ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

lhawli · 9 April 2017, 03:04 PM

Had a small gathering with a few watch enthusiasts here in Montreal tonight. It was organized by Canadian watch collectors and WatchPaper.

Had the chance (for the first time) to see small and big, old and new or 16610 and 116610 next to each other. Although the 16610 is somewhat more charming, with the smaller markers, black bezel and tapered lugs - I can safely say the 116610 is a sure better option for me. It's just perfect!

Thought I'd share some pics - enjoy!

IMG_1597.jpg
IMG_1598.jpg
IMG_1599.jpg
IMG_1600.jpg
IMG_1607.jpg

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Punchthefatkid · 9 April 2017, 03:18 PM

Great comparison shots - thanks for sharing.

(btw, about 5 secs difference between the 2 - which one was correct...Lol 😂😉)

Sent from my LG-M250 using Tapatalk

RastabanStar · 9 April 2017, 03:23 PM

Two very cool, very similar watches. Call me crazy, but I think the older model POPS more with the jet black aluminum bezel, while the newer model BLINGS more with the slightly grayer ceramic bezel.

Cru Jones · 9 April 2017, 03:25 PM

^ ok, you're crazy. ;-)

lhawli · 9 April 2017, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punchthefatkid

Great comparison shots - thanks for sharing.

(btw, about 5 secs difference between the 2 - which one was correct...Lol

)

Sent from my LG-M250 using Tapatalk

My 116610 runs 1s/d slow and it's been about 6-7 days since my last adjustment. I think the picture was pure fluke, but good to know that a watch from the 90s still runs strong like one from 2016!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Bob the brush · 9 April 2017, 08:38 PM

The older one looks spectacular, the newer one looks ok, imho.

HL65 · 9 April 2017, 08:49 PM

16610 for me...Perfect!

The Libertine · 9 April 2017, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HL65

16610 for me...Perfect!

5-digit for me as well.

Steph-paul · 9 April 2017, 09:34 PM

Same here I prefer the 16610, however both nice watches. In six digits Sub I prefer the no date.

mjclark32 · 9 April 2017, 09:39 PM

16610 with MAXI dial is the ticket for me
I should have gotten the LV!

mailman · 9 April 2017, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HL65

16610 for me...Perfect!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertine

5-digit for me as well.

1William · 9 April 2017, 09:53 PM

I prefer the newer watch for appearance, fit and finish. I also think the glidelock bracelet is the best. To each their own.

RobP · 9 April 2017, 10:09 PM

Nice comparison shot.

Both watches look great, really notice the difference in the thickness of the 116610 over the 16610.

I think individuals preference is often skewed to the version they own

B737 · 9 April 2017, 10:12 PM

For me the 16610 represent a more toolish Rolex era that I miss. I prefer the old one as well.

Han1 · 9 April 2017, 10:40 PM

Nice side by side shots ! I also favor the 16610 more..at first glance it is the one which caught my eye

Robbyman · 10 April 2017, 02:25 AM

Had the fat one and sold it, now have the thin one and love it.

The next Sub will correct the lugs errors.

pigman08 · 10 April 2017, 04:28 AM

Thanks for the side by side comparison!... The dial on the 116610 looks a little "crowded" to me with the larger hour markers and wider hands, and it makes me appreciate my 16610 even more.

SodiumMonkey · 10 April 2017, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigman08

Thanks for the side by side comparison!... The dial on the 116610 looks a little "crowded" to me with the larger hour markers and wider hands, and it makes me appreciate my 16610 even more.

Completely agree. As a general rule, I prefer the newer 6 digit references in the sports watches, but this is definitely an exception to the rule. The 16610 looks much nicer and better proportioned to my eye. I'm actually surprised as I'm used to preferring the newer models.

jb335 · 10 April 2017, 06:02 AM

I see beauty in both. 6 digit is def more in your face and bliny but the streamlined look of the 5 digit is undeniably cool.

I own the SubC but I would like to get a nice 5 digit ND two liner one day.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FTX I · 10 April 2017, 06:14 AM

Both great. However, I can't adjust the 5 digit to my small wrist so I was not the target for this product.

slide13 · 10 April 2017, 06:24 AM

Great side by sides, nice to see this!

I've always kinda thought I like the 5 digit better with it's more svelte case, even though I strongly prefer the Glidelock bracelet. But seeing them side by side, I actually like the 6 digit better, counter to most here so far. Really like the maxi dial and hands better and the crown guards look in much better proportion to me. The lugs are a little chunky but the 5-digit lugs look a little meager in comparison. I do like the subtle curve of the case in the side view of the 5-digit, the 6-digit looks very straight and blocky by comparison.

Overall, both are beautiful watches and I can see why people could come down on either side preference wise. I kinda thought I'd say 5-digit, but I'm going 6-digit. I don't own either, my only Rolex is a 16200 DJ, though I'd like to get a Sub sometime soon.

rjstuf001 · 10 April 2017, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbyman

Had the fat one and sold it, now have the thin one and love it.

The next Sub will correct the lugs errors.

No doubt about it. I'd like to see the next Sub with thinner lugs and a matte ceramic bezel if that's technologically feasible.

I have the ND version of both the fat one and the thin one (since we're calling them that way now

), and I love them both but nothing can surpass the pre-ceramic models IMHO.

chong2k · 13 February 2018, 07:12 PM

In this picture, the 5 digit is the older version with drilled lug holes and non SEL bracelet. I just baught a nos 2010 G Series 16610 with solid endlinks AND AR coated cyclops. This watch looks more solid than the one on the picture and the AR cyclops makes a huge difference.

Now I have both 5- and 6-digit and I currently like the 5 digit more...ihmo it‘s mostly about the lugs. Rolex messed them up too much...

SeaDweller50 · 13 February 2018, 07:18 PM

Classic 16610 for this call sign. Perfect.

Sandpit · 13 February 2018, 07:45 PM

6 digit for me. It just looks a bit more substantial and better quality. Especially the bracelet, clasp and end links.

bradyb · 13 February 2018, 11:11 PM

Both look great! Thanks for sharing.

Flier · 13 February 2018, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigman08

Thanks for the side by side comparison!... The dial on the 116610 looks a little "crowded" to me with the larger hour markers and wider hands, and it makes me appreciate my 16610 even more.

I guess is a matter of opinion and wrist sz
I love the 6 digit

rushca01 · 13 February 2018, 11:53 PM

5 digit fan here, love the classic size; I think it's timeless.

Robbyman · 14 February 2018, 12:41 AM

16610 for me, had the SubC and it is too square and big. Rolex will correct this and use something like the SDc case on the next Sub for sure.

dr35mm · 14 February 2018, 12:49 AM

As much as I like the 16610, man the 116610 is really close to perfection.. The bezel, the size and glidelock are just amazing!

9 April 2017, 03:04 PM	#1
lhawli "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Montreal, QC Posts: 1,256	16610 next to 116610 Had a small gathering with a few watch enthusiasts here in Montreal tonight. It was organized by Canadian watch collectors and WatchPaper. Had the chance (for the first time) to see small and big, old and new or 16610 and 116610 next to each other. Although the 16610 is somewhat more charming, with the smaller markers, black bezel and tapered lugs - I can safely say the 116610 is a sure better option for me. It's just perfect! Thought I'd share some pics - enjoy! IMG_1597.jpg IMG_1598.jpg IMG_1599.jpg IMG_1600.jpg IMG_1607.jpg Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro __________________ AP Royal Oak [15400ST.01] Rolex DateJust 41 [126334] Rolex Submariner Date [116610LV] Rolex GMT Master II [116710BLNR] Rolex Cosmograph Daytona [116500LN]

9 April 2017, 08:49 PM	#7
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,398	16610 for me...Perfect! __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

9 April 2017, 09:39 PM	#10
mjclark32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Real Name: MJC Location: PHL USA Watch: IWC, Rolex, AP Posts: 29,232	16610 with MAXI dial is the ticket for me I should have gotten the LV! __________________

10 April 2017, 02:25 AM	#16
Robbyman "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Blighty (England) Watch: Daytona/Pepsi/Sub Posts: 1,517	16610 next to 116610 Had the fat one and sold it, now have the thin one and love it. The next Sub will correct the lugs errors.

14 February 2018, 12:49 AM	#30
dr35mm "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Real Name: Peter Location: Caribbean Watch: BB58 Posts: 2,398	As much as I like the 16610, man the 116610 is really close to perfection.. The bezel, the size and glidelock are just amazing! __________________ Present: BB58 \| BB36 \| GMW-B5000D-1JF \| 6900-PT80 Past: 16610LN \| 16622 \| 116610LN \| 214270

9 April 2017, 03:18 PM	#2
Punchthefatkid "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Sheffield England Posts: 458	Great comparison shots - thanks for sharing. (btw, about 5 secs difference between the 2 - which one was correct...Lol 😂😉) Sent from my LG-M250 using Tapatalk

9 April 2017, 03:23 PM	#3
RastabanStar "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Florida Posts: 343	Two very cool, very similar watches. Call me crazy, but I think the older model POPS more with the jet black aluminum bezel, while the newer model BLINGS more with the slightly grayer ceramic bezel.

9 April 2017, 03:25 PM	#4
Cru Jones 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Paris, France Posts: 34,495	^ ok, you're crazy. ;-)

9 April 2017, 08:38 PM	#6
Bob the brush "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2017 Location: Mercia Watch: 1016 Explorer. Posts: 928	The older one looks spectacular, the newer one looks ok, imho.

9 April 2017, 09:34 PM	#9
Steph-paul "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Northeast Posts: 430	Same here I prefer the 16610, however both nice watches. In six digits Sub I prefer the no date.

9 April 2017, 09:53 PM	#12
1William 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: North Carolina Watch: Rolex/Others Posts: 44,731	I prefer the newer watch for appearance, fit and finish. I also think the glidelock bracelet is the best. To each their own.

9 April 2017, 10:09 PM	#13
RobP "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Florida Posts: 40	Nice comparison shot. Both watches look great, really notice the difference in the thickness of the 116610 over the 16610. I think individuals preference is often skewed to the version they own

9 April 2017, 10:12 PM	#14
B737 Banned Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Sweden Watch: Rolex BLRO Posts: 170	For me the 16610 represent a more toolish Rolex era that I miss. I prefer the old one as well.

9 April 2017, 10:40 PM	#15
Han1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Malaysia Posts: 30	Nice side by side shots ! I also favor the 16610 more..at first glance it is the one which caught my eye

10 April 2017, 04:28 AM	#17
pigman08 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Real Name: Mike Location: Knoxville, Tn Watch: 16610,16710,214270 Posts: 427	Thanks for the side by side comparison!... The dial on the 116610 looks a little "crowded" to me with the larger hour markers and wider hands, and it makes me appreciate my 16610 even more.

10 April 2017, 06:02 AM	#19
jb335 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2017 Location: The States Watch: Cosmograph Daytona Posts: 6,822	I see beauty in both. 6 digit is def more in your face and bliny but the streamlined look of the 5 digit is undeniably cool. I own the SubC but I would like to get a nice 5 digit ND two liner one day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

10 April 2017, 06:14 AM	#20
FTX I "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Real Name: Flavio Location: N/A Posts: 14,652	Both great. However, I can't adjust the 5 digit to my small wrist so I was not the target for this product.

10 April 2017, 06:24 AM	#21
slide13 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Here Posts: 933	Great side by sides, nice to see this! I've always kinda thought I like the 5 digit better with it's more svelte case, even though I strongly prefer the Glidelock bracelet. But seeing them side by side, I actually like the 6 digit better, counter to most here so far. Really like the maxi dial and hands better and the crown guards look in much better proportion to me. The lugs are a little chunky but the 5-digit lugs look a little meager in comparison. I do like the subtle curve of the case in the side view of the 5-digit, the 6-digit looks very straight and blocky by comparison. Overall, both are beautiful watches and I can see why people could come down on either side preference wise. I kinda thought I'd say 5-digit, but I'm going 6-digit. I don't own either, my only Rolex is a 16200 DJ, though I'd like to get a Sub sometime soon.

13 February 2018, 07:12 PM	#23
chong2k "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Munich Watch: Deepsea Posts: 104	In this picture, the 5 digit is the older version with drilled lug holes and non SEL bracelet. I just baught a nos 2010 G Series 16610 with solid endlinks AND AR coated cyclops. This watch looks more solid than the one on the picture and the AR cyclops makes a huge difference. Now I have both 5- and 6-digit and I currently like the 5 digit more...ihmo it‘s mostly about the lugs. Rolex messed them up too much...

13 February 2018, 07:18 PM	#24
SeaDweller50 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Sandy Location: England. Watch: 14060M 2 liner Posts: 3,204	Classic 16610 for this call sign. Perfect.

13 February 2018, 07:45 PM	#25
Sandpit "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Middle East Posts: 1,809	6 digit for me. It just looks a bit more substantial and better quality. Especially the bracelet, clasp and end links.

13 February 2018, 11:11 PM	#26
bradyb "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2010 Real Name: Brady Location: Austin, TX Watch: GMT Posts: 945	Both look great! Thanks for sharing.

13 February 2018, 11:53 PM	#28
rushca01 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2016 Location: Indiana Watch: GMT BLRO Posts: 1,741	5 digit fan here, love the classic size; I think it's timeless.

14 February 2018, 12:41 AM	#29
Robbyman "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Blighty (England) Watch: Daytona/Pepsi/Sub Posts: 1,517	16610 for me, had the SubC and it is too square and big. Rolex will correct this and use something like the SDc case on the next Sub for sure.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)