Mini-Review: Ceramic Sub v. Pre-Ceramic Sub

[LovesRolexes123]

Having just traded my 116613 Two-Tone (TT) blue ceramic sub toward a new 16618 (all YG gold pre-ceramic sub) from my AD, I wanted to make a few observations concerning these 2 watches. (Of course, this is all personal preference with regard to 2 great watches).

1. No matter how I tried, I could not warm up to the maxi-case / larger lugs on the ceramic sub. (It seems that the lugs are wider than the lugs on the Ceramic GMT maxi-case lugs). To my eye, the contrast of the square lugs with the bracelet did not "flow" as smoothly as the old style, sleeker lugs.

2. The bracelet on the ceramic sub is superior in funcionality / adjustability. The micro-adjust clasp is a great feature, and there is no "stamped metal" portion of the bracelet, as with the pre-ceramic. (Note: This micro-adjust bracelet is NOT the same as the one on the DSSD, despite the notion among some that it is the same mechanism). Also, I am one who puts my watch on and leaves it on through all events -- exercise, showering, work, etc. (This is why I have never been a fan of strap watches -- I need the "set it and forget it" feature that a Rolex bracelet watch offers). This being said, the new style bracelet tends to accumulate "grime" more quickly, and is harder to clean because of the greater number of grooves on the micro-adjust system.

3. Parachrom blue hair spring: Not sure if my M Series 16618 has this or not, but the watch is extremely accurate. I know for sure that the ceramic has the hairspring, and is the more accurate of the two -- even though we are just talking a few seconds here and there. (Incidentally, does anyone know if there wll be a V series 16618 made?). I realize, however, that Rolexes can be finnicky and need adjustment, so to say that ALL ceramic subs or subs with the blue hairspring are more accurate would be incorrect, subject to a test of every Rolex out there.

4. The maxi-dial and no-glare date mangifier on the ceramic sub are easier to read and probably an improvement of the pre-ceramic sub. The bluish lume is also very cool on the ceramic sub.

5. The color of the blue dial of the 16618 is superior to that of the new blue dials on the ceramic models. The older blue "cobalt" color seems to catch the light better, and not be as "flat" as the new blue dial. (Some refer to the new dial as the "smurf" dial. I do not find the new dial to be "smurfy" or "powder blue" as some have suggested. It's just a different hue completely from the older style blue dial).

6. The bezel insert of the ceramic is, I suppose, superior, but I say that only because it is ceramic and not a metal insert. Whether the fact that it is ceramic is alone enough to make it "better" I don't really know. I suppose much of this could depend on how well the ceramic bezels wear over time, and the degree of difficulty / cost involved in replacing the bezel if there should develop a crack in the bezel. It is my understanding that the ceramic is baked into the bezel, so I am not quite sure how the bezel would be replaced in the event of a crack -- perhaps it would require factory service and not be something that an AD could repair (short of ordering an entire new bezel piece with the ceramic portion already baked in). Maybe someone knows the answer to this.

7. The thicker "shoulders" around the crown on the ceramic sub were not to my particular liking, when compared to the more sleek shoulders on the pre-ceramic sub. Again, personal preference.

8. It will be interesting to see if all subs starting with the 2010 anticipated SS sub-date will have the maxi-case / maxi-dial, or if any one of the subs will maintain the old style case. (Perhaps the no-date sub? Would Rolex ever surprise us by not changing the classic SS sub to the maxi-case?).

9. Bezel "clicking" -- the ceramic sub has the ball-bearing bezel system, so turns smoother. However, I found that this means that the bezel moved inadvertently more often than that of the pre-ceramic. (This, however, may just be a function of having the bezel regulated and tightened up a bit at the AD or service center).

That's my mini-review / comments for the day re: submariner. I'd like to hear input / comments from anyone else re: this topic (i.e., old v. new sub). Have I missed any areas?

Thanks for reading!

[Singslinger]

Thanks for a thorough and informative review.

Although I don't own a ceramic Sub of any kind, I have examined the new white gold and TT Blue versions in close detail recently. I too am not overly taken with the new blue - I find the previous hue is much more to my liking. I'd also agree that the bezel moves perhaps a bit too easily and I don't quite like the new shoulders.

However, I love the new bracelet, clasp and maxi dial, all of which I think a really useful advancements on a classic design.

Thanks again!

[Perdu]

Nice review. I have the same problem with the maxi case. I want to like it but when I saw a GMTII and GMTIIc side by side the old cases just looked better. Personally I would have preferred Roex just to increase the case size by 1mm, rather than play with it's shape. Congrats on your classic gold Sub.

[sea-dweller]

Nice review, I hope to own a new Sub one day to compliment my 16610/14060.

[DRMOVIE1]

kind of an embaressing quesiton, but what do you mean exactly by lugs?

"To my eye, the contrast of the square lugs with the bracelet did not "flow" as smoothly as the old style, sleeker lugs. "

[DRMOVIE1]

aahh got it, never mind

[armoredsaint]

hard to clean, do you clean your bracelet a lot and how dirty are your arms btw? if so, how many times?

[JJ Irani]

Excellent review and observations between the older non-Ceramic and the new Ceramic models, buddy.

Only last week, I was at my AD's and asked the lady to show me both watches for a side-by-side comparison. I had done this before, but this time I was able to do a more thorough examination.

You are right about the Ceramic bezel being much smoother to turn. And, of course, the most salient feature is the blue dial. Somehow, the older BLUE is still much better looking with a more mid-night Blue like hue. The new dial BLUE just doesn't match up in looks.

About the lugs, you are right!! I prefer the gentle taper of the older lugs as compared with the broad squared-off newer ones.

The best thing about the new bracelet are the all solid gold centre links as compared with the older hollow ones.

As for the clasp, the new one is a veritable scratch-magnet. The older one, with the block pattern, can still ward off a few.

And wonder if the latest V-series non-Ceramic bezel models are fitted with the Parachrom spring!!

JJ

[LovesRolexes123]

JJ - Thanks for your additional input. The solid center links of the 116613 (TT ceramic) are indeed an improvement over the hollow center links of the TT pre-ceramic 16613. I didn't mention that factor in my mini-review since I was comparing the TT ceramic with the all-gold pre-ceramic sub (16618) which, as you know, does in fact have solid center links. (So this factor slipped my mind, but I probably should have thrown it in anyway).

However, for a "pure" comparison of both pre- and post-ceramic TT's, the hollow / solid center link of the bracelet is something that should be noted, as you have done.

Here's another factor that I just thought of: The color of the "date wheel" -- on the TT ceramic the date wheel has a white background, whereas on the all gold pre-ceramic it is an off-white goldish hue. What is the background color of the pre-ceramic date wheel on the TT 16613? I have owned one but I can't recall, and I am not able to tell from the pictures online.

Thanks!

[LovesRolexes123]

Originally Posted by armoredsaint

hard to clean, do you clean your bracelet a lot and how dirty are your arms btw? if so, how many times?

1. I hardly ever clean my bracelet other than to rinse it off once in a while. I do "buff it up" quickly once in a while with a soft cotton t-shirt or cloth;
2. I would say that my arms are of average to above-average cleanliness, although I do clean my arms daily!

Of course, as any Rolex owner knows, the inside of the watch bracelet (especially the clasp area) tends to accumulate some grime over a period of time regardless of how clean one's arms may be.

I hope that my reply provides you with enough detail to answer your questions!

[SDDS]

thanx for sharing

[toolr]

Great review. It's for many of the points you mention that I bought a 16610 Subdate a couple months ago to addto my LV and GMT-ll 16710 coke bezel. I much prefer the non ceramic case design than the maxi case. The tapering lugs along with the better proportioned crown guard result in what I believe is a perfect symmetry for both the 16610 and the 16710 watches. The ceramic versions look to me like a GMT or Subdate on steroids and are out of proportion with the bracelets.
As far as the new "improved" bracelet and clasp goes, I'll take the older 93250 any day as it's rugged simplicity is easier and more economical to maintain. It's a tested design that has worked well for decades and is one of the most comfortable I have worn.

[Jason Judd]

Thx...Not sure about the ceramic now!

[dj7u]

Originally Posted by LovesRolexes123

JJ - Thanks for your additional input. The solid center links of the 116613 (TT ceramic) are indeed an improvement over the hollow center links of the TT pre-ceramic 16613. I didn't mention that factor in my mini-review since I was comparing the TT ceramic with the all-gold pre-ceramic sub (16618) which, as you know, does in fact have solid center links. (So this factor slipped my mind, but I probably should have thrown it in anyway).

However, for a "pure" comparison of both pre- and post-ceramic TT's, the hollow / solid center link of the bracelet is something that should be noted, as you have done.

Here's another factor that I just thought of: The color of the "date wheel" -- on the TT ceramic the date wheel has a white background, whereas on the all gold pre-ceramic it is an off-white goldish hue. What is the background color of the pre-ceramic date wheel on the TT 16613? I have owned one but I can't recall, and I am not able to tell from the pictures online.

Thanks!

So, you're certain the older 16618 has "all solid center links" in the bracelet like both of the new Ceramic models 116613 & 116618?

I knew the 16613 TT had the hollow center gold links. But, I had no idea the older all 18K gold 16618 had solid center links?

If thats true. The 16618 bracelet shouldn't have the stretching problem over time like the TT 16613 bracelet.

[dj7u]

Originally Posted by LovesRolexes123

Having just traded my 116613 Two-Tone (TT) blue ceramic sub toward a new 16618 (all YG gold pre-ceramic sub) from my AD, I wanted to make a few observations concerning these 2 watches. (Of course, this is all personal preference with regard to 2 great watches).

1. No matter how I tried, I could not warm up to the maxi-case / larger lugs on the ceramic sub. (It seems that the lugs are wider than the lugs on the Ceramic GMT maxi-case lugs). To my eye, the contrast of the square lugs with the bracelet did not "flow" as smoothly as the old style, sleeker lugs.

2. The bracelet on the ceramic sub is superior in funcionality / adjustability. The micro-adjust clasp is a great feature, and there is no "stamped metal" portion of the bracelet, as with the pre-ceramic. (Note: This micro-adjust bracelet is NOT the same as the one on the DSSD, despite the notion among some that it is the same mechanism). Also, I am one who puts my watch on and leaves it on through all events -- exercise, showering, work, etc. (This is why I have never been a fan of strap watches -- I need the "set it and forget it" feature that a Rolex bracelet watch offers). This being said, the new style bracelet tends to accumulate "grime" more quickly, and is harder to clean because of the greater number of grooves on the micro-adjust system.

3. Parachrom blue hair spring: Not sure if my M Series 16618 has this or not, but the watch is extremely accurate. I know for sure that the ceramic has the hairspring, and is the more accurate of the two -- even though we are just talking a few seconds here and there. (Incidentally, does anyone know if there wll be a V series 16618 made?). I realize, however, that Rolexes can be finnicky and need adjustment, so to say that ALL ceramic subs or subs with the blue hairspring are more accurate would be incorrect, subject to a test of every Rolex out there.

4. The maxi-dial and no-glare date mangifier on the ceramic sub are easier to read and probably an improvement of the pre-ceramic sub. The bluish lume is also very cool on the ceramic sub.

5. The color of the blue dial of the 16618 is superior to that of the new blue dials on the ceramic models. The older blue "cobalt" color seems to catch the light better, and not be as "flat" as the new blue dial. (Some refer to the new dial as the "smurf" dial. I do not find the new dial to be "smurfy" or "powder blue" as some have suggested. It's just a different hue completely from the older style blue dial).

6. The bezel insert of the ceramic is, I suppose, superior, but I say that only because it is ceramic and not a metal insert. Whether the fact that it is ceramic is alone enough to make it "better" I don't really know. I suppose much of this could depend on how well the ceramic bezels wear over time, and the degree of difficulty / cost involved in replacing the bezel if there should develop a crack in the bezel. It is my understanding that the ceramic is baked into the bezel, so I am not quite sure how the bezel would be replaced in the event of a crack -- perhaps it would require factory service and not be something that an AD could repair (short of ordering an entire new bezel piece with the ceramic portion already baked in). Maybe someone knows the answer to this.

7. The thicker "shoulders" around the crown on the ceramic sub were not to my particular liking, when compared to the more sleek shoulders on the pre-ceramic sub. Again, personal preference.

8. It will be interesting to see if all subs starting with the 2010 anticipated SS sub-date will have the maxi-case / maxi-dial, or if any one of the subs will maintain the old style case. (Perhaps the no-date sub? Would Rolex ever surprise us by not changing the classic SS sub to the maxi-case?).

9. Bezel "clicking" -- the ceramic sub has the ball-bearing bezel system, so turns smoother. However, I found that this means that the bezel moved inadvertently more often than that of the pre-ceramic. (This, however, may just be a function of having the bezel regulated and tightened up a bit at the AD or service center).

That's my mini-review / comments for the day re: submariner. I'd like to hear input / comments from anyone else re: this topic (i.e., old v. new sub). Have I missed any areas?

Thanks for reading!

Did you have to pay additional money when you traded your 116613 for a 16618? The 16618 is worth more for sure.

[dj7u]

Originally Posted by LovesRolexes123

Having just traded my 116613 Two-Tone (TT) blue ceramic sub toward a new 16618 (all YG gold pre-ceramic sub) from my AD, I wanted to make a few observations concerning these 2 watches. (Of course, this is all personal preference with regard to 2 great watches).

1. No matter how I tried, I could not warm up to the maxi-case / larger lugs on the ceramic sub. (It seems that the lugs are wider than the lugs on the Ceramic GMT maxi-case lugs). To my eye, the contrast of the square lugs with the bracelet did not "flow" as smoothly as the old style, sleeker lugs.

2. The bracelet on the ceramic sub is superior in funcionality / adjustability. The micro-adjust clasp is a great feature, and there is no "stamped metal" portion of the bracelet, as with the pre-ceramic. (Note: This micro-adjust bracelet is NOT the same as the one on the DSSD, despite the notion among some that it is the same mechanism). Also, I am one who puts my watch on and leaves it on through all events -- exercise, showering, work, etc. (This is why I have never been a fan of strap watches -- I need the "set it and forget it" feature that a Rolex bracelet watch offers). This being said, the new style bracelet tends to accumulate "grime" more quickly, and is harder to clean because of the greater number of grooves on the micro-adjust system.

3. Parachrom blue hair spring: Not sure if my M Series 16618 has this or not, but the watch is extremely accurate. I know for sure that the ceramic has the hairspring, and is the more accurate of the two -- even though we are just talking a few seconds here and there. (Incidentally, does anyone know if there wll be a V series 16618 made?). I realize, however, that Rolexes can be finnicky and need adjustment, so to say that ALL ceramic subs or subs with the blue hairspring are more accurate would be incorrect, subject to a test of every Rolex out there.

4. The maxi-dial and no-glare date mangifier on the ceramic sub are easier to read and probably an improvement of the pre-ceramic sub. The bluish lume is also very cool on the ceramic sub.

5. The color of the blue dial of the 16618 is superior to that of the new blue dials on the ceramic models. The older blue "cobalt" color seems to catch the light better, and not be as "flat" as the new blue dial. (Some refer to the new dial as the "smurf" dial. I do not find the new dial to be "smurfy" or "powder blue" as some have suggested. It's just a different hue completely from the older style blue dial).

6. The bezel insert of the ceramic is, I suppose, superior, but I say that only because it is ceramic and not a metal insert. Whether the fact that it is ceramic is alone enough to make it "better" I don't really know. I suppose much of this could depend on how well the ceramic bezels wear over time, and the degree of difficulty / cost involved in replacing the bezel if there should develop a crack in the bezel. It is my understanding that the ceramic is baked into the bezel, so I am not quite sure how the bezel would be replaced in the event of a crack -- perhaps it would require factory service and not be something that an AD could repair (short of ordering an entire new bezel piece with the ceramic portion already baked in). Maybe someone knows the answer to this.

7. The thicker "shoulders" around the crown on the ceramic sub were not to my particular liking, when compared to the more sleek shoulders on the pre-ceramic sub. Again, personal preference.

8. It will be interesting to see if all subs starting with the 2010 anticipated SS sub-date will have the maxi-case / maxi-dial, or if any one of the subs will maintain the old style case. (Perhaps the no-date sub? Would Rolex ever surprise us by not changing the classic SS sub to the maxi-case?).

9. Bezel "clicking" -- the ceramic sub has the ball-bearing bezel system, so turns smoother. However, I found that this means that the bezel moved inadvertently more often than that of the pre-ceramic. (This, however, may just be a function of having the bezel regulated and tightened up a bit at the AD or service center).

That's my mini-review / comments for the day re: submariner. I'd like to hear input / comments from anyone else re: this topic (i.e., old v. new sub). Have I missed any areas?

Thanks for reading!

How much money did you have to pay when you traded your 116613 for a 16618? Since, the 16618 is worth a lot more.

[LovesRolexes123]

Yes, I am positive the 16618 has solid center links.

[LovesRolexes123]

Yes, I paid more of course when I traded my 116613 for the 16618. You can feel free to send me a private message if you'd like to discuss price differential. I'd rather not get into those specifics on the public board. Thanks!

[slevin kelevra]

I was looking at the TT ceramic sub in an AD yesterday, it was displayed beside a sub ND and a DSSD.

IMO the new Sub just looks wrong, especially in black and gold. Looks out of proportion now. Like its trying to be a fashion watch.

One thing I was surprised about was how good the DSSd looked in real life! I was very impressed with it.

[LovesRolexes123]

The lugs on the DSSD flow quite nicely into the bracelet, giving it a very balanced and cohesive look. Even though it is a beast, it looks more "sleek" than the new TT Ceramic Sub (which, to my eye, has too much of a square contrast between lugs and bracelet, as I had mentioned earlier). To each his own of course. Rolex seems to know what it's doing, so those who don't presently care for the TT Ceramic Sub may soon grow "used to it" as the norm -- time shall tell!

[slevin kelevra]

You are spot on with your comments about the DSSD, previously I wasnt sure I liked it but I defo do now.

I suppose who are we(mere mortals!) to question Rolex's design principles eh!!

[dj7u]

I've owned both a blue 16613 and a blue 116613 before.

If more people knew that the 16618 had solid center links which should prevent bracelet stretching like all the new ceramic GMT & Submariners. I think they would go for the more affordable and better looking dark cobalt blue 16618.

Epecially, since the lowest price new ceramic 18K gold blue 116618 is $19,600 after shipping. The retail going from $25,550 to $27,250 doesn't seem justified now. Because I had assumed the 16618 has hollow center links like the 16613.

Hence, I thought before the new 18K gold 116618 had a lot more gold. But, apparently it may have just slightly more.

[dj7u]

Sorry, I meant the retail of the 18K 16618 being $25,250. The retail of the ceramic 18K GMT 116718 is $25,550

[sevykor]

Originally Posted by LovesRolexes123

Yes, I am positive the 16618 has solid center links.

Hate to burst anyones bubble, but the 16618 has hollow center links. Yes, it appears as if though the link is solid, but that's only because Rolex decided to add side walls the the center link (unlike the 16613 which shows the "emptyness" from a good side view). The 16618, due to the addition of the side wall, does make the watch much more stretch resistant.

If you pull a link off a 116618 and compare weight to the 16618, you should see a significant weight difference. Another, less desirable test is a small drill bit and good center aim :).

[LovesRolexes123]

Sevykor, with all due respect, you are incorrect about the center links on the 16618. They are 100% gold, solid. There is nothing "filled in" on the links. (The only "hollow" gold rolex bracelets of whcih I am aware were the earlier presidents). See my follow-up post, where you raised this same issue in 2007 and received clear answers that the links are solid). Regards.

[LovesRolexes123]

JJ, I hope it's OK if I quote you from another board (which actually seems to be an archive from this very forum!), and since you are well respected in these parts, I thought I'd requote you here re: your response to the issue when it was earlier raised: (I have put your answer in bold font. I have put my notations in brackets). Thanks! Also, I noticed that the question below was posted by Sevykor back in 2007 and answered then, so I am not sure the reason for Sevykor to raise it again. In any event:

JJ Irani1 April 2007, 03:05 PM
[This was the question on the other board]: For the past several years, I have been asking a specific question on various boards, experts, etc. The answer has always been 50/50 in respect to a yes and no answer. This tells me that about 50% of the people get the answer wrong. SO, I would like to ask the question here at Rolex Forum.
Question: Are the center 18k gold links on the Submariner Model 16618 (that's the all gold model) Solid or Hollow? Here's the trick however. The Sub 2-tone 16613 is obviously hollow because it's apparent from looking at the side of the center links. The design of the all-gold 16618 has a gold side wall on the center links, but does that mean it's solid or can it still be hollow? Please give me your best guess (unless of course you are 100% certain of the answer). I tried to find a good photo if the 16618 side, but still looking. Thanks ALL!

[Here is JJ's Answer] Simple rule of thumb with ALL Rolex FULL GOLD models - ALL links are SOLID GOLD!!

Cheers - JJ

[LovesRolexes123]

Sorry to continue this, but here is more on the issue of the solidness of the center links on the 16618, from the same archive:

"jamesthejeweller12 February 2008, 09:41 AM
The Centre links of 16618 are solid, i have one, i took it to work, did a CT scan on it, nothing but gold gold gold!"

[sevykor]

Originally Posted by LovesRolexes123

Sevykor, with all due respect, you are incorrect about the center links on the 16618. They are 100% gold, solid. There is nothing "filled in" on the links. (The only "hollow" gold rolex bracelets of whcih I am aware were the earlier presidents). See my follow-up post, where you raised this same issue in 2007 and received clear answers that the links are solid). Regards.

I have the 16618. For a long time, it was my understanding that the link does not have a hollow center. I took it upon myself to determine the specific gravity (relative density) of Rolex's 18k gold and measured the weight and volume (I have access to a laboratory). I found that the specific gravity of the link (later tested entire bracelet too) was much lower than of the known solid 18k gold counterpart (used 5 Rolex bezels weighing a total of 24.4g to determine true value as I know bezels are not hollow). To make double sure my specific gravity number was correct, I researched for the approximate specific gravity of 18k gold (99+% accuracy to Rolex gold). While the bezels showed spot on specific gravity (as expected) the link/bracelet was not. The specific gravity was lower suggesting the links would have to be empty. I assure you that I wish this wasn't the case, but Rolex was cheap, cheap , cheap with gold back then even on the very expensive watches. Just to clarify, "solid gold", in this case, means the link is not hollow. I know some interpret "solid gold" as being made of only gold and no other metals (which would be correct for rolex). So it is solid gold considering the links are not platted or rolled, but there is a small pocket of Swiss air in every 18k oyster link. Give me an 18k oyster link off a 16618 (not 116618 as they are now solid all the way through) and I can show anyone in doubt with a drill and a small bit. If I am wrong, I will refund the buyer of the link 200%.

[LovesRolexes123]

I'll go with the CT scan and the guy with 68,000 plus posts instead of a spotty "specific gravity" test any day! : ) Plus maybe you have a way older series of the model with an older style bracelet. I assure you that the 16618 since at least the year 2000 has had solid center links. Also, 93258 is the reference number of the bracelet for the new model 16618's......it's POSSIBLE that the older bracelets on the 16618 (which have a different reference number) did have hollow center links -- I'd imagine much before the year 2000 though.
Also, I sent an e-mail inquiry to James Dowling about this issue, who indicated to me the following, and I quote: "They ARE solid."
The evidence is overwhelming that the links are solid! I have to rest my case at this point! : )

[sevykor]

Originally Posted by LovesRolexes123

I'll go with the CT scan and the guy with 68,000 plus posts instead of a spotty "specific gravity" test any day! : ) Plus maybe you have a way older series of the model with an older style bracelet. I assure you that the 16618 since at least the year 2000 has had solid center links. Also, 93258 is the reference number of the bracelet for the new model 16618's......it's POSSIBLE that the older bracelets on the 16618 (which have a different reference number) did have hollow center links -- I'd imagine much before the year 2000 though.
Also, I sent an e-mail inquiry to James Dowling about this issue, who indicated to me the following, and I quote: "They ARE solid."
The evidence is overwhelming that the links are solid! I have to rest my case at this point! : )

It may be the case that there were 2 (or more?) variations of 16618 bracelets because mine is 92908 with an "X" serial number case. I will correct you with regards to specific gravity. CT was not made for use on metals and reading the results does require a certain level of training. Specific gravity is a simple procedure and the degree of error is null with the right apparati.

In addition, to suggest someone with more posts is more likely to be correct is ridiculous and rather insulting. The question asked is rather specific and it is illogical to assume "post count" will determine the correct answer. I would much rather rely on laws associated with the properties of matter rather than a complex CT scan with too many variables as to interpretation and outcome. More simply put, "the right tool for the job" would not be a CT scan regardless is the same conclusion is derived.

My intention with regards to this post was to find the TRUTH rather than be proven correct (I am not in politics). I do however appreciate you pointing out there were at least 2 bracelet models for the 16618 (not sure if I can believe you since you have a low post count too ;))