Do you guys enjoy modern Rolexes as well?

[theflywrist]

Thought it would be nice to see how many of you guys also enjoy modern Rolexes.

After recently acquiring my first Vintage, a 1680 white, I find that I love how it has a more "under the radar" look.
I like the way it wears(smaller), especially on my wrists. The matte dial, patina, character, plexi, flimsy bracelet, everything is just perfect.

I still own and love my BLNR.
I especially love my BLNR because it was my first, but can't help but feel that the lugs have been made too large. I do nevertheless enjoy wearing it.
I also feel that a more recent rolex is a better watch when going on vacation for example. I wouldn't hesitate swimming, showering, beating around my modern, as much as I would my vintage. I don't worry of moisture entering, or corroded/pitting the case, etc on the BLNR.
I will admit that if I didnt have that worry with a vintage GMT, I would have seriously considered a flip.

Do you also enjoy modern rolexes? Or just vintage?

[Comex1665]

No i can not honestly.. Too bulky, too large, lugs and crown guard are IMO way to big and I hate the ceramic models (I owned 3 different 116610LN and one 114060 + one BLNR, not at the same time though). they keep marks of finger prints easily because of the ceramic when you use the bezel and they look less sporty and classy than the 5 digits sports range.

When I bought my first 5513 feet first, i felt in love with the shape, crown guards, crystal, bezel, and especially lug holes which are for me one of the greatest feature of vintage rolex's.

[theflywrist]

Originally Posted by Comex1665

No i can not honestly.. Too bulky, too large, lugs and crown guard are IMO way to big and I hate the ceramic models (I owned 3 different 116610LN and one 114060 + one BLNR, not at the same time though). they keep marks of finger prints easily because of the ceramic when you use the bezel and they look less sporty and classy than the 5 digits sports range.

When I bought my first 5513 feet first, i felt in love with the shape, crown guards, crystal, bezel, and especially lug holes which are for me one of the greatest feature of vintage rolex's.

I can totally understand.
After owning my 1680 for just about 10 days, I already prefer everything about it that you have mentioned.
I do admit I love the clasp on the modern much more.
Problem is, I don't think I can treat a vintage the way I treat my modern.
As a travel watch to do everything including swimming, running, hiking, I can't help but feel like it is the one that will take a beating best.

[springer]

Crazy, I am in your corner on the newer GMTs - at least when it comes to the lugs. Personally, I think they are way over-sized and detract from the aesthetics of the watch.

I prefer the vintage models, wear them often and do not worry at all about the seals leaking, rust, corrosion, pitting etc. I properly maintain my vintage watches and they have treated me very well.

[deej]

I enjoy both vintage and modern, but not the ceramic cases. I did own a 116610lv and 116710blnr not at the same time but sold them eventually.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[05carbondrz]

Vintage all the way,I do have a Bluesy 16803 if that's considered Modern.

[TheRolexKingofLV]

I love the 36mm ol school feel, but my Datejust ll 41mm feels superb

[morafa4]

I picked up my first 16610 when it was new - and while by standards of the TRF's vintage section it's not explicitly vintage (today)... to me it's aged well into the waters of what might be described as vintage (smaller cases, tritium no-longer-glowing indices, minimalist and clearly readable inserts). This effectively makes my whole line up currently vintage...

Since acquiring a love for vintage, which aesthetically stands opposed to their modern counterparts, I gotta say I don't think I'd be able to throw down big bucks with the same degree of confidence when I see the slabs of steel they've now become.

I like the more modest cases and wrist presence of the earlier ones... and obviously that look is long gone, at least until the winds of taste change again. So for me -- all vintage for the time being: its a proportion's thing

[agsstructures]

Own a 116520 but the lady took ownership of that once I purchased a 1680 red a while back.

[Michael M.]

My personal collection consists of mostly Vintage, but my daily wearer is a 116719BLRO.

[RC2]

Just vintage. But I do like my 14060M.

[lhanddds]

Well, hard to love the new blocky cases, no lug holes, very sterile looking and boring. I own one modern watch but it probably won't be with me a lot longer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[el1125]

I enjoy both!

[Boaters]

I love them all!

[Max72]

Not a big fan of the modern design, too Rapper's delight for my taste, incredible quality but too flashy

[QueueCumber]

Without the head, the feet will rot...

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

Without the head, the feet will rot...

Well said.

First off, I don't yet own any vintage for I am gathering knowledge and learning the market.

I for one think rolex is heading into a golden era for some of us.

The 116600 and now the DD40 are two examples of sensibility in terms of case design. Let's hope it filters down to the sub and GMT.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by GB-man

Well said.

First off, I don't yet own any vintage for I am gathering knowledge and learning the market.

I for one think rolex is heading into a golden era for some of us.

The 116600 and now the DD40 are two examples of sensibility in terms of case design. Let's hope it filters down to the sub and GMT.

A lot of people don't seem to realize that vintage values are tied into the market identity of companies today.

If you cut off the head, the body will die....

[Wesley Crusher]

I started off with a modern Rolex, but my interest quickly shifted to vintage. The case shape, size and patina of vintage watches is hard to beat.

The new Subs and GMTs look a bit bloated compared to the older models, but not all new models are like that. The Explorer II, for example, does not share the blocky case or CGs of the Sub and GMT. The Explorer, DJ and DD40 are some other examples of new watches that still have the classic look.

I think the 5 digit models are a great middle ground in terms of aesthetics and practicality.

[BNA/LION]

Like both and learning about vintage as I go...

[zapokee]

I prefer vintage because you can't just walk into a shop and buy what you want. You have to do the legwork and research, and therein lies much of the fun. Each vintage is also truly unique.

[Mick P]

Chaps

Overall I think I prefer vintage and I own three watches, a new 39mm Explorer, a 16610 Sub and a 1655 Freccione Explorer 2.

Out of the three I much prefer the 39mm Explorer, I don't know why but I do.

Rightly or wrongly I am determined to give each watch 4 months wearing time during the course of a year and I am literally ( yes literally) counting the days to when I can start wearing the 39mm Explorer.

However overall, I think the pre ceramic models on GMts and Subs look nicer but there is nothing to compare to the modern Explorer - it is sheer perfection.

So its a bit of a complex issue.

Regards

Mick

[nick c]

Love both

[brandrea]

I appreciate both. I only have one vintage piece but I truly love it. The warmth of the plexi crystal, the patina, the overall case design are all much more pleasing to my eye.

I'm happy to see a rolex move in a new direction with the DD40. I hope other models follow suit as well.

[Karbo]

i love the NSD 116600
Pepsi 16710
And daytos 16520
After that >> Vintage

[mineral]

I enjoy both but given a choice, I love vintage more.

[VaRobot]

Both!

[stillsane]

Love them both

20151210_085713[1].jpg

[cdweller]

I prefer modern for daily, but vintage for "special" occasions (like a Friday!)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[landroverking]

Only like a few of the new ones.
Don't care for the Super Cases or the "C"s.