^^^^ Classic ? Modern ? Retro ? Dead horse ? ^^^^

[Cru Jones]

i posted this in another thread on the recent evolution of the sub's lugs and, since there were so many posts in that thread (and elsewhere) saying the new design makes the sub more "modern", i thought i would re-post this in a new thread.

for all the talk about the supposedly "classic" (i.e., 16610) and "modern" (i.e., 116610) lug/case designs, another way to look at it is that the new lugs & bracelet combo is a lot closer to the TRUE historic/vintage design language than the 16610.

so, instead of the design being "modern", the 116610 lugs/case combo is decidedly "retro", like the maxi dial (or, to take another example, the orange hand on the explorer ii). the only thing modern, then, in the 116610 is the technical details (bracelet, clasp, some movement bits, ceramic), with the larger size just being a logical by-product of the "retro" lug/bracelet design (which also just happens to fit modern times).

have a look at some old subs.......looks familiar?





(source: click here)

[Rashid.bk]

isn't that the 114060 though......I guess I know what I think you mean.....I think.

[eric23]

Great photos!

[subtona]

I agree the maxi lugs can be linked to the past, but
I don't see how the fat lugs are retro?

[Engi]

Thanks Cru,
interesting interpretation ...

Ciao

Engi

[Longhorn]

Is the idea that Rolex generally widens the lug width as a precursor to increasing the size of the watch? I'm lost.

[GradyPhilpott]

The old style lugs may be bigger than the later lugs, but even they are dwarfed by the new lugs, so much so that retro hardly applies.

Regardless of what one may think of the new maxi-cases, they will be with us for a long time, so the issue really is a dead horse.

There's a whole generation of youngsters who'll will snatch the new watches up without a thought for what has gone before, except to think how old-fashioned the previous models look, that is of course until the vintage bug bites.

[77T]

Broader shoulders are better IMHO to allow for polishing out dings over the lifetime of the case.

[financeman]

Great photos and write up. Thanks for sharing

[Cru Jones]

thanks, guys. i know this is something that has been discussed over and over (and over and over) again, but, the view that "bigger lugs = modern" always bothered me. they are, to me, many things, but, not "modern".

anyway, i can't take credit for the thesis, as the link i provided is where i read it, but, when i read it, it made a lot of sense to me.

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

isn't that the 114060 though......I guess I know what I think you mean.....I think.

that's true. the case/lugs/bracelet are the same, so, same difference, but, ooops on the photo.

Originally Posted by subtona

I agree the maxi lugs can be linked to the past, but
I don't see how the fat lugs are retro?

"retro" in the sense that the original models were a lot closer in proportion to the latest design than the 16610 (which many refer to as being the "classic" design).

[masterserg]

I agree ... the squarish case may look retro.

[Chris B]

Excellent pics

[Frogman4me]

Man I love the vintage :)

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

that's true. the case/lugs/bracelet are the same, so, same difference, but, ooops on the photo.

Oh, by the way, I'm an idiot, that is a really nice photo spread to find 'em all lined up like that. Besides the lugs it's definitely retro, just like Porsches. I think all Rolex watches are essentially retro, besides the skydweller and ym2.

[capote]

A side by side would be interesting since the vintage also were smaller over all I believe, still a matter of preference. My preference is non-maxi, or maybe "modern" if maxi case is retro