Why are 5-digit Rolex sports models so darned comfortable and aesthetically pleasing?

[marcotagudelo]

after i got some modern pieces i reverted back to the 5 digits
traded more 6 digits for PM and kept 5 digits.
the 5 digit kermit and pepsi never leave my wrist until the weekend...

[sensui]

Don't need explanation..put one on and it'll be self evident.

[blowfish89]

double post

[blowfish89]

I agree completely, I do not like the glossy dials and ceramic bezels and fat lugs. I’m also more of a strap guy (rather than bracelet) and the older models fit straps better, especially with lug holes. It’s also difficult to remove the cyclops on the newer models.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Finslayer83

I was on the same train until I got to try on a buddies Hulk with the glidelock.

I'm not paying $6k+ for a watch with a band that is lessor quality than the Squale I have. I'd be a 14060/M buyer all day at $3k but at current prices the 6 digit is an easy choice.

Paying $6k+ for any steel watch is already illogical, so justifying thousands for a better clasp/bracelet that should cost less than $200 is a stretch. Heck, Omega actually allows one to buy their glidelock-style clasp a la cart for less than $200.

Oddly enough, I've started thinking that even the bracelets for the 5-digit series are too heavy and thick. I recently paid an illogical amount for a folded links Oyster bracelet, and it practically disappears, because it is so light lithe.

[gt0279a]

Originally Posted by chloebear

What's the difference (in general) between the 4 and 5 digit references? Was the five digit the jump to applied indices?

Plastic Crystal, matte dials without applied indices, better proportions, movement upgrades like a quickset date. Later 5 digit references lost the lug holes and tritium lume.

Although, you will see the 16800 Sub referenced as transitional since it still had the matte dial.

Personally prefer the 4 and 6 digit references best.

[Nikrnic]

Love both for different reasons but recently went all six digits

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Loevhagen]

Originally Posted by toolr

I've had several 5 digit Rolex including three Subdates, a GMT-ll, and a Exp-ll, and all are gone in favor of the Sub C. It is the most comfortable watch I've worn. So, depends on your preference.

How can a watch that weighs more than a former, lighter and more comfortable model, wear more comfortable?

It just doesn't make any sense.

[jlevitt9]

Just got a new BnR waterproof strap for mine. Love it!

[4vCoupe]

I really like both 6 and 5 digit references for different reasons. Own both if you can.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ras47]

I prefer the feel and fit of the non-Maxi cases.

[Old Expat Beast]

Four-digit refs look even better.

As design has moved from the drawing board to the computer screen in recent decades, so Rolex watches have become colder looking, IMO.

[Finslayer83]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Paying $6k+ for any steel watch is already illogical, so justifying thousands for a better clasp/bracelet that should cost less than $200 is a stretch. Heck, Omega actually allows one to buy their glidelock-style clasp a la cart for less than $200.

Oddly enough, I've started thinking that even the bracelets for the 5-digit series are too heavy and thick. I recently paid an illogical amount for a folded links Oyster bracelet, and it practically disappears, because it is so light lithe.

I converted my 2254 over to the new clasp.

To the thousands more part - 14060/M's are selling at the same price as 114060's.

The pre subc no dates have skyrocketed in price.

[FrankBullitt]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Four-digit refs look even better.

As design has moved from the drawing board to the computer screen in recent decades, so Rolex watches have become colder looking, IMO.

Very interesting observation. The timeline of transition from drafting tables to computer workstations coincided approximately with the transition from acrylic to sapphire crystals, which may have something to do with that.

I actually admire many of the maxi-cases, particular the Explorer II Polar and DJ41. I'm less a fan of ceramic bezels; sometimes I'm in awe of them, and other times they look like plastic to me. It's disorienting, I can't make up my mind.

My first non-sapphire watch crystal was on an Omega Speedy Pro. Combined with the manual wind and bezel and subtle complications, it makes the watch very old-fashioned, warm, and personal, like a pet. I just got a 1603 DJ, and absolutely love the crystal (and the watch). Something about the crystal thickness and slight dome that gives it incredible charm and personality. Again, like a pet or old friend. It catches light and seems to highlight the dial, rather than just coldly reflect.

I have a few homage-to-vintage modern watches with domed sapphire crystals, and they're cool for what they are and their price point. But it isn't nearly the same as an actual 4-digit reference Rolex. I'm afraid I've gotten bitten by the vintage Rolex bug with my lowly old Datejust. It gets way worse from here.

[05carbondrz]

Because the Maxi Case was a mistake....

[bobabreath]

5-digits are "proportionally correct"

[jps3b]

I agree 100%

[Amochosto]

I too have versions of both. ie a 5 digit explorer II, a 6 digit 40 mm Sea Dweller and a bought new yesterday GMT Master II. Definitely the Explorer II seems to disappear on your wrist it is so light, but the SD4K’s glidelock makes the perfect fit a cinch anlso a very comfortable if much heavier watch. The GMT fits between the two in weight and ease of adjustment, but I have not yet figured out the perfect sizing.

Both 6 digit watches suit my wrist better on the bracelet than my explorer, the explorer looks too small and low profile on my wrist while the six digits seem properly sized, however, on a NATO strap the Explorer’s aesthetics look really nice to me.

So I gues basically I am in the camp that both 5 and 6 digit models have their place in a nice little rotation.

[SkyKing31]

Because that is how perfection is supposed to be.

[offrdmania]

I put a glidelock on my 5-digit sub and it is the best of both worlds and my most comfortable watch.

[SilverKast]

Got a 16710 and to me it fits and feels the way a watch is supposed to. Love it so much I may just have to move on from my SD43!

[omitohud]

I think it’s because those watches grew up with you, just like those wham songs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teb1013]

My 16570 at 40mm is the perfect size. The 42mm 6 digit is too big in my opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[michael8238]

It's prob a combination of smaller dimension and lighter bracelet---I always fall into the trap of chasing for more solid everything, but the truth is, those older rolex and omega with hollow links and stamped clasps just wear so much more comfortably.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Finslayer83

I converted my 2254 over to the new clasp.

To the thousands more part - 14060/M's are selling at the same price as 114060's.

The pre subc no dates have skyrocketed in price.

I was referring to you saying you’d only spend $3K on a 14060, primarily because of the bracelet/clasp. I’d pick the 14060 even if it was more than the 114060, just like I’d pick a Porsche 993 over a more technically capable 991.

[CPRWATCH]

For me 5 digit watches just hit the sweet spot in design ,comfort & looks .I really like the glide lock though on the 6 digits ,but it will never make up for the feeling a 5 digit watch will give me .

[lhanddds]

Originally Posted by Onikage

Sounds like you're not a fan of the relatively recent maxi treatment - Me neither, and never afraid to say it. Pre-maxi were just better looking to me. I still wonder why they did it? They could have just made bigger versions and added ceramic and solid clasps. Why didn't they? Why?!

I think the maxi cased watches IMHO were a mistake and this is being rectified in Rolex recent models SD4K and the SD43 and now the new GMT Pepsi from Basel this year. I know some like this case but my guess is that it will eventually disappear. The Batman is so successful because of the beautiful colors of the bezel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[toolr]

Originally Posted by Loevhagen

How can a watch that weighs more than a former, lighter and more comfortable model, wear more comfortable?

It just doesn't make any sense.

The weight difference is insignificant, it has more to do how it sits on the wrist (centered) and adjustability. I could never get the 93250 bracelet of the 16610 centered well and it always seemed a little too loose or too tight, the 78790 bracelet on the 16710 was worse in that there were 5 permanent links on the 6 o'clock side. The Glidelock is a game changer and I prefer the maxi case, I think it will wear much better over the years.

[Recaro18]

Agreed!

I love the 5 digit References

[Askewww]

Couldn’t agree more. Id love a blnr but I just can’t get over the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk