This is why I prefer 5 Digit Rolex

[MrGMT]

I do love the 5 digit GMTs think about picking up a Pepsi every now and again but the 5 digit bracelet without the newer clasps it's a huge put off they feel quite poor IMO after having the newer ones.

[Wools]

It's cool to have a personal preference for one over the other but what actually are the differences between the 5 Digit and the new generation of Rolex's? Are there any comparisons online?

[DLRIDES]

As someone that is fairly new to the Rolex world, and wanting to add a sub to the collection, I'm drawn to 5 digits. The case and lugs have better symmetry and proportations than the 6 digits, especially on a no date.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Onikage

6-digit: Clasp - who cares? Omega have been at it a while with machined clasps and even Patek uses a stamped fliplock on the Nautilus. Don't see Patek owners wingeing about build quality.

Yeah, it reminds me of deployant clasps for leather straps. Why would I take a lightweight, sleek and functional tang buckle and replace it with a bulkier machined piece that does the same thing? I think it's just an effort to justify pricing by these companies.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Onikage

6-digit: Clasp - who cares? Omega have been at it a while with machined clasps and even Patek uses a stamped fliplock on the Nautilus. Don't see Patek owners wingeing about build quality.

Actually we do, it's probably the weakest aspect of the Nautilus and pretty tough to open, esp compared to the slick release RO and ofc we'd kill for some glidelock-type adjustability but that would not be practical given the sleek aesthetic but works on the Subc perfectly.

[TygerJaxsin]

I have been a long time fan since 5 digits but once the 6 digits came out with all the refinements. I was hooked. It's 6 digits all the way for me.

[breitlings]

I do agree but I am also allergic to 904l/Nickel so the choice of 6 digits are limited to PM. The size weight and comfort of 5 digits also make them more an every day watch imho.

The one watch I wouldn't sell is the 16710, everything else I like a lot but I would be willing to sell it (out side of sentimental gift pieces).

[Sherpa23]

Originally Posted by Hollister

Do you mean the Rolex 904L steel bracelets?

There's no difference in the bracelet, the difference is the clasp. Whilst I accept that the 5 digits had a utilitarian clasp, it was and is functional, comfortable, low-profile and reliable.

I could be wrong but I don't think that's entirely true. At least some of the 5 digit bracelets have hollow center links whereas they are solid in later bracelets.

That said, I can't really tell you exactly what it is that makes the 6 digit bracelets seems so much better to me. Your point that the clasp is a huge part of it is spot on but I don't think that's all of it.

As I said, I could be wrong.

EDIT: DouglasF13 just explained it a few posts back. Exactly what I was trying to say (but I have never seen those pics which are super informative).

[keithl]

I agree. I much prefer the 5 and 4 digit for the Sport watches.

Originally Posted by dr35mm

In my opinion 5 Digit are the best watches ever manufactured by Rolex.

They feel so natural, so comfortable, so casual. They wont get in the way. This applies to GMT, Subs, Explorer II, etc.

Do you guys agree? Interested on hearing your thoughts.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Sherpa23

I could be wrong but I don't think that's entirely true. At least some of the 5 digit bracelets have hollow center links whereas they are solid in later bracelets.

That said, I can't really tell you exactly what it is that makes the 6 digit bracelets seems so much better to me. Your point that the clasp is a huge part of it is spot on but I don't think that's all of it.

As I said, I could be wrong.

EDIT: DouglasF13 just explained it a few posts back. Exactly what I was trying to say (but I have never seen those pics which are super informative).

It's really just pandering to the "heavier is quality" sentiment that seems to be popular now that tool watches are leaning more towards being jewelry and have become so expensive relative to inflation. To reference Porsche yet again, if you still see Rolex professional models as tools, it's like people complaining about the GT3's "cheap" nylon door pulls.

[Sherpa23]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

To reference Porsche yet again, if you still see Rolex professional models as tools, it's like people complaining about the GT3's "cheap" nylon door pulls.

that's a great analogy.

I guess they would hate my F40 and 360 Challenge cable door pulls then. :)

[rollee1]

I prefer the 5 digits look on my wrist, but it's the soul of the older movement which sold me.
Each of my 5-digits seems to come alive and runs perfectly while wearing like +1, I find them much more sensitive to self regulation, this alone gave me satisfaction.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Sherpa23

that's a great analogy.

I guess they would hate my F40 and 360 Challenge cable door pulls then. :)

The fact that you own the car that was on the biggest poster in my bedroom as a kid makes me defer all of life's judgements to you. Just incredible that you own an F40 (or the 360, for that matter!!)

[eonflux]

Originally Posted by Onikage

6-digit: Clasp - who cares? Omega have been at it a while with machined clasps and even Patek uses a stamped fliplock on the Nautilus. Don't see Patek owners wingeing about build quality.

Actually, many seem to care

Besides myself, I know of others who did not purchased Rolexes previously because of those stamped clasps, often pointing to the Omega clasps as examples of what they considered to be better quality

And Rolex apparently thought a change was in order

In general, I also prefer lighter, simpler solutions, but the Glildelock on my DSSD is such a vast improvement over previous clasps in terms of functionality and satisfaction of use (even more so than the clasps on my GMTc and Subc) that despite its added complexity and potentially risk of failure, I much prefer it

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by eonflux

Actually, many seem to care

Besides myself, I know of others who did not purchased Rolexes previously because of those stamped clasps, often pointing to the Omega clasps as examples of what they considered to be better quality

And Rolex apparently thought a change was in order

In general, I also prefer lighter, simpler solutions, but the Glildelock on my DSSD is such a vast improvement over previous clasps in terms of functionality and satisfaction of use (even more so than the clasps on my GMTc and Subc) that despite its added complexity and potentially risk of failure, I much prefer it

Yep, it's like the Chuck Taylor shoe. It was a timeless design with minor changes for many decades and became a style icon, but, once the market became saturated, they changed to the technically superior Chuck Taylor II to bring in new buyers...but I think we all know which shoe is still the legend.

[JElvis]

Maybe someday we will be talking about 7 digits....

[Wooddog44]

I think there is a generational dynamic to consider...

Absent a solid survey/analysis I would predict that men of a "certain age" (North of 45) will fall more into the "5 digit club" while those 44 and younger will prefer 6 digits.

For me (1961 model year, so 55) my watch arc went from a Texas Instruments with the red LED readout in high school (late 70's) to Timex Ironman in college to Casio G-shock post-college/grad school to Rolex in my 40's. At that time the Rolex watches I saw, admired and wanted for myself were 5 digit. What I now see on the guys of a more recent vintage, 30 and 40 somethings (among those who wear watches at all but that's another story...) , is a lot of 6 digit for those who choose Rolex. Point being, as with clothes, music, cars, etc... many of our "adult item" choices are formed in the latter 20's into our 30's years and that guides our preferences...

[Cerachrom12]

Originally Posted by Wooddog44

I think there is a generational dynamic to consider...

Absent a solid survey/analysis I would predict that men of a "certain age" (North of 45) will fall more into the "5 digit club" while those 44 and younger will prefer 6 digits.

For me (1961 model year, so 55) my watch arc went from a Texas Instruments with the red LED readout in high school (late 70's) to Timex Ironman in college to Casio G-shock post-college/grad school to Rolex in my 40's. At that time the Rolex watches I saw, admired and wanted for myself were 5 digit. What I now see on the guys of a more recent vintage, 30 and 40 somethings (among those who wear watches at all but that's another story...) , is a lot of 6 digit for those who choose Rolex. Point being, as with clothes, music, cars, etc... many of our "adult item" choices are formed in the latter 20's into our 30's years and that guides our preferences...

Interesting opinion, but I really feel it comes down to personal preference not age. I was 30 when I purchased my 16613 new 20 years ago. I was 47 when I purchased my 116610 3 years ago. I feel the build quality of the solid link s.s bracelet and machined clasp is light years ahead of the cheap feeling hollow link bracelets and stamped clasps. I also like the more substantial feel of the bulkier 6 digit Submariner cases. My middle aged eyes much prefer the maxi dial with larger hour plots and hands. Every Rolex I purchase going forward will be a modern 6 digit, because I prefer all the upgrades Rolex made to improve upon the faults of the 5 digit references. But I also feel to each his own, wear what makes you happy.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Wooddog44

I think there is a generational dynamic to consider...

Absent a solid survey/analysis I would predict that men of a "certain age" (North of 45) will fall more into the "5 digit club" while those 44 and younger will prefer 6 digits.

For me (1961 model year, so 55) my watch arc went from a Texas Instruments with the red LED readout in high school (late 70's) to Timex Ironman in college to Casio G-shock post-college/grad school to Rolex in my 40's. At that time the Rolex watches I saw, admired and wanted for myself were 5 digit. What I now see on the guys of a more recent vintage, 30 and 40 somethings (among those who wear watches at all but that's another story...) , is a lot of 6 digit for those who choose Rolex. Point being, as with clothes, music, cars, etc... many of our "adult item" choices are formed in the latter 20's into our 30's years and that guides our preferences...

I'm not so sure, because "vintage" aesthetics are very popular with those of us under 40. Mid-century houses, vintage clothing, old cars, record players, etc.

[Carrera997]

I have two 5 digits and one 6 digit. I love them all equally like any good father concerning his children.

[Nsx_23]

4 and 5 Digits for me. Love the more "classic" styling and they're more comfortable on the wrist for me.

[Flywheel]

Love the proportions but I'm not a fan of the tuna can.

[doramas]

Dr35mm I totally agree. Live the 5 digits

[Onikage]

The proportions were better. I don't think this is age related at all. Anyone under a certain age generally wants a maxicase, ceramic and glidelock really?

[Nsx_23]

I dont think its an age thing....Just that to some people the older models are better proportioned.

[Guitarfan]

Six digit models allow for 4 links on the 6 o'clock side of the bracelet so they fit my skinny wrists. 5 digit models only allow 5 links unless you remove a permanent link.

For me it's 6 digit models every time, although I don't like the fat lugs on subs.

[mtgjr]

Originally Posted by doramas

Dr35mm I totally agree. Live the 5 digits

Yes. (Long) live the 5 digits.

[DramaTurtle]

Originally Posted by Cerachrom12

Interesting opinion, but I really feel it comes down to personal preference not age. I was 30 when I purchased my 16613 new 20 years ago. I was 47 when I purchased my 116610 3 years ago. I feel the build quality of the solid link s.s bracelet and machined clasp is light years ahead of the cheap feeling hollow link bracelets and stamped clasps. I also like the more substantial feel of the bulkier 6 digit Submariner cases. My middle aged eyes much prefer the maxi dial with larger hour plots and hands. Every Rolex I purchase going forward will be a modern 6 digit, because I prefer all the upgrades Rolex made to improve upon the faults of the 5 digit references. But I also feel to each his own, wear what makes you happy.

Agreed that it is not a matter of age.

I have smaller wrists at around 6.5 inches. I am under 30 and my first Rolex is my 116610LV. I intend to purchase an older 5 digit reference some time in the summer. I will say that the clasp was indeed a major factor in my purchase and for Rolex's premier diver, I found the Maxi dial to be mandatory, thus eliminating the 16610LN. The old LV came close to what I wanted but that clasp... I just couldn't justify the money for the design at the time. I'd heard about the Glidelock and wanted that, and that played a major part in my purchase. Along with the sunburst. And the ceramic. And the awesome bracelet taper.

I do appreciate the slimmer lugs on the old though, and it does wear much better on me!

[PaulChronometer]

I fully agree with the OP: better proportions, better esthetics, no ceramic.

An exception may be the quality of current bracelets.

And w.r.t. the Explorer, for many 39mm works as well as 36mm.

But in general, for me, 5-digit esthetics rule.

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by Sherpa23

that's a great analogy.

I guess they would hate my F40 and 360 Challenge cable door pulls then. :)

wow!