Which one would you prefer?

[GMT Aviator]

Originally Posted by Number3

“The old one?” Do you mean the 6542, 1675, 16750, 16700 or 16710? The provenance is built around multiple models and the 126710 is surely just an extension of this....?

By old I mean any of the 4 or 5 digit references.

The newer 6 digits are such a huge departure from the originals with maxi case, maxi dial, maxi hands, ceramic etc, as to be completely different watches in all but spirit of what they are based on.

[dwatcher]

The SS BLRO for me. You can't imagine how much refined beauty it comes with

[116710er]

Like CrazyCarlitos pointed out, they're BOTH "BLRO" and BOTH "SS BLRO"

For me, I'd rather have this (photo credit to HQMilton)

[Rolexavidfan]

I never understood the aura of the older / vintage model. Is it really better in terms of movement, bracelet, bezel, case and the design vs the new one? Is it due to the nostalgia and/or romanticism that goes with the vintage model?

I’m a new school kind of guy. I’ll always go for the newer reissue one, not just Rolex but other brands such as Omega, Panerai, JLC, Patek, etc.

In answer to your query, the BLRO ceramic one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CRM114]

The older 16710 is neither "vintage" or "the original". It's a GMT Master II, for one thing.

And yes, they're both BLROs.

[JonnyH83]

The new version for me.

[RRGHOST1]

The new version for me.

[116710er]

Originally Posted by Rolexavidfan

I never understood the aura of the older / vintage model. Is it really better in terms of movement, bracelet, bezel, case and the design vs the new one? Is it due to the nostalgia and/or romanticism that goes with the vintage model?

I’m a new school kind of guy. I’ll always go for the newer reissue one, not just Rolex but other brands such as Omega, Panerai, JLC, Patek, etc.

I used to be the same way. Since the first days of watch buying, I always wanted modern/technical. When I finally "understood" the Rolex brand, all I wanted were the ceramic models with the newest movements and brightest lume, etc. After a couple ceramics, my "latest and greatest" thirst was quenched. I somewhat unexpectedly ended up buying a "modern vintage" tritium 16610 with a faded insert (if we're being honest, the price was just right) and when I saw it in person, something clicked in my brain...I finally understood what all these guys that go gaga over patina were talking about.

That lead me down the dark, uncertain, pot-holed (filled with pit vipers and punji sticks) dirt path of Vintage Rolex watches. Something I used not be a fan of due to the many pitfalls (which I am now willing and learning to navigate). To make a long story slightly shorter, I ended up with a Red 1680 out of complete shear dumb luck (right place, right time, right price) and that reference just solidified my interest in vintage. The top hat crystal, the matte dial, the borderless indices, the faded bezel, etc. Now, while I still like the new ones (I wear a ceramic as a daily most of the time), my future purchases for my collection is focused more on early 5-digit and 4-digit references (my bank account doesn't agree however). Something about the slimmer case shape, acrylic crystal profile (on the 4-digits obviously), the history, etc. I see it as no different than vintage cars...there something about the rawness and back-to-basics of vintage that I find attractive.

[lucid]

Nothing beats the original for me, you can call me vintage if you want

[AConnolly]

New model :)

[Ucerveza]

16710

[Rolexavidfan]

Originally Posted by 116710er

I used to be the same way. Since the first days of watch buying, I always wanted modern/technical. When I finally "understood" the Rolex brand, all I wanted were the ceramic models with the newest movements and brightest lume, etc. After a couple ceramics, my "latest and greatest" thirst was quenched. I somewhat unexpectedly ended up buying a "modern vintage" tritium 16610 with a faded insert (if we're being honest, the price was just right) and when I saw it in person, something clicked in my brain...I finally understood what all these guys that go gaga over patina were talking about.

That lead me down the dark, uncertain, pot-holed (filled with pit vipers and punji sticks) dirt path of Vintage Rolex watches. Something I used not be a fan of due to the many pitfalls (which I am now willing and learning to navigate). To make a long story slightly shorter, I ended up with a Red 1680 out of complete shear dumb luck (right place, right time, right price) and that reference just solidified my interest in vintage. The top hat crystal, the matte dial, the borderless indices, the faded bezel, etc. Now, while I still like the new ones (I wear a ceramic as a daily most of the time), my future purchases for my collection is focused more on early 5-digit and 4-digit references (my bank account doesn't agree however). Something about the slimmer case shape, acrylic crystal profile (on the 4-digits obviously), the history, etc. I see it as no different than vintage cars...there something about the rawness and back-to-basics of vintage that I find attractive.

Thank you for sharing your thought. I respect your opinion on the vintage watches and going for the early 5-digit and 4-digit references. Perhaps one day.

To be transparent, I have my Dad’s vintage Omega watches (3 Seamasters) which I had them cleaned and movement checked with leather straps changed some few years back and I do wear them for certain occasions. But I’m probably on the minority side here of not liking vintage watches despite owning those three.

I was able to dabble on some vintage Rolex watches from GTG and still I’m not attracted. As I mentioned, perhaps one day.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk