|
|
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Which watch? | |||
| 1680 |
   
|
31 | 64.58% |
| 16800 |
  
|
17 | 35.42% |
| Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
5 March 2013, 10:06 AM
|
#1 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Cleveland
Watch: GMT 16750
Posts: 212
|
Pick: 1680 or 16800?
I have the pleasure of picking between a 1680 or 16800. Both are in great condition with matte dial (new service dial which I prefer). So what would you pick?
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 10:14 AM
|
#2 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Real Name: Jason
Location: USA
Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers
Posts: 7,973
|
Definitely 1680 for me......and I have both.
__________________
Best Regards, Jason  Just Say "NO" to Polishing  Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches  PLEXI IS SEXY |
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 10:17 AM
|
#3 |
|
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: Grant
Location: NZ
Watch: Moon
Posts: 1,719
|
Tough call, but the chunky plexi crysal of the 1680 is a thing of beauty.
And I have a sneaking suspicion that the 15XX movements are more accurate than the modern ones. Go with your gut. -GW |
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 10:18 AM
|
#4 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Real Name: Nick
Location: HKG
Watch: 16520,5513 &RedSub
Posts: 92
|
of course 1680
|
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 10:30 AM
|
#5 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Real Name: Al
Location: California, USA
Watch: GMT- Pepsi
Posts: 3,462
|
good question...
I own both as well. In my case the 16800 was the perfect first Rolex purchase:
-16800 is much more reasonably priced, and can be sold/upgraded easily -16800 has a sapphire crystal, and comes in matte or WG surround dials -16800 has a more modern, high beat movement -Bezel insert clicking on a 16800 is superior to the 1680.... If you grow tired of the 16800 you can always upgrade to the 1680 down the road...
__________________
-NAWCC Member |
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 10:52 AM
|
#6 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 68
|
Buy both then you wouldnt have to be in this predicament
I would go for the 1680, Only thing that lets it down is no quick set date, but I can live with out it. |
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 11:15 AM
|
#7 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: Pete
Location: Arizona
Watch: ing Duke bball
Posts: 1,488
|
1680 for me. A saphire crystal and the Arizona sun means blinding me while driving and it drove me insane. Never again.
|
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 01:42 PM
|
#8 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Zürich
Watch: Submariner 5512
Posts: 922
|
1680 no question. But if you take the 16800 let me know about the 1680 and if reasonably priced I eventually take it :-)
|
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 01:48 PM
|
#9 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2010
Real Name: Dan
Location: USA
Watch: This N That
Posts: 34,253
|
1680
When going vintage, I would always tend to choose the older of the two.
__________________
When it captures your imagination, that's when you know you have found your passion. Loyal Foot Soldier of The Nylon Nation. Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons |
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 03:00 PM
|
#10 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Up a tree
Posts: 4,001
|
I have owned both...I ended up with a 666...
 ...From a romantic stand point I would say 1680... From a practical stand point I would say 16800... But I don't think you can go wrong with either... |
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 03:26 PM
|
#11 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: USA
Watch: ing You Sleep
Posts: 379
|
Like them both but would lean towards the 1680.
|
|
|
|
|
5 March 2013, 03:58 PM
|
#12 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Greg
Location: USA
Watch: Milsub
Posts: 1,635
|
Both great... I love plastic crystals but the height of the 1680 crystal bothers me a great deal... I prefer the 16800 but then im bias
__________________
@true_patina @true.dome |
|
|
|
|
6 March 2013, 04:56 AM
|
#13 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Watch: Ranger
Posts: 315
|
acrylic crystals rule.
|
|
|
|
|
6 March 2013, 06:00 AM
|
#14 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston
Posts: 3,177
|
16800. Blends a little bit of modern with vintage, very versatile. Smooth, clean look. Not to mention, having a quick set date feature is a thing of beauty, unless you plan on wearing the watch every day. Having to wind the bloody thing till your fingers get raw just to set the date is obnoxious.
I'm not a fan of the writing on the 1680 white dial - too clunky. If I were going 1680, I'd go MF red.
__________________
"Oh, you give a f****' aspirin a headache, pal!" |
|
|
|
|
6 March 2013, 06:05 AM
|
#15 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Real Name: Brian
Location: Towson, MD
Watch: iZ
Posts: 2,224
|
1680. So happy with this vintage beauty. Love the matte dial and simple hour marker plots. It definitely has more of the vintage look, if that is what you desire.
|
|
|
|
|
6 March 2013, 06:58 AM
|
#16 |
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Posts: 22
|
1680, pure class.
|
|
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.
Linear Mode
