5-series Rolexes vs newer ones...

[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…

[bp1000]

I’ve not noticed any practical consequences of the technical changes.

I prefer the newer bracelets with glide lock for obvious reasons.

But it’s worth pointing out that the movement in the new 6 digit sub was the same calibre as used in the 5 digit. I wouldn’t even go as far as say base calibre, it was the same apart from a shock absorber and new hairspring which is meant to be more resilient and stable. The movement has been around since the 80s and it’s a fantastic movement with or without the tweaks in about 2012 for the 6 digit subs.

I have both 5 and 6 and they behave the same. I don’t have anything with 3235. So can comment there. P.s. I’m not bothered about case size or shape, or ceramic bezels but I do like the newer bracelets.

[tzwick]

Great topic! I think the interest in 5-series Rolexes will continue to hold steady. While the 6-series has undeniable technical advancements, the charm and nostalgia of the 5-series models keep them appealing to many collectors and enthusiasts. The older designs have a classic look and feel that's hard to beat.

[Andad]

I have 5's, 6's, and 32** movements.

I am interested to read other's thoughts.

[Gargamel]

5 digits movements were and still are stellar quality.
5 digits bracelets are a laugh in comparison to the 6 digits. That is, when you have them in the hands. When strapped, it's so-so.
Comfort wise, we love the easylink on the 6's. The 5's don't need easylink as it much more flexbile and light.

All in all, 5's will soon be recognized as great band for the buck and stealth watches.

[geoach]

5s for me I dabbled with newer but came back home to 5s ......but I'm old so big part of it

[Harry-57]

The late era 5 digit references were my first hands on Rolex buying opportunity. In my case it was the 16610LV which I had wanted from the moment I saw one on display. It represented a big outlay for me at the time compared to any other watch I had owned, which made it all the more disappointing when I got to meet one in person at the AD. The bracelet and clasp were flimsy and rattly and the diving extension was a joke. The 116610LV addressed all this and more. It was more up to the build quality and finish of the competition, not to mention cheaper brands that made the 16610LV look overpriced. That's the beauty of this hobby/illness, there is something for everyone. Fans of the rattly and/or non ceramic models down the years have an enormous choice. I love the designs but I'm not interested in owning them. Maybe if they were cheaper, but probably not.

[MitchSF]

Having choices with both five and six digit references, I find myself wearing the 16610 more often than anything else. And six digits, evenings out to dinner and events.

[brandrea]

I think 5 digit references will always have their fan base.

Objectively, they are more comfortable on the wrist than 6 digits (for me) due simply to their lighter weight. Yes the bracelets and clasp seem flimsy compared to the 6 digits, but IMHO they are still very robust and provide a better feel on the wrist

That said, I’m a total hypocrite and no longer own any

[rolexpatek363]

The 4 and 5 digit Subs are so much nicer looking than the ceramic ones, IMO. I've never needed glidelock as my wrists don't swell up.

The only 6-digits which appeal to me are the OP line, they have the classic lug profile.

I wish Rolex would headhunt whoever is head of design at Tudor.

[911991]

Other than the bracelet, I dont really notice a difference, and find the older less heavy watches more comfortable to wear all day...

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I think 5 digit references will always have their fan base.

Objectively, they are more comfortable on the wrist than 6 digits (for me) due simply to their lighter weight. Yes the bracelets and clasp seem flimsy compared to the 6 digits, but IMHO they are still very robust and provide a better feel on the wrist

That said, I’m a total hypocrite and no longer own any

I think sometimes the argument about cheapness/robustness of 5 digit construction doesn't quite land. As you mention the lighter weight (and still strong build) of the pre-ceramic models is more comfortable in extended wear, and this doesn't just matter for the wearer–it means that there is less strain on the watch itself! So there is an argument to be made that the additional (static) robustness of 6 digit over 5 is beyond diminishing returns, whereas some of the additional benefits of 5 (lighter weight, more easily field repairable) outweigh that.

I find that this is a bit overlooked now.

It's also why I think the comparison of Tudor's BB lineup to 4/5 digits doesn't quite land (even though I like the look of both compared to 6 digit Rolex), because the Black Bay line essentially has modern Rolex bracelets complete with the weight, so that strain is still there. (The Pelagos, being made of titanium, gets away with the modern chunkier bracelet style because of the material's low weight.)

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Scholar

I think sometimes the argument about cheapness/robustness of 5 digit construction doesn't quite land. As you mention the lighter weight (and still strong build) of the pre-ceramic models is more comfortable in extended wear, and this doesn't just matter for the wearer–it means that there is less strain on the watch itself! So there is an argument to be made that the additional (static) robustness of 6 digit over 5 is beyond diminishing returns, whereas some of the additional benefits of 5 (lighter weight, more easily field repairable) outweigh that.

I find that this is a bit overlooked now.

It's also why I think the comparison of Tudor's BB lineup to 4/5 digits doesn't quite land (even though I like the look of both compared to 6 digit Rolex), because the Black Bay line essentially has modern Rolex bracelets complete with the weight, so that strain is still there. (The Pelagos, being made of titanium, gets away with the modern chunkier bracelet style because of the material's low weight.)

Well said.

It’s sort of difficult to describe to those who may not have ever owned 5 digits. I think sometimes the bracelet aspect is overdone.

The 5’s seemed to straddle the line between lighter weight and melt into the wrist comfort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

5 digits movements were and still are stellar quality.
5 digits bracelets are a laugh in comparison to the 6 digits. That is, when you have them in the hands. When strapped, it's so-so.
Comfort wise, we love the easylink on the 6's. The 5's don't need easylink as it much more flexbile and light.

All in all, 5's will soon be recognized as great band for the buck and stealth watches.

But even the cal 3035,3000,3135,3186,had a few problems but rectified over the production years.Myself prefer the 5 series watch especially in the sports lineup as not a fan of ceramic inserts.Only one watch with the 32 series movement when bothered to check which is not very often it runs accurate enough for me, not anal about any watch running to the exact second.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.

[joli160]

Since the beginning of the year the interest has been fading if you look at prices.
There is a fan base for the 5 digits on TRF.
Checking the huge amount of 5 digits for sale on chrono i.e. it seems that there is not so much interest outside the WIS community.

I prefer the 6 digits with its blocky case and solid overall feel.
If you are into vintage than the 4 series are a more charming choice imho.

[Sailman]

5 series all the way. Smaller, lighter and more comfortable for me.

4 series are even better !

[THC]

Love the later 5 digits that included the rehaut engraving.. once on the wrist, which is where every watch belongs, the bracelet is moot

[jamesbondOO7]

5 or nothing. Perfect design, incredible comfort, no waiting list. The acme of Rolex.

[travisb]

The 5 digits will always have a very strong following.
There are many collectors that prefer the aluminum inserts, slimmer proportions and lighter weight. Not to mention the 31xx movements are some of the most solid work horse movements created.

[996marty]

The 4 and 5 digit references get my vote

[Dan Pierce]

The 5 digit era will always be the Rolex pinnacle for me. The best of design & execution. There is certainly an argument to be made about the difference in robustness vs modern bracelets but as previously mentioned repeatedly once on the wrist the lighter weight becomes a benefit.
dP

[PepsiBezel]

I tried to love the 6-digits, but for me the 5-digits win out.

I may be in the minority but I find their bracelets to be better - lighter, thinner, has natural flex and give through out the day.

[S.Explorer]

Depends on the model... but generally prefer 6 digit for design and bracelet.

5 digits had the best box and papers though!

[JRell]

I think it is what you are used to. I have only worn 6 digits, so the weight and more bling from the ceramic is the norm to me. The ceramic bezel is what attracted me to the brand, but it I started with the 5s I’d probably be a 5 guy.

[77T]

The watch market, and customer demand, is cyclical in a way like other markets.

Classic cyclical markets like construction, automotive, retail, and travel are sectors that tend to fluctuate in demand based on economic cycles and consumer preference patterns.

I think the 6-digit FOMO phase is beginning to get rinsed out of the horology space.

As it does, the appreciation of 5-digit models will rise as people notice the value proposition: still serviceable, reasonably priced, and elegant compared to chunkyism.

4-digit models will likely rocket into 6-digit orbit - but I mean 6-digit $$$$$$


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Easy E]

I’m an 11 series Sub type of guy. That was my entry to the brand and now that I have cycled through a good assortment of 11s and 12s I’m hard core 11. As for the 5 series, I understand their charm, but they are not my preference. They wear a little small for my wrist, I don’t prefer the lighter bracelet, I enjoy the 6 ceramic over the 5 aluminum bezels, and by far prefer the 31 over the 32.

All that said, I do have a 5 digit Pepsi with a 3186 and a 97200 glidelock installed and that is one of my favorite pieces.

[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.

[javier]

Originally Posted by Sailman

5 series all the way. Smaller, lighter and more comfortable for me.

4 series are even better !

This

[nyc2la]

Both! I’m a big fan of 5-digits. I generally prefer the case shape, size, and proportions of the 5-digits over the larger maxi-6 digits on divers and GMT.

However, I am also a big fan of select 6-digits. The two examples below are discontinued but they remind me of the 5-digit proportions to some degree and have the benefit of the modern bracelet, which is sometimes a nice-to-have.

[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.