to me. (Sleeker proportions, chamfers, Patina, faded aluminum bezels, etc.)
![]() Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#111 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
Time is a fair point. We do need more time with the 6 digits. We also may not ever see the level of wear we used to. I wear a sub or an explorer. I’ll never go deeper than a bath tub, i don’t like the ocean, i am not a huge fan of hiking or getting dirty ![]() The 93150, for as flimsy as that clasp can feel at times, its rock solid. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#112 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: UK
Watch: 226570
Posts: 885
|
Quote:
There’s not much to be said that hasn’t been said already and I definitely have a preference for aluminium bezels over ceramic - the one exception for me is the Daytona. In most models, I find the move to 6 digits left the 5 digits looking like classics in a good way. In the Daytona, it made the 5 digits look a bit old fashioned or outdated as if they should always have had a ceramic bezel. (Or at least a bezel that wasn’t polished…) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#113 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Watch: Neo-Vintage
Posts: 1,194
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#114 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Real Name: BondJamesBond
Location: The Algarve
Watch: Rolex or nothing
Posts: 4,035
|
![]() I know…
__________________
♛ 5-digit Rolex or nothing ♛ 16030, 16613, 16713, 18038. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#115 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: US
Watch: sub
Posts: 2,370
|
Plus the brushed finish and "faux link stamping" helped the clasp look better for longer.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#116 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: US
Posts: 1,072
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#117 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Ron
Location: Detroitish
Watch: GMT II/Sub/Exp II
Posts: 2,444
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#118 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Ron
Location: Detroitish
Watch: GMT II/Sub/Exp II
Posts: 2,444
|
Quote:
I wear my "NOS condition" condition watches in rotation so I'm not too worried that I'll beat them up. I'm 67 and retired so now is the time to enjoy my watches! ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#119 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas
Watch: Rolex 16622
Posts: 122
|
YM 16622...great case lines, non-Aluminum (Pt) bezel, maxi dial. All of the best elements of the 6 digit references excepting the clasp.
116610LV...case like a bank vault, ceramic bezel, maxi dial, glidelock clasp is a nice upgrade, but also feels like it's 3" long. I guess I appreciate both for what they are.
__________________
Rolex 16622 YM Platinum Dial; Rolex 116610LV Submariner Hulk; Omega 212.30.42.50.03.001 Seamaster 300m Chrono; Hamilton H705595 Khaki Field Champagne Dial; Seiko SKX781K1 Orange Monster; Citizen BJ700052E Nighthawk; Straton Speciale Ver. D; Steinhart 103-0662 Ocean Titanium 500 GMT; Dailos Waveform Teal Dial; Raven Trekker 39; Nodus Contrail II Arctic White |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#120 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 966
|
For the most part I’d always pick five digit over 6. Yes, the new bracelets are nicer and more substantial. The designs of the new models (with the exception of 36mm watches) is clumsy and too big in my view. The new movements have apparently more issues than rhe older ones. So, to me that sways towards five digit.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.