Four Digit vs Five Digit vs Six Digit.1 vs Six Digit.2

[HogwldFLTR]

I'm bored and digging deep for subject matter but couldn't find a comparable post so... The question is which generation of Rolex do you prefer? Six Digit.1 being exemplified by 114060. Six Digit.2 by for example 124060. The rest seem self explanatory.

[illiguy]

Would think there’d be potential bias in responses depending on one’s age/when they first got into Rolex.

I acquired my first Rolex about a decade ago, near the early innings of the 6-digit references. Aesthetically, I love the 5-digit references (example: 1460M COSC with lug holes). That said, I do own 3 6-digit references (116500, 116520, and 116610).

I’d, of course, love a vintage Rolex Paul Newman Daytona, so …

[rmagoo57]

Anything as my collection spans 3 categories. No interest in the 4 digits.

[jakjuventus]

I find 5 digits to be in a good balance between vintage style and good for everyday wear.

[Mal H.]

I prefer the 5-digit, because I own one. I own a 5-digit, because that's what I prefer.

Svelte case, proportioned dial, subdued bezel, lightweight bracelet, and the venerable 3135 movement. Absolute perfection.

[JSol1]

I voted for the 6.2 because I started with 5 digit and as I acquired newer references I came to appreciate the updates. I do also own a 6.1 Sub and quite honestly if I didn’t buy it right before the .2 became available I would have preferred that...

[DCheeta]

I’ve had all of them over my many years of collecting, each has their own positives and negatives. Now I only own six-digit.2 as I find myself wanting the most current tech and materials. I think that over the years Rolex really has advanced and refined their product and what we have now is the best there has ever been (for my criteria).

My runner-up would be four-digit. The size and design was perfect. I just can’t do vintage anymore.

Of course it’s all subjective, every generation of Rolex is superb.

[101031-28]

I became a collector in the late 80s, 5 digits hold a special place and will always be my favorite reference. 4 digits second.

[csaltphoto]

I would say 5 digit for anything with a rotating bezel and 6 digit for the rest. I really do not like the ceramic bezels.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Any Rolex Sport Model that I would be able to obtain without paying Grey Market pricing.

[moting]

Fan of the 14060m! The one I decided to own because of the perfect proportions and fit better my small wrist

[kieselguhr]

I definitely prefer six digit Rolex over previous generations. Build quality is significantly improved with modern production methods (forged vs. stamped parts), feels more substantial, and incorporates design improvements.

[GB-man]

All great but the 4 digit stays push comes to shove. I think the 5513 maxi is hard to fault.

[Mal H.]

I'd love to have a birth year (1971) 4-digit, but I don't have the cash or expertise to acquire one.

[Jackie Daytona]

4 digit or 5 digit. I prefer the 5 digit however they had just the right amount of modernization while keeping the classic lines an proportions of the original models.

[franktehtank]

You may need to mentally combine both 6 digit poll options, since they're pretty much the same.

[tgyberg]

The 6.2 DSSD with the wider bracelet. Smallish detail but I really wanted it to be 22mm

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by franktehtank

You may need to mentally combine both 6 digit poll options, since they're pretty much the same.

Watches have been redesigned and reproportioned with greater reserve and different bracelets and dimensions. I'd call them two differing but similar generations hence .1 and .2.

[Nikrnic]

My favorites would be two of the five dgts. 16710, 14060m. Then the 6 dgts. I have a particular fondness for the Milgauss and also love the Sub, Expll, Blnr and DJ41. I guess that's why these are all in my collection. The only Rolex I'm looking to add is a second Millie in black.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Driver8]

Six Digit.1 for me. My first Rolex was a five digit Sub, but the 6 digits are just better built, plus I like the Supercase and the tried-and-tested movements of the "Six Digit.1's"

[foxytimes]

For me there are favourites in every range 4/5/6-digit but I voted 5-digit for the timeless elegance of the design during this period, the versatility (GMT), variety of dials (DD). This happens to be the case too for some examples of the 4-digit era and also for selected contemporary 6-digit masterpieces. But overall Rolex design in the 5-digit period turns out to be the most refined with less design aberrancies imho.

[GarbanzoNegro]

5 digit Submariners and 6.1 digit Explorers

[Mal H.]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Six Digit.1 for me. My first Rolex was a five digit Sub, but the 6 digits are just better built, plus I like the Supercase and the tried-and-tested movements of the "Six Digit.1's"

That's a pretty bold statement.

[fskywalker]

5 digit for the win!

[Dazthebeard]

5 digit Sub for me

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Mal H.

That's a pretty bold statement.

Maybe, but the 6 digit bracelets, clasps, and even arguably the ceramic bezel inserts are all clearly better built than the jangly hollow centre-link bracelets, the pressed (tin foil) clasps, and the scratchable/fadeable aluminium bezel inserts of previous generations. (I will agree the watch heads themselves are fairly comparable).

Sure, I get that a lot of people prefer the aesthetics of the 5 digit cases (and even the classic aluminium bezel inserts), but I'd be surprised if even the hardest of hardcore 5 digit fan would argue against the 6's being better built overall.

[Oyster Sauce]

I voted 5-digit, but specifically for sport watches with numbered bezels (Sub, GMT, Exp II)...size is spot on for me and love the tool watch vibe. For plain bezeled watches (OP, DJ, Exp) I gravitate toward 6-digit.

[Cru Jones]

It really depends on the watch, so, I chose “I don’t care”.

[TimeAZ]

5 digit case on a 6-digit bracelet/clasp.

[Mal H.]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Maybe, but the 6 digit bracelets, clasps, and even arguably the ceramic bezel inserts are all clearly better built than the jangly hollow centre-link bracelets, the pressed (tin foil) clasps, and the scratchable/fadeable aluminium bezel inserts of previous generations. (I will agree the watch heads themselves are fairly comparable).

Sure, I get that a lot of people prefer the aesthetics of the 5 digit cases (and even the classic aluminium bezel inserts), but I'd be surprised if even the hardest of hardcore 5 digit fan would argue against the 6's being better built overall.

I disagree.

The 6 digit bracelets are big and heavy to go with the super and maxi aesthetic of the new watch designs. They're big and heavy for the sake of being big and heavy. They are big and heavy, because that's the prevailing fashion. Big and heavy doesn't automatically mean better built. It just means big and heavy.