Steel vs. Ceramic

[00Seven]

I prefer the newer one...by a mile. Unless you're talking vintage, it's the Sub-C for me.

[CrownMe]

Originally Posted by SixPak

It's a mistake to make this generalization about a certain age group. We're all diversed and some of us like modern Rolex and some prefer older models. Age has nothing to do with anything. It's good to have choice.

I 100% agree. I'm 27 years old and I only collect vintage watches.

[SixPak]

Originally Posted by CrownMe

I 100% agree. I'm 27 years old and I only collect vintage watches.

Nice!

[Shade]

I personally prefer the original steel inserts.. There are pros and cons to each, but it all comes down to personal preference.

I wonder why they wont just use a highly polished steel insert like a Seiko Marine Master - I mistook it as a ceramic once!

[onlysteel]

I love the shine and the attention getting factor of the ceramics --
But I do not like their replacement cost. The ceramic insert is the Achille's heel of the watch and very costly to replace.

The metal insert on the other hand is very easy to replace and affordable--unless it is for a 16610LV

[Starbucksboss]

For me its simply about looking at the two side by side. The classic is a superb elegant design that is iconic and stood the test of time. The newer design....is more glossy , chunky and big...Will be interesting to see how history judges this design phase of Rolex. It will be very interesting to see what the new boss does about design direction.

[SeaAndSky]

Originally Posted by Starbucksboss

For me its simply about looking at the two side by side. The classic is a superb elegant design that is iconic and stood the test of time. The newer design....is more glossy , chunky and big...Will be interesting to see how history judges this design phase of Rolex. It will be very interesting to see what the new boss does about design direction.

I disagree. I think the newer models are still sleek and elegantly designed. There's nothing "chunky" about them to my eyes. And I definitely prefer a ceramic bezel over aluminum. I like both but if I could only choose one it would be a newer ceramic version. That said, my second Rolex will probably be a late model 16710 Pepsi. In the end, they are all great watches and have their own unique characteristics and I'd be pleased to have either newer or vintage on my wrist.

[Starbucksboss]

Originally Posted by SeaAndSky

I disagree. I think the newer models are still sleek and elegantly designed. There's nothing "chunky" about them to my eyes. And I definitely prefer a ceramic bezel over aluminum. I like both but if I could only choose one it would be a newer ceramic version. That said, my second Rolex will probably be a late model 16710 Pepsi. In the end, they are all great watches and have their own unique characteristics and I'd be pleased to have either newer or vintage on my wrist.

There ya go....we think completely differently...thats what choice and opinion is all about.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SeaAndSky]

Originally Posted by Starbucksboss

There ya go....we think completely differently...thats what choice and opinion is all about.

Indeed. And respectful discussion despite differences in opinion and the good manners of all here is one reason why this is rapidly becoming my favorite forum. Long may it stay this way!

[HogwldFLTR]

For me it isn't the cost of the insert but of the watches. The older watches out there perform well, have some collectability, and nostalgia value. In general they are more than cost competetive with the new ceramics. Want a Pepsi, you can buy an aluminum inserted watch for a fifth the cost of a ceramic one. Want a Sub, aluminum insert ones are half the price. Sure they aren't new but in the long run does it matter?

[77T]

I'm still in the metal insert preference group.
Ceramic reminds me of those engraved name badges and they eventually catch dirt, grime and muck.

[Starbucksboss]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

For me it isn't the cost of the insert but of the watches. The older watches out there perform well, have some collectability, and nostalgia value. In general they are more than cost competetive with the new ceramics. Want a Pepsi, you can buy an aluminum inserted watch for a fifth the cost of a ceramic one. Want a Sub, aluminum insert ones are half the price. Sure they aren't new but in the long run does it matter?

No because they look nicer...

uh oh...thats got me into trouble so let me say...of course...only in my completely unimportant opinion :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SeaDweller50]

A few battered Rolex's here.

http://www.minus4plus6.com/ouch.htm

[strafer_kid]

Many people would say that the more modern Rolexes including the 'ceramics', are better built and technically more advanced than the older models - maybe so? Probably comes down to personal taste and choice though in the end!

[Racerdj]

I really like the ceramic models.

[kbar]

So from my point of view...

I am yet to buy my first rolex. After looking for a while i decided that i want a two tone sport watch; a GMT or Sub.

Ideally i want a 16713 on oyster. I did look into the 116713 (ceramic) but i dont like the way the yellow/gold numbers look in the ceramic bezel. On a regular gmt (116710) i think it looks great.

With the two tone subs its a different story.
I really like the way the black ceramic looks in two tone. I also like the flat blue much better.

The bigger case fits a sub much more than a gmt. Some people here said clumsy, but to me it makes the sub look a lot more beefed up, as in more aggressive and "willing to take a beating"

The gmt is a sport/tool watch in a less sporty way. So the added bulk on the two tone takes away from it being suitable for "formal" situations


Thats just my two cents.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

For my needs the modern line has way more pros than cons, for one, many of the improvements now more clearly justify what you get in a Rolex. Imagine paying $8.5K for a 16610.

A new clasp and bezel insert material doesn't warrant a much higher price tag. imo anyway.

[sco]

Originally Posted by Onikage

A new clasp and bezel insert material doesn't warrant a much higher price tag. imo anyway.

You may have to to try one on, then you will see and feel the differences

[Onikage]

I have, several infact. Please enlighten me. Differences/Improvements? Some of which you can 'feel'.

[sco]

Originally Posted by Onikage

I have, several infact. Please enlighten me. Differences/Improvements? Some of which you can 'feel'.

The differences have been listed on TRF at least one million times in many different threads. However since you asked the bracelet is a HUGE improvement that you can feel right away. The solid screwed in links are so much more substantial on the wrist. I have tried on a few subs as well, and the difference is night and day. Honestly the older bracelets feel light, and flimsy, not what I would expect for an expensive timepiece. I have lent out my sub c to three older sub owners and all three mentioned how much "better" the new sub feels. So, it's not just me I guess... Oh, right the glidelock... for ME, it is the single factor that makes the sub fit so well on so many people's wrists. Again, you FEEL this right away.

To me the Ceramic insert is a huge plus as well. I think it makes the whole watch more attractive while reducing the amount of scratches where you would get the most and where they are most visible.

As for the new spring, maxi dial, etc. no you cannot feel these, but you know they are evolutions from the older version. The rest of the changes are small, but they all add up into an incredible watch.

[Starbucksboss]

Originally Posted by Onikage

I have, several infact. Please enlighten me. Differences/Improvements? Some of which you can 'feel'.

I agree...I actually think the classic oyster is more comfortable than my new one...not a lot but slightly.

[Onikage]

I was expecting emphasis on the bracelet and clasp. Any perceived difference in weight is in the clasp and the case and not so much the 1.5mm sliver extra in each mid-link. Not sure how a sel bracelet can feel that much lighter and flimsy - New clasp, bezel insert material and extra weight doesn't warrant a much higher price tag imo.

[jjnd08]

Originally Posted by sco

The differences have been listed on TRF at least one million times in many different threads. However since you asked the bracelet is a HUGE improvement that you can feel right away. The solid screwed in links are so much more substantial on the wrist. I have tried on a few subs as well, and the difference is night and day. Honestly the older bracelets feel light, and flimsy, not what I would expect for an expensive timepiece. I have lent out my sub c to three older sub owners and all three mentioned how much "better" the new sub feels. So, it's not just me I guess... Oh, right the glidelock... for ME, it is the single factor that makes the sub fit so well on so many people's wrists. Again, you FEEL this right away.

To me the Ceramic insert is a huge plus as well. I think it makes the whole watch more attractive while reducing the amount of scratches where you would get the most and where they are most visible.

As for the new spring, maxi dial, etc. no you cannot feel these, but you know they are evolutions from the older version. The rest of the changes are small, but they all add up into an incredible watch.

Nailed it.

[Roller07]

I have both and love both.

[Chaching]

really this shouldn't even be a question...CERAMIC!

[aleeboy]

Originally Posted by joe100

Ceramic is shiny and nice. That said, it costs big money to replace. The aluminum insert was more user friendly

How much are Sub C bezel inserts going for thesedays?

And correct about the older model inserts. They can be bought from many sources and replaced easily at little cost.

[bradj]

Hopefully a little bump to this thread. I've had a sub and SD in the past and wasn't the best with keeping the insert looking new. I prefer a non-scratched watch and I'm currently in the market for the Sub-C.

I started a search to see if people had any issues with the ceramic cracking after a small drop or smack on a door/table. Anyone with this sort of experience? At my local AD they said that there have been virtually no ceramic subs coming back in for new Inserts due to damage.

[Perrinyanna]

If you need or will buy a sub now, get a ceramic one with all the additional improvements...but if you already have an aluminum bezeled sub, no need to worry, flip or lose sleep by not having the latest sub, what you have is just as good!!

[irish john]

great pictures Neil wow

[AK797]

Originally Posted by bradj

Hopefully a little bump to this thread. I've had a sub and SD in the past and wasn't the best with keeping the insert looking new. I prefer a non-scratched watch and I'm currently in the market for the Sub-C.

I started a search to see if people had any issues with the ceramic cracking after a small drop or smack on a door/table. Anyone with this sort of experience? At my local AD they said that there have been virtually no ceramic subs coming back in for new Inserts due to damage.

Very few incidents on here. And this thread revealed the insert price is very reasonable so win win.

Originally Posted by irish john

great pictures Neil wow

Cheers, mate