16610 vs 116610

[Psmith]

116610

[SeaDweller50]

Sub C for me. I do love the 16610 also but they're too expensive for what they are now. In some cases it's cheaper to buy a BNIB 116610, which is crazy.

[R G]

Originally Posted by AzHadEnuf

Attachment 819569

I like the one on the left. The one on the right seems to be very popular also.

Thats actually the best direct side-by-side image I've seen in years of the two models.

I have the 116610.

[seventiesracing]

This one

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Airborne

Sub C for me. I do love the 16610 also but they're too expensive for what they are now. In some cases it's cheaper to buy a BNIB 116610, which is crazy.

Why is that crazy? I'd pick a 5 digit for more money. They're no longer made, and they have the classic Sub shape.

OP, I'd keep any eye out for one with lug holes and SELs.

[droptopman]

Owned several 4 and 5 digit Subs. Submariners from all eras are by far my favorite watches.
I tried a 6 digit when they first came out and did not care for it and basically swore off 6 digit models. Much preferred the thinner cases of the 4 and 5 digits. In 5 digits I liked later models with lug holes and SEL bracelets.
Few months back a watch friend talked me into trying a 6 digit 116613 and for whatever reason, my view drastically changed. So much so that I picked up a 114060 too.
I will always love the classic/vintage Subs but the care free wear, Maxi dial/hands, ceramic bezel, and awesome bracelet have made me a believer in the 6 digits too.

[DramaTurtle]

Another thing I'd like to add:

When I was getting serious about purchase, and had worn both, I started feeling a little ridiculous spending 80-100% of the price of the ceramic for what I believed to be a vastly inferior model (technically and how it felt in the hands/on the wrist). As I said, I am still considering an older sub model but for your first ( and to ensure that you truly fall for Rolex) buy a ceramic.

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Why is that crazy? I'd pick a 5 digit for more money. They're no longer made, and they have the classic Sub shape.

OP, I'd keep any eye out for one with lug holes and SELs.

I wouldn't. Keep your eye out for a 116610 and get your money's worth.

[SeaDweller50]

Originally Posted by DramaTurtle

Another thing I'd like to add:

When I was getting serious about purchase, and had worn both, I started feeling a little ridiculous spending 80-100% of the price of the ceramic for what I believed to be a vastly inferior model (technically and how it felt in the hands/on the wrist). As I said, I am still considering an older sub model but for your first ( and to ensure that you truly fall for Rolex) buy a ceramic.

I totally agree. The average asking price for a 5 digit Sub is way beyond what I'd pay. And I think it's that reason why SubC's are difficult to get hold of now in the U.K.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Airborne

I wouldn't. Keep your eye out for a 116610 and get your money's worth.

Money's worth? Mechanical watches are an anachronism, and their price is based completely on desire. The 5 digit series are the last of the classic Rolex sport cases, and their desirability will only increase relative to the new models.

[mtgjr]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Money's worth? Mechanical watches are an anachronism, and their price is based completely on desire. The 5 digit series are the last of the classic Rolex sport cases, and their desirability will only increase relative to the new models.

Completely agree with this. I consider the 116610 and 114060 to be modern interpretations of the classic Sub. The 16610/14060 are the last of THE classic Rolex Subs. They offer every bit as much "money's worth" as the 6-digit versions.

[DramaTurtle]

Originally Posted by mtgjr

Completely agree with this. I consider the 116610 and 114060 modern interpretations of the classic Sub. The 16610/14060 are the last of THE classic Rolex Subs. They offer every bit as much "money's worth" as the 6-digit versions.

Sure, for historical reasons and to WIS, this is perfectly valid.

But as a buyer looking for a robust Rolex timepiece, you really, and i mean really feel the difference between the two in terms of construction. Just my two cents to OP.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by DramaTurtle

Sure, for historical reasons and to WIS, this is perfectly valid.

But as a buyer looking for a robust Rolex timepiece, you really, and i mean really feel the difference between the two in terms of construction. Just my two cents to OP.

They just feel heavy and bulky to me. I'm not sure when we got to the point that bracelets make or break a watch. We would have all been buying Omegas last decade, if it was all about the bracelet/clasp. Heck, you used to be able to buy a Sub new on Tropic rubber.

[nachopc]

Originally Posted by mfer

16610 black
116610lv green

There. Problem solved!

I can't agree more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Money's worth? Mechanical watches are an anachronism, and their price is based completely on desire.

I'd say that's partly true, but you can also see a difference in the level of quality between, say, a $3000 TAG and a $15,000 JLC. The two may accomplish the same function, but there are some intrinsic differences that justify (at least in part) the higher price of the latter. It's not purely based on desire.

The distinctions between a five- and six-digit Sub may be more subtle, but are you really arguing that the price difference between them is purely based on desire, and the difference in materials and finishing don't factor into the pricing differential at all?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I'd say that's partly true, but you can also see a difference in the level of quality between, say, a $3000 TAG and a $15,000 JLC. The two may accomplish the same function, but there are some intrinsic differences that justify the higher price of the latter. It's not purely based on desire.

The distinctions between a five- and six-digit Sub may be more subtle, but are you really arguing that the price difference between them is purely based on desire, and the difference in materials and finishing don't factor into the pricing differential at all?

Absolutely, but how do we quantify that the JLC has $12K more workmanship? All of these are Veblen goods, where price drives desire, but I agree that it is nuanced.

As far as the 5 and 6 digit, sure. They don't make the 5 digit Subs any more, so, if the prices are close to being the same, it is completely based on desire. 5 digit Subs are much less expensive and "better made" than 4 digit Subs, but the 4 digit Subs are certainly more expensive due to desire. The same tends to happen with Porsches, too.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Absolutely, but how do we quantify that the JLC has $12K more workmanship? All of these are Veblen goods, where price drives desire, but I agree that it is nuanced.

Quantifying is difficult. It's kind of like Justice Stewart's definition of obscenity: "I know it when I see it." I agree that subjective desire plays a large role (maybe a dominant role) in the price of watches, but I still think there is some intrinsic basis for some price differences. For example, Breitling has varying levels of price and finish in its ranges. I can absolutely see and feel the difference between a Superocean chronograph and a Chronomat. Does that mean the Chronomat warrants a $3k higher price tag than the Superocean? I have no idea, but I would certainly expect it would cost more.

Originally Posted by douglasf13

As far as the 5 and 6 digit, sure. They don't make the 5 digit Subs any more, so, if the prices are close to being the same, it is completely based on desire. 5 digit Subs are much less expensive and "better made" than 4 digit Subs, but the 4 digit Subs are certainly more expensive due to desire. The same tends to happen with Porsches, too.

Once a watch is out of production and is deemed "collectible," whatever influence intrinsic, material worth had on valuation goes out the window. I agree that valuation becomes purely subjective at that point. But let's say Rolex was still producing both the 16610 and the 116610, and assume the 16610 is the same now as when it went out of production. Also, assume both are equally available. Would you expect a 16610 to sell for as much as or more than an 116610 when new?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Once a watch is out of production and is deemed "collectible," whatever influence intrinsic, material worth had on valuation goes out the window. I agree that valuation becomes purely subjective at that point. But let's say Rolex was still producing both the 16610 and the 116610, and assume the 16610 is the same now as when it went out of production. Also, assume both are equally available. Would you expect a 16610 to sell for as much as or more than an 116610 when new?

We're getting pretty hypothetical at this point! If the 16610 remained on the market simultaneously with the 116610 after it was introduced, then the 116610 would certainly cost more. However, if Rolex released a new "heritage" version of the 16610 at this year's Basel, I wouldn't be shocked if it was thousands more expensive than the 116610.

I can say that, if both were available new for the same price at the AD, and I had to choose one, I'd still pick the 16610, because I have little interest in most of the 6 digit Rolex models.

[ny_yeti]

Had them both and while the 116610 has wonderful updated features, I like the fit, feel and look of my 5 digit much better. So much so, I sold my 116610 to fund my DSSD.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

We're getting pretty hypothetical at this point! If the 16610 remained on the market simultaneously with the 116610 after it was introduced, then the 116610 would certainly cost more.

Hypothetical, yes, but given your answer, maybe you can see why some people think it's "crazy" the 16610 should be selling for more than the 116610 now. (I'm not saying you have to agree with them.)

Originally Posted by douglasf13

However, if Rolex released a new "heritage" version of the 16610 at this year's Basel, I wouldn't be shocked if it was thousands more expensive than the 116610.

No doubt about that. Maybe that was their dastardly plan all along!

[jmolsberg]

I've owned both five and six digit subs and while I feel the 6 has nice improvements, it does not wear as comfortable. Whatever you choose its going to be great!

[BlackBay1]

Have you tried them both on? That'll give you your answer. Good luck.

[BLK]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

We're getting pretty hypothetical at this point! If the 16610 remained on the market simultaneously with the 116610 after it was introduced, then the 116610 would certainly cost more. However, if Rolex released a new "heritage" version of the 16610 at this year's Basel, I wouldn't be shocked if it was thousands more expensive than the 116610.

I can say that, if both were available new for the same price at the AD, and I had to choose one, I'd still pick the 16610, because I have little interest in most of the 6 digit Rolex models.

If Rolex still make the 16610, it will be easy for me, I get the new 16610 over 116610

[mikeps2006]

116610lv for me haha

[Bigsykedaddy]

Originally Posted by droptopman

Owned several 4 and 5 digit Subs. Submariners from all eras are by far my favorite watches.
I tried a 6 digit when they first came out and did not care for it and basically swore off 6 digit models. Much preferred the thinner cases of the 4 and 5 digits. In 5 digits I liked later models with lug holes and SEL bracelets.
Few months back a watch friend talked me into trying a 6 digit 116613 and for whatever reason, my view drastically changed. So much so that I picked up a 114060 too.
I will always love the classic/vintage Subs but the care free wear, Maxi dial/hands, ceramic bezel, and awesome bracelet have made me a believer in the 6 digits too.

Yeah I had the same change of heart myself. Didn't own a 5 digit but I tried MANY on when deciding and also tried on my dads a bunch before buying. I preferred the shape and look until I owned a new maxi case and somehow my whole view just flipped and I love the new style now.

[BLK]

Originally Posted by Airborne

Sub C for me. I do love the 16610 also but they're too expensive for what they are now. In some cases it's cheaper to buy a BNIB 116610, which is crazy.

I know,

[Afghanvet]

5-digit reference for me... but it's all personal preference.

[landosystem]

I had a 16610 for about a year and recently upgraded to a 116610. There is no comparison. Everything is better on the new watch.

The maxi case feels more robust, the maxi dial has improved visibility, the bracelet and clasp are finally something worthy of a luxury timepiece, and the ceramic bezel looks great and feels fantastic to operate.

The 16610 is an unnecessary generation. Either go for a true vintage piece (5513) or get the best sub ever made (116610).

[schuetter]

The 16610 for me

[doramas]

I like the 16610 more