This is why I prefer 5 Digit Rolex

[sickened1]

I started with the 6 digits but find the 5 digits ones fit me better so now I mainly own the 5 digits. Might get a couple of 6's in there somewhere down the road. It's all good.

[KBM]

5 digit models are great. Being able to switch back and forth gives you the best of both worlds!

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Sometimes I wonder if we're actually the same poster.

As I mentioned in the other thread, the 5-digit series is the Porsche 993 of the Rolex world. It's the pinnacle of a slow and methodical system of upgrades that keeps the brand's DNA in tact. Now we've moved on to the Rolex "water-cooled era" in the 6-digit series, which is certainly going to attract a lot of users, too, and the watches are high quality, but the new Rolex ship has sailed for me.

I'm not sure if the Porsche 993 is my absolute favorite 911, because I essentially like all of them up through the 993, and that's how I feel about Rolex through the 5-digit series, too, outside of maybe a couple of models like the 114270 and OP.

I just can't wait until the 5-digit series qualifies for the Vintage forum, so I can move on from sifting through the 6-digit threads to find 5-digit threads.

BTW, to answer some of the posters above, I purchased all of my Rolex watches after the 6-digit series was released, so I'm not simply preferring what I already own. When I finally got to the point to start buying Rolex watches, I was disappointed to find what I saw in the AD, so it's been all pre-owned for me. I've owned a 14000, 16200, 16610 and 16570, but I like the 16570 so much that I wear it every day, and I got rid of everything else.

A 911 analogy also came to mind for me--love that 993 Turbo!

I've spend a good amount of time in 993s, 996s, 997s, and had a 991 (also had a 987 Boxster).
While the 993s were fun and more raw (in a good way), and even the 997 vs 991, the 991 is a much better daily driver.

Turning back to watches, I just could not stomach the hollow links and primitive clasps of the 5-digit Rolexes.
So had avoided Rolex until the ceramic GMT came out.
Not quite enamored with the blingier look to then new Rolexes, but I really appreciate the improvements on so many fronts.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Hollister

Here you go, a 6-digit Rolex with the look of the 5-digit models. Great-looking, the direct descendant of the Everest watch (not the Explorer), Parachrome, Paraflex, beautiful, and cheap as chips too.

https://www.rolex.com/watches/oyster...4300-0003.html




Here it is next to my 16610, and my 5513 slightly out of shot. Same proportions.

Another 6 but like a 5 here. Love the watch, dial and bezel combo is fabulous, but only issue I have with it is that it does feel a little small on me so the wider lugs on the 6 are actually a better size for me.

[AK797]

There is no definitive comparison to the Porsche 996's fried eggs, some will say it is the lugs on the six digit subs, some will say the flimsy bracelet of the five, it's just your POV.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by AK797

There is no definitive comparison to the Porsche 996's fried eggs, some will say it is the lugs on the six digit subs, some will say the flimsy bracelet of the five, it's just your POV.

The "flimsy" bracelets of the 5-digit watches were still the best built Rolex bracelets up until that point. No one is going to say that's analogous to the 996's fried egg headlights. That just doesn't make any sense.

I'd certainly say that the lugs of the Sub-C are the most divisive part of the watch, just like the 996's fried egg headlights, and I think both are an example of taking change too far.

The 996 design divided the Porsche community, despite the 996 being a better performer and big seller, and I'd say the same about the maxi-cases. Of course, six-digit owners are gonna say the maxi-cases are great, just like many 996 owners said at the time.

[gossbeau]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Sometimes I wonder if we're actually the same poster.

As I mentioned in the other thread, the 5-digit series is the Porsche 993 of the Rolex world. It's the pinnacle of a slow and methodical system of upgrades that keeps the brand's DNA in tact. Now we've moved on to the Rolex "water-cooled era" in the 6-digit series, which is certainly going to attract a lot of users, too, and the watches are high quality, but the new Rolex ship has sailed for me.

I'm not sure if the Porsche 993 is my absolute favorite 911, because I essentially like all of them up through the 993, and that's how I feel about Rolex through the 5-digit series, too, outside of maybe a couple of models like the 114270 and OP.

I just can't wait until the 5-digit series qualifies for the Vintage forum, so I can move on from sifting through the 6-digit threads to find 5-digit threads.

BTW, to answer some of the posters above, I purchased all of my Rolex watches after the 6-digit series was released, so I'm not simply preferring what I already own. When I finally got to the point to start buying Rolex watches, I was disappointed to find what I saw in the AD, so it's been all pre-owned for me. I've owned a 14000, 16200, 16610 and 16570, but I like the 16570 so much that I wear it every day, and I got rid of everything else.

Well presented. What about the 959?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by eonflux

A 911 analogy also came to mind for me--love that 993 Turbo!

I've spend a good amount of time in 993s, 996s, 997s, and had a 991 (also had a 987 Boxster).
While the 993s were fun and more raw (in a good way), and even the 997 vs 991, the 991 is a much better daily driver.

Turning back to watches, I just could not stomach the hollow links and primitive clasps of the 5-digit Rolexes.
So had avoided Rolex until the ceramic GMT came out.
Not quite enamored with the blingier look to then new Rolexes, but I really appreciate the improvements on so many fronts.

This reminds me of two of my favorite posts from our fearless leader, Peter.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...23&postcount=4

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...18&postcount=4

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by gossbeau

Well presented. What about the 959?

With the values these days, I guess an '85 Daytona.

[Thuilln]

Originally Posted by mtgjr

I agree with you...with the exception of the 114270 Exp I. It's the generational equivalent to the later 5-digit Sub/GMT/EXPII references.

My opinion also . Owning a 16710, a 14060M and a 114270, I can attest that I prefer them to my 214270. There is simply no comparison.

[mikeps2006]

6 digit for me, I feel like they're much more solid and built better when they're worn.

[mtgjr]

Originally Posted by Thuilln

My opinion also . Owning a 16710, a 14060M and a 114270, I can attest that I prefer them to my 214270. There is simply no comparison.

That's a fantastic trio. I'd personally swap out the 39mm Exp for a nice 16570 example, probably polar given the three other black dials.

[farscott]

I really like the technology and attention to detail in my six-digit YM, but I really prefer the dial designs of the older watches, especially the 1603 and 1803. As Rolex has expanded their capabilities, it appears that the dial designs have gotten a little too busy for my taste.

I prefer simple stick markers with smaller lines for the minutes and even smaller lines for sub-minutes. The old 1603 dials are perfect for my tastes. I really despise the newer designs with Arabic and/or Roman numerals. I know how to tell time, and the numerals just clutter the dial. Models like the YM2 and the Sky-Dweller leave me cold, even after decades of wearing a five-digit GMT II.

[brandrea]

4 digit for aesthetics and cool factor, 6 digits for innovation and robust design

[JackPine]

I bought my first rolex in 2001. It was a TT blue Sub. I wasn't a rolex fanatic at that time, just thought it was a great looking watch. For the next several years after I always wondered and wished rolex would make a solid link TT bracelet bracelet and a better clasp ( I secretly thought the clasp was a bit cheap for the cost of the watch ( at that time $6000 for the watch). When the new SubC came out, it was a no brainer for me to up grade. I very glad I did. Solid quality and solid structures are important to me.

[Bigsykedaddy]

6 digit for me, and not just because I own one. I tried on both side by side and thought a lot about it. I almost went for the 5 for the reasons listed but I just couldn't pass up the upgrades and I'm glad I didn't.

[mtgjr]

Speaking of 5-digits, I just changed up the bezel insert and strap on mine....thought I would share. Hope you don't mind.



Same watch earlier today....

[sco]

I can appreciate the old, but love the new.

[douglasf13]

I can't think of anything that a 116610 is going to withstand that a 16610 wouldn't. If anything, there's a better chance of the 116610 bezel insert breaking.

I think all of these precious metal, professional models that Rolex has been releasing somehow convinced people that heavier is better, which just doesn't make sense in a sport watch.

Ultimately, I simply think a lot of people want bigger and flashier for their money.

[nick c]

5 Digits Rocks

[Cerachrom12]

What I don't miss about the previous 5 digit references.
1. Thin gauge stamped steel cheap feeling clasp.
2. Hollow center link bracelets prone to stretch especially two tones.
3. Hard to read date wheel under a cyclops which reflects light (no A.R. coating)
4.Small hour plots and hands which my middle aged eyes have a harder time reading
5. Aluminum bezel inserts which are prone to denting and fading through time.
In summary, everything Rolex improved with the 6 digit references makes perfect sense.Rolex evaluated all the weak points of 5 digit models and did due diligence to make today's models the best that they can be.

[Pacheco]

I started with the 5 digit and have plenty of love for them! But I have to say the 6 digit models right now have me locked in. Love the clasps, the bracelet, the size, etc. I use to think my 16710 had the best proportions, the new GMT is bulkier which didn't grab me at first but now I'm all in!!

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Cerachrom12

What I don't miss about the previous 5 digit references.
1. Thin gauge stamped steel cheap feeling clasp.
2. Hollow center link bracelets prone to stretch especially two tones.
3. Hard to read date wheel under a cyclops which reflects light (no A.R. coating)
4.Small hour plots and hands which my middle aged eyes have a harder time reading
5. Aluminum bezel inserts which are prone to denting and fading through time.
In summary, everything Rolex improved with the 6 digit references makes perfect sense.Rolex evaluated all the weak points of 5 digit models and did due diligence to make today's models the best that they can be.

AKA, reasons the 996 is "better" than the 993, reasons the Leica M7 is "better" than the M3, reasons Chuck Taylor IIs are "better" than Chuck Taylors, reasons a new Strat is "better" than a '63 Strat, reasons that Rayban RB3506s are better than Wayfarers, etc...

[AK797]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

The "flimsy" bracelets of the 5-digit watches were still the best built Rolex bracelets up until that point. No one is going to say that's analogous to the 996's fried egg headlights. That just doesn't make any sense.

I'd certainly say that the lugs of the Sub-C are the most divisive part of the watch, just like the 996's fried egg headlights, and I think both are an example of taking change too far.

The 996 design divided the Porsche community, despite the 996 being a better performer and big seller, and I'd say the same about the maxi-cases. Of course, six-digit owners are gonna say the maxi-cases are great, just like many 996 owners said at the time.

I'm saying that. When I first tried on the 5 digit sub before the 6 came out I found it flimsy and unworthy of its price which was why I never bought one so yes for me it was the weakness in the watch, the fried egg if you will. And now looking back after the 6's release those eggs are only getting bigger.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by AK797

I'm saying that. When I first tried on the 5 digit sub before the 6 came out I found it flimsy and unworthy of its price which was why I never bought one so yes for me it was the weakness in the watch, the fried egg if you will. And now looking back at the two those eggs are only getting bigger.

That isn't a great analogy. The fried eggs were simply an aesthetic design problem, and they were technically better than the preceding 993's lights. Porsche even used them on the GT1.

A better, although not perfect, analogy is that you bought a 996 over a 993 because of the newer and seemingly higher end interior.

[gtnator]

I love em all!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mtgjr]

When I was in high school and college - in the 80s and 90s - I was enamored with Rolex sport models, namely the Sub, GMT II, and Explorer II. One of the things I always loved and closely associated with those great watches was that awesome oyster bracelet, including the buckle that is stamped in the pattern of the rest of the bracelet. To me, that cool buckle, along with its signature coronet, were (and are) such a defining component of the Rolex watch(es) that I fell in love with and longed to one day own, I almost couldn't imagine owning a Rolex sport watch without it. Still can't, to be honest. While some here cite it as a weakness of the 5-digit references, it's one of my favorite parts!

[And1dre]

Looks good!

[HogwldFLTR]

Six digits subs don't feel right to me. Like plenty of six digit Rolexes however. Also have mainly five digit ones because of the issue I had with the 114060. Really it's up to the individual and what their feel and wallet says.

[bbressler]

I prefer the 5 digits in pictures, but like the 6 digits more on my wrist. The easy link clasp improves the comfort for me in a way that makes it no contest.