Any vintage guys also own a modern sub or gmt?

[Andjwhite]

…if so, what are your overall thoughts? I have been into vintage and some neo-vintage for years now, but have never owned anything new/modern. The 126610ln looks really tempting. I’ve thought about trading a 5513 for one.

The GMTs are also super nice looking but I think would be a little too loud for me personally. Anyway, would like to hear some opinions from vintage guys if you own either models.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stevegeorge249]

Originally Posted by Andjwhite

…if so, what are your overall thoughts? I have been into vintage and some neo-vintage for years now, but have never owned anything new/modern. The 126610ln looks really tempting. I’ve thought about trading a 5513 for one.

The GMTs are also super nice looking but I think would be a little too loud for me personally. Anyway, would like to hear some opinions from vintage guys if you own either models.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your happy to do a lot of homework then you will end-up with a fantastic watch. There are GMT scammers everywhere, you can only protect yourself with the knowledge, Ebay is a great place to see really bad stuff and what not to buy.
As always a lower than normal price means something is not quite right.

The modern watches are more durable but to my eye look very similar.
Vintage 1675's all seem to look different with different charactisics from many years of being worn in many different situations.
They all have a different story and different bumps and dings.

Woops sorry a modern watch recoommendation I read it wrong doh! .
I went into a flashy piano bar the other day and looked around and 6 guys at the bar with what looked like modern Rolies on, all looked the same to me.

[ExplorerI]

I have a couple Rolex and omega from the 1970s, some from the 90s and a new 124060 submariner from 2022. I like the vintage charm for special occasions but I find the fit and finish and ruggedness of the modern sub to be a bit more convenient for daily wear. Also just don’t worry about it as much. If something happens to it you could always just buy a new one.

[hutch300]

Based on what you have listed in your profile, I'd suggest checking out a 16600. I have vintage and modern and I think vintage has more charm but the new stuff is robust.

[Lesnerelli23]

I've got a Rolex that fits each category of vintage, neo, and modern. I agree with the above responses, my vintage piece, a '58 6565 has the most "character", the "neo" is '01 Explorer which to me just says CLASS but in that understated way. My modern is a 116610LN from '19 and it never crosses my mind to worry about damage to it... It's robust as others stated, solid mechanics, no maintenance needed for a long while still! I think its a great idea to have one in the collection :)

[Andjwhite]

Originally Posted by stevegeorge249

Woops sorry a modern watch recoommendation I read it wrong doh! .
I went into a flashy piano bar the other day and looked around and 6 guys at the bar with what looked like modern Rolies on, all looked the same to me.

Kind of what I needed to hear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andjwhite]

But also some compelling pro modern responses. I appreciate the responses. Thanks, guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swaini3]

I have some modern references but I prefer and mostly wear vintage. If i was to sell any of my watches, the modern stuff would go first.

[Dan S]

Yes, I have a modern 14060 Sub from 1991.

[indianmachine]

For me the recent modern stuff has never cut it. I owned a 2019 Blue TT Sub, 2009 116710LN, and James Cameron Deep Sea (blue dial).

Unfortunately the thicker case on the Sub / GMT, relatively to neovintage or vintage just didn't do it for me and seemed too bulky.

Now my most modern pieces are are 1996 16600, 1989 5513 and a 1996 16528.

[Kingface66]

Modern Subs. Oh man. Why anyone with any imagination, or appreciation for the aesthetic beauty of hand-designed and rendered Rolexes, ie. vintage pieces, would ever want a computer software-designed and computer-driven milling and shaping machine, mass-produced, cookie-cutter abomination like a modern Sub is beyond me. And for that kind of money! They’re not simply two versions of the same beast, they’re completely different animals.

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

Modern Subs. Oh man. Why anyone with any imagination, or appreciation for the aesthetic beauty of hand-designed and rendered Rolexes, ie. vintage pieces, would ever want a computer software-designed and computer-driven milling and shaping machine, mass-produced, cookie-cutter abomination like a modern Sub is beyond me. And for that kind of money! They’re not simply two versions of the same beast, they’re completely different animals.

They're good for when you don't want to eff up your vintage. Jogging, pool, golf and the like. They're absolute tanks.

I ain't wearing my 1964 gilt 5513 Sub on the morning 5k in the rain.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by zapokee

They're good for when you don't want to eff up your vintage. Jogging, pool and the like.

That absolutely makes sense for a watch that will work hard for you, but do you really need a modern Rolex and at Rolex prices for that?

[Stan Cooper]

My most modern Rolex piece is a 2001 16710 GMT-Master II; it is my daily wearer. I use the GMT complication several times daily, and really appreciate the jump hour hand with the ability to change local time without hacking when I'm traveling. The 16710 is very versatile in that the bezel insert can easily be changed to reflect different occasions (pepsi for casual, black for formal).

Same watch (16710), different bezel inserts:





My oldest Rolex is an antique 1914 or 1915 WWI trench watch which I recently restored. I wear it only on special occasions because the Rebberg movement predated Incabloc and other shock resistance inventions by a couple of decades, and I don't want to risk dropping it or bumping against anything that might damage the balance wheel pivots.

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

That absolutely makes sense for a watch that will work hard for you, but do you really need a modern Rolex and at Rolex prices for that?

I do. This is exactly what Tudor Black Bays were invented for. I don't enjoy a Casio or an Apple watch.

[baumare]

I do and I enjoy especially the 112675 Pepsi. To be honest I prefer it to the 5 digit 16710 (which I sold it without regrets) that I consider something in between, not fascinating like the 1675 and not satisfying like the new Pepsi.
With that said, the Vintage 4 digits are still King, in case of selling the modern will be first to go

[Stan Cooper]

Originally Posted by baumare

I do and I enjoy especially the 112675 Pepsi. To be honest I prefer it to the 5 digit 16710 (which I sold it without regrets) that I consider something in between, not fascinating like the 1675 and not satisfying like the new Pepsi.
With that said, the Vintage 4 digits are still King, in case of selling the modern will be first to go

What's a "112675 Pepsi"? I'm not familiar with that reference.

[baumare]

Originally Posted by Stan Cooper

What's a "112675 Pepsi"? I'm not familiar with that reference.

Sorry, my Prosecco just kick in, I mean the 126710BLRO

[Swoop]

I have a 1675, 5513, 1680 red.... and I the modern ceramic counterparts - honestly, the modern watches get worn almost every day, I love the look of the vintage pieces and make an effort to wear them, but the modern watches I wear and forget, don't have to think about heading for a swim at the beach or with my kids , think less about door frames or security of older bracelets etc

[logo]

This is an interesting thread. If secondary prices weren’t what they were I’d be all over the 4-digit vintage scene, but alas I have to be choosy and realistically consider how I’d use it/care for it. Currently on the hunt for a 124270 +/- 1016. Previously, I was very close to getting an Omega 105.003 - really wanted a 321, loved the history and the unique style. But, then fortunately got allocated the EW321 and honestly I couldn’t be happier with it. Omega absolutely nailed it with this release and I no longer feel the need for vintage 321. I’d love to see Rolex take a play from Omegas book here and do something similar where a 4-digit watch is resurrected with perfect historical detail but in a modern way. Happy medium between the style I love, and the modern conveniences of service and robustness.

[mjolnir2thor]

Originally Posted by Andjwhite

…if so, what are your overall thoughts? I have been into vintage and some neo-vintage for years now, but have never owned anything new/modern. The 126610ln looks really tempting. I’ve thought about trading a 5513 for one.

The GMTs are also super nice looking but I think would be a little too loud for me personally. Anyway, would like to hear some opinions from vintage guys if you own either models.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have both a 5513 and a modern Submariner. Personally I find myself wearing the vintage Submariner more versus the newer model (126610LV).

The 126610LV is a heavy duty design with thick lugs and case. It’s built like a tank and has a greater presence on the wrist in terms of size and weight. Bracelet, clapse, lume, bezel, etc. are all outstanding. I haven’t experienced a better sounding/working uni-directional bezel mechanism than a Rolex.

I won’t go into the differences of the 5513 since you own one. If you are going to get a modern Rolex, I’d get the ceramic bezeled Submariner. It’s amazing to hold both in your hand and look how far the Submariner has come given the years of evolution.

Best thing is to go into an AD and try one on your wrist. Remember the new and vintage Submariners are both icons in their own right!

[Andjwhite]

Originally Posted by mjolnir2thor

If you are going to get a modern Rolex, I’d get the ceramic bezeled Submariner. It’s amazing to hold both in your hand and look how far the Submariner has come given the years of evolution.

Best thing is to go into an AD and try one on your wrist. Remember the new and vintage Submariners are both icons in their own right!

Thanks again to all. I appreciate this response and agree the best route would be to try one on at an AD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1675-David]

Originally Posted by Dan S

Yes, I have a modern 14060 Sub from 1991.

[LateLearner]

For 30+ years I’ve owned an inherited 5513 (1965) and 16750 (1981). Love them both and wore for decades without a care in the world.

Then, I woke up one day and was 60.
So, I went to an AD to buy a modern Sub, in January 2022, without a clue as to the shortage/madness.

12 months later, I lucked into an Air King. Love the newly designed AK and could see myself wearing it day/night the rest of my days. No longer have to worry about plexi crystals, weak bracelets, cracking tritium, accuracy as merely a suggestion, etc.

So yes, add a new player to your lineup. I predict you will also love it and won’t worry in the same ways. “Box and papers!”

Finally, after 26 days ownership of my AK, (day and night wear), it is +5 seconds ahead of my iPhone. 5 seconds total, over 26 days and sleeping. Compared to my 5513 and 16750, neither hold that close even for an afternoon.

Go for it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Filipão]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

That absolutely makes sense for a watch that will work hard for you, but do you really need a modern Rolex and at Rolex prices for that?

I do.

16610LV + 116600 the last true SD

[WatchEater666]

I really love wild patina, aged lume and matte dials. Can’t get any of those h less you go vintage.

[Kingface66]

Originally Posted by Filipão

I do.

16610LV + 116600 the last true SD

Need?

[Johnnyhayward]

Are they fake ceramic inserts ? They look very odd.

Originally Posted by Stan Cooper

My most modern Rolex piece is a 2001 16710 GMT-Master II; it is my daily wearer. I use the GMT complication several times daily, and really appreciate the jump hour hand with the ability to change local time without hacking when I'm traveling. The 16710 is very versatile in that the bezel insert can easily be changed to reflect different occasions (pepsi for casual, black for formal).

Same watch (16710), different bezel inserts:





My oldest Rolex is an antique 1914 or 1915 WWI trench watch which I recently restored. I wear it only on special occasions because the Rebberg movement predated Incabloc and other shock resistance inventions by a couple of decades, and I don't want to risk dropping it or bumping against anything that might damage the balance wheel pivots.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Johnnyhayward

Are they fake ceramic inserts ? They look very odd.

It violates rule #5 also.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=635693

[Johnnyhayward]

Originally Posted by mailman

It violates rule #5 also.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=635693

Apologies, I didn’t intend to break the rules just thought they don’t look right.