Which would you prefer: Tudor 94410 or Rolex 16800
 

I am aware that the 16800 is infamous for being a sort of in-between pariah from a true vintage perspective. The primary reason for this is the sapphire crystal instead of plexi. This however makes it more robust as a dive watch compared to perhaps a 5513 (especially one with a T19, like the one that I have). This also makes it more functional and therefore more appealing to me.

I've been looking around for my next vintage and have been going back and forth between the following models - 1680, 16800, 1675 and 16750. Of these, from a price perspective, 16800 is the most appealing. You can get one for about 5k.

Recently I came across the Tudor snowflake 94410. I am not well versed with this model but have read about it from the little I could find. I think these are supposed to have plexi, not crystal, and an ETA movement. Not sure about the movement inside a 16800.

Now, if all things were equal, specifically price and condition, which of these (16800 or 94410) would someone prefer and why? I came across these same models on lunaroyester's site recently for exactly the same price. Admittedly, impulsively/instinctively, the Tudor looks better. But I don't know much about it.

What do the others think?

Tudor 94410

Rolex 16800

I would pick the 16800. I take it the 94410 comes with a bracelet also and not just the strap ? Close call as the Tudor is a nice watch.

I would go 16800 as first and 2nd Tudor cheers good luck

It's a great tudor and they keep going up. It's pretty much the best snowflake as it is a quickset. The dial is great. Only fault is that the hands don't match. Still, it's the best tudor sub versus the most uninteresting rolex sub. Plus 50 times more rolexes were made

I would gravitate towards the Flake personally.
I recently got a 94110, blue dial, and it gets plenty of wrist time.
It would be a closer call if it was against a 1680 white.
For some reason if I am going vintage, I really want to have plexi on it!

Either way, you can't go wrong!
Good luck.

That 1 O'clock lug on the 16800 looks pretty darn thin.........:read:

Considering that as I type this post I am wearing a Tudor 94010....I'd say wait for the right Tudor.

The Rolex's are a dime a dozen (not to mention it would appear you have a modern one...) but the Tudor appears to be much harder to come by and has a very unique look that separates it from the pack.

Find one with hands that match the dial patina. I would actually recommend that you wait for a blue 94410 and pick that one up...

Some great opinions here - was not aware for e.g. that the 94410 was quickset (I assume that the 16800 isn't?). I guess most here think that the Tudor is a better watch in comparison, even though for the same price it comes without bracelet and is therefore considerably more expensive.

Many have also said that it's better to get a 1680 since it's true vintage. I'm not hung up on that since I already have a 5513 (and a Speedy, and a Monaco...) for that. I would rather get something that is affordable but looks almost identical (to my eyes at least) as a 1680. I am aware that a 1680 can be had for slightly more than a 16800, but those with great patina command a high premium taking them well into 8k or above. With a comparable 16800 I can stay under 6k and that's a big difference.

It's a tough call.

Snowflake. Is the way.. So sweet

tough ,,, either ,, but its a rolex forum , rolex it is.

16800 for me....

Of the 2 watches u have shown, the snowflake for being in better condition. The 16800 is way over polished.


I blame it on the autoconnect.

The tudor would be my choice too.

Just a FYI, its 94110 not 94410 - lets get that clear first.

put my 1680 on hold to grab my 9411. Then I got the 1680 later. Nice 9411's are hard to find in nice condition because there were fewer of them and being less expensive they tended to get the snot beat out of them.

That's my advice and I actually followed it myself.

Tough... there's only one right answer... BOTH:

http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/...3E5B2EC218.jpg

http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/...75B7DC833B.jpg

BZ

Thanks for clarifying the ref no. Totally got that wrong.

Does anyone else think the hour markers on the 16800 seem flaky and thin on this model? Certainly seems that way in the detailed pictures.

Not sure what you mean but the dial/hands all look good to me and untouched. More of a problem is the case being slightly over polished.

BZ

What I mean is that the hour markers seem cracked/rough on the surface. This results (IMO) in a slightly unpleasant look. The pictures show more. Maybe this is not a concern or just how its been photographed/presented.

And pics of the hour markers of the Tudor for comparison:

not sure if thats model specific or watch specific. Would only imagine tritium reacting differently across regions, weather and use.

If anything, you will find more 9411 / 7016 variants have dial "rot" compared to the more stable 16800 dials.

About the rotting - that is VERY true. Most Tudor Sub dials that I see for sale aren't nearly as good/clean as the 1680/16800. Is there a reason for this dial erosion? Did Tudor use different (inferior?) materials? This is one of the reasons I'm a bit unsure about getting a Tudor - that they might erode to look worse over time...

Its to do with the maker of the dial - believe the one more prone to rotting is the Beyler made dials.

The latter dials (i.e., the one pictured in this thread) is better. I have the same one and no issues with flaking, etc. You can also tell the lume plots are much better.