Submariner holes vs no holes case

[Auto16610]

If you had a choice between a mint 2001 16610 in brand new condition or a newer 2008 or so polished sub would holes be a down side in your opinion? Now the 2001 might be about 2k more in price if that effects your answer. Thanks.

[Tools]

A through hole case only establishes an era.

There is no downside or upside to it, they all had through holes, until they didn't.

I wouldn't pay 2k more for one with holes, all else being equal.

[thesharkfactor]

Case holes are cool..

[Stan Cooper]

I prefer cases with lug holes; the holes make spring bar removal easier. I wouldn't pay an extra $2k for them though.

[jaisonline]

I don’t have a preference. All the same to me. Although non-hole cases are easier for me to remove bracelets.

When it comes to selecting between watches (e.g. three 16610s) , I favor the newer one if all else being equal.

[Tricolore66]

A 2008 Sub would be a Z-Series, the last of the 5-digit models. That's more likely to be a desirable collector piece IMO. If you look at Z-series GMT's they seem to be getting a lot more money than the earlier 5 digit references. I would think Subs are the same.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by Stan Cooper

I prefer cases with lug holes; the holes make spring bar removal easier. I wouldn't pay an extra $2k for them though.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[csaltphoto]

Holes or no holes wouldn't matter to me. But if there is a huge difference in the condition that sure would. Depends on how mint the 2001 is and how polished the 2008 is.

[Auto16610]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

Holes or no holes wouldn't matter to me. But if there is a huge difference in the condition that sure would. Depends on how mint the 2001 is and how polished the 2008 is.

That's the crux. The 2001 is unworn and the 2008 is polished and looks nice but who knows how scratched up it was before the polish.

[rmagoo57]

Did you say mint? Say no more and I love the Z era.

But, do you need a watch now? A new 16610 comes on the market every day, so decide what you want (holes, no holes, minty, serial number, etc.) and wait for "your" watch. God luck.

[Tavli3]

Holes should not be a factor. The overall condition and which one appeals to you more. Don’t forget you’re the one whose going to be looking at it and I doubt your eyes will be going to the lug holes or lack there of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1665fan]

No holes sell for more….same with the 16710

[kilyung]

I like case holes for changing straps (wasn’t really a big fan of the old bracelets/clasps). With the new bracelets/clasps, I have no desire to swap out the bracelet.

[ndrs63]

Holes make no difference to me as I would never change the bracelet. I’ve experimented in the past with various combinations and came to conclusion that nothing matches the bracelet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PepsiBezel]

I’d pay for lug condition, not lug holes…

Also, contrary to most narratives, I have found it is much easier to change bracelets with a Bergeron or Horoflex tweezer on a watch without lug holes than it is to change on a watch with lug holes.

Maybe lug holes lets you use more simple tools to remove a spring bar, but they don’t help when putting the bracelet back on.

[subtona]

Love the holes

[Chester01]

I have holes, but mine was a gift. I would get the best condition 16610 you can get. Mine is tritium and again a gift, but I would prefer a dial that glows as i wear the watch and so it improves its functionality. Many of these things that folks obsess about here are constructs (i.e. holes vs no holes, patina or not, APH, MARK 1,2 75 1/3, fat this, etc...) made up ideas about what does and does have "value".

[brandrea]

Holes are cooler IMO. Bring back case holes and chamfers Rolex

[subtona]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Holes are cooler IMO. Bring back case holes and chamfers Rolex

[joli160]

I prefer the refinement of the newer cases.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Tools

A through hole case only establishes an era.

There is no downside or upside to it, they all had through holes, until they didn't.

I wouldn't pay 2k more for one with holes, all else being equal.

Have to agree Larry.

[Andad]

I have both and have no real preference but I do like how easy it is to slip a NATO on my 14060M.

[karleone]

Holes or no holes. You should go for the one in the better condition. If 2001 is unworn vs a polished watch I would go for 2001. And 2K for an unpolished unworn vs a polished and used is not a big difference.

[enjoythemusic]

As said earlier, holes make changing straps / bracelet much easier.

On a related note, am very surprised RubberB and Everest (very expensive rubber / plastic strap companies) don't include quick-release springbars. Especially for their price, when Barton rubber straps for $20 include quick-release springbars.

[Ketler]

Holes

[coaxial]

For myself I prefer SEL bracelets vs holes/no-holes. If you change your bracelet out with straps you will prefer holes.

[Finslayer83]

holes as I love a good NATO.

I tried to get holes drilled in my 124060, but no one wanted to.

[Osbong]

Holes make it easier to change strap/bracelet...good luck.

[effovex]

I would vote for the one with holes. Going forward (at least for now) no more Rolex watches have them anymore. Lug holes are definitely cooler.

[Bryano1028]

I greatly prefer no holes, save the 2k.