Does anyone else here not prefer the Supercase Rolex models much??

[speedolex]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I think most of us would agree that's generally been the case for much of Rolex's history, which is why the move to make larger and or/bulkier cases ruffles some feathers, as it's hard to see that as anything but following the larger watch trend of the last decade or so.

This.

I mean, just look at that thing. It's gigantic.

[janice&fred]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I think most of us would agree that's generally been the case for much of Rolex's history, which is why the move to make larger and or/bulkier cases ruffles some feathers, as it's hard to see that as anything but following the larger watch trend of the last decade or so.

unfortunately this is undeniably true. rolex came up with this maxi size stuff and clunky heavy bracelet configurations years after the trend began and there is absolutely zero of the past "form follows function" benefit to any of it, especially with the overweight SEL and glide lock overly engineered stuff. it's all about size and keeping up with the trendy competition...as if 40mm is somehow not a big enough wrist presence in the new millennium. in my opinion none of this stuff will ever be considered as classic or collectible in the future and smacks as pandering to the latest consumer trends.

[RHIII]

I like them all -- for various reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by janice&fred

unfortunately this is undeniably true. rolex came up with this maxi size stuff and clunky heavy bracelet configurations years after the trend began and there is absolutely zero of the past "form follows function" benefit to any of it, especially with the overweight SEL and glide lock overly engineered stuff. it's all about size and keeping up with the trendy competition...as if 40mm is somehow not a big enough wrist presence in the new millennium. in my opinion none of this stuff will ever be considered as classic or collectible in the future and smacks as pandering to the latest consumer trends.

Yeah, it's hard to predict. It's essentially this



VS. this



Who knows what people will want in another 30 years???

[JP Chestnut]

I'd take a 996 gt2 over anything air cooled and sold in the USA.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by Onikage

More in common how? The crownguards were thin or non existent, can't be those, the lugs you insist were fatter (or would be if not for the chamfers) certainly look thinner to me, like 14060/16610 size infact. Old wide cases you say?

I'm talking overall look of the case not necessarily the bottoms of the lugs and I'm referring to in the form they were released by Rolex, with the bracelet and the connecting links. It would obviously look different on a nato, but I'm basing on Rolex's intended set up. Crown guards are of course different and no debate there.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by JP Chestnut

I'd take a 996 gt2 over anything air cooled and sold in the USA.

Well, that's a little bit different, but I think you see my point. At that rate, I'd rather have a 993 GT2 brought in, or a '73 RS, or, heck, probably a 904 GTS.

I'm not hating on the 996. I used to own one. I'm just saying that the 996 reminds of the 116610. Rather than being an incremental upgrade, much was changed, and some aspects are still not exactly loved by many enthusiasts (like the maxi case/fried egg headlights.) Maybe Rolex will pull a "997" and bring back the non-maxi case in the next Sub??

[jmolsberg]

I for one am very pleased the subC is not a throwback trying to pay homage with an aged lume, etc., etc., which we all know is not the real deal. It's the evolution of a great and iconic watch that possesses all the DNA of its predecessors, and is built to last a lifetime. The difference between a fiver and sixer is character and that character will come around in due time. The only trend Rolex followed with the new model is their own
My old 16800 and my new 114060, both are absolute winners in my book! Dare I say my preference is modern

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by jmolsberg

I for one am very pleased the subC is not a throwback trying to pay homage with an aged lume, etc., etc., which we all know is not the real deal. It's the evolution of a great and iconic watch that possesses all the DNA of its predecessors, and is built to last a lifetime. The difference between a fiver and sixer is character and that character will come around in due time. The only trend Rolex followed with the new model is their own
My old 16800 and my new 114060, both are absolute winners in my book! Dare I say my preference is modern

I would imagine we're all pretty thrilled that Rolex didn't purposefully go retro with aged lume. I'm not sure anyone is asking for that.

[904VT]

Originally Posted by Onikage

More in common how? The crownguards were thin or non existent, can't be those, the lugs you insist were fatter (or would be if not for the chamfers) certainly look thinner to me, like 14060/16610 size infact. Old wide cases you say?

You don't see a closer visual connection with the 116610 here and the overall rectangular design vs the 16610's circular design approach visually dominating dial and bezel?

[904VT]

^
The 116610's protruding crown guards give it the same overall visual effect as the crown gives on models that had no crown protectors. IMO much more of a rectangular design in the early and late models. You don't have to agree, just the way I see the designs when looked at as a whole.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by 904VT

You don't see a closer visual connection with the 116610 here and the overall rectangular design vs the 16610's circular design approach visually dominating dial and bezel?

The 116610 looks more like the 6204, but it doesn't really look like the 6204. It would need to loose the crown guards and have a bracelet closer to the 22mm-24mm range at the end link.

A 2009 16610 looks much more like a 5512 from 50 years prior than a 116610 looks like a 6204. Heck, the Tudor Black Bay looks more like a 6204.

[William.L.]

I'm a 5 digit in preference, but if I had the money for the new white gold GMT that would be mine

[droptopman]

I prefer the 4 digit models the most. Love the flatter case backs and light weight. They just wear so much better on me.

I really like the looks of many of the 6 digit references. Love the maxi dials and some of the technical changes especially on the clasps.
I have tried hard to keep one in the collection but always move them on. If I ever try again it will be the 116618LB. The extra "beef" of the case and bracelet in YG is appealing and the blue maxi dial is amazing.

Simply based on wearability of the case 4>5>6 for me.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by 904VT

You don't see a closer visual connection with the 116610 here and the overall rectangular design vs the 16610's circular design approach visually dominating dial and bezel?

Well, no not really. Even so, it's quite a stretch to say the maxicase resembles anything that came before it. Harder to conclude that the 50s look was what was intended. If that's what Rolex says I won't argue though.

[sean1976]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

Nothing wrong with the old dainty lugs and flimsy feeling bracelets and clasps of the 70s-90s.

Of course, if you dig deeper into the original designs of the 50s, you'll see that the proportions are very similar to today.

Totally agree with this regarding the SubC design being very similar to the very first Submariner in 1954.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eillya]

buy what you like to wear , wear what pleases you.

[Evolver75]

I find it interesting that some contributors to this thread say the lug width etc on the 116710 GMT is ok yet they make out that the SubC on the otherhand is simply unbearable. I have both and yes the SubC lugs are only very slightly wider - as in mm's wider. It's hard to tell unless you're looking real close. On the wrist they wear the same. I certainly can't tell the difference from my own photo

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by speedolex

This.

I mean, just look at that thing. It's gigantic.

I'm sure he'll grow into that mammoth thing.

[Mrkamir9]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

I don't like the ones of the SubC; the ones on the 116710LN seems to be smaller (maybe will try one at AD at some time), so far my favorite is still the 5 series.

Wow! After years of hating, dozens of threads against, and making fun of the BLNR, saying it's ugly because of the lugs.... it seems like your giving it a chance! My life is complete... 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nsx_23]

Prefer the 4/5 digit models. They just wear better on my wrist and prefer the styling.

[Gerardus]

After owning and wearing 116610LN and 16610/14060M my opinion:
The C-model upgrades are indeed great but.....
The maxi case+ shiny ceramic is def not my cup of tea.
If I do it over it would be 100% the 5 digit model Sub.

[Mrkamir9]

Originally Posted by Evolver75

I find it interesting that some contributors to this thread say the lug width etc on the 116710 GMT is ok yet they make out that the SubC on the otherhand is simply unbearable. I have both and yes the SubC lugs are only very slightly wider - as in mm's wider. It's hard to tell unless you're looking real close. On the wrist they wear the same. I certainly can't tell the difference from my own photo

I'm with you 100%. Yes the GMT sits a bit flatter, and lugs are maybe 1mm (if that) thinner, but they are extremely close to me.

If it looks like a super case and ticks like a super case....it's a super case!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VicLeChic]

If I could choose between maxi case and regular case in a 6 digit Sub, I'd go for regular case in an ideal world. Not possible unless you pick a Yacht-Master instead of a Sub. I prefer the elegant look with slender lugs rather than the squarish one.

[janice&fred]

i kind of went a bit overboard in a previous post with my wholesale negative view of the new style GMT and subs so i should comment more. we do in fact own a ceramic maxi cased two tone sub and altho not historically consistent it's look is quite stunning. i just don't wear it as i find the weight and girth annoying. i would buy a new offering of sub or GMT with ceramic bezel insert if the case lug size was brought under control. however i would slap on an older hollow head link bracelet with traditional folding clasp to make it more to my taste. i have seen this done by a few of our friends locally that also can't stand the clunky looking SEL bracelets on their no-holes watches and they really clean up the look. this requires notching the underside of the head links to get access to the spring bars but it's a small sacrifice to make the watch more enjoyable.

[Dove37]

The 5 digit guys think Sean Connery when someone says James Bond.

The 6 digit guys think 3 or 4 other actors.

[Andad]

I also don't not prefer them much.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by Dove37

The 5 digit guys think Sean Connery when someone says James Bond.

The 6 digit guys think 3 or 4 other actors.

Not really, but ok.

[amh]

Ok after seeing some of the older models I'm even more firmly in the 6-digit camp. I wouldn't be caught dead wearing some of the older 'slabs'! Rolex got enough things right with the newer models to overcome the extra width of the lugs.

- The dials look great
- Ceramic bezels are fantastic!
- Very elegant and functional bracelets

I can see myself reaching back for a previous gen GMT at some point but that's it.

[watchwatcher]

I'll be honest. The lugs don't matter nearly as much to me as do the wearability, adjustability, and overall comfort of the bracelet.

As I'm going to be wearing the watch, not just sitting around staring at it, these factors are more important to me. Just my two cents.