Crystal Ball Question

[time4no1]

Which of the two references below do you think will be more collectible 10 years from now:

• Sea Dweller - 126600
• Kermit - 16610LV

[Trailboss516]

Neither - these mass produced references will not be collectible.

[928ktgold]

Kermit. It already is more valuable now

[time4no1]

Originally Posted by Trailboss516

Neither - these mass produced references will not be collectible.

True they have been mass produced. However, the original Kermit was produced for what, 10 years max and was the original 50th anniversary piece for the sub. The 126600 was the 50th anniversary of the SD and the red line is a unique touch. If it is discontinued or changed to remove the red line or resize the case I wonder about this one. Particularly the Mk1 dial that was only made in 2017.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by time4no1

Which of the two references below do you think will be more collectible 10 years from now:

• Sea Dweller - 126600
• Kermit - 16610LV

The one you want to own and wear in good health for many years that's the most important.

[WatchTimes]

Buy what you like, watches are not investments.

[CKLinLA]

The safer route if you want collectible is in vintage models.
The collectability of any new/current model is speculative.

[996marty]

Originally Posted by WatchTimes

Buy what you like, watches are not investments.

Perfect answer buy what you like now

[av1atic]

I have a problem with the purist “buy what you like” advice when someone asks about collectibility. Whether the old-school enthusiasts want to admit it or not, certain iterations have become investments and have for a long time been looked at as collectibles. In terms of OP’s question, I’d go with a mint/NOS full-set 16610LV but really wouldn’t bet on either. Although they were produced for a relatively short 7 years from 2003-2010, they’re still plentiful.

I do agree with the above, however, that vintage is where the real collectibility lies. With the onset of luminova dials followed up by ceramic inserts, these mass-produced modern watches look uniform — and always will. The character and uniqueness of well-kept vintage/neovintage pieces are cemented in history and will only become increasingly desirable in the future.

All pure speculation at the end of the day and the fun really is in the appreciation for these fine creations.

[thesharkfactor]

The 16610LV is already collectible.

[piratfisk]

Originally Posted by padi56

The one you want to own and wear in good health for many years that's the most important.

Originally Posted by WatchTimes

Buy what you like, watches are not investments.

Even though I'm fairly new to this forum & not as well-versed as some others, I'm still surprised by how many new folks join this forum to ask which watch people think will be better investments/which look cooler/which will grant them three wishes...

This has got to be from the infinite IG/TT reels of people "flexing" & the FOMO grasp. Is there this much deliberation on colors or options on a car, which is arguably a more expensive purchase? This attempt at crowdsourcing is borderline pathetic IMO.

[time4no1]

Originally Posted by av1atic

I have a problem with the purist “buy what you like” advice when someone asks about collectibility. Whether the old-school enthusiasts want to admit it or not, certain iterations have become investments and have for a long time been looked at as collectibles. In terms of OP’s question, I’d go with a mint/NOS full-set 16610LV but really wouldn’t bet on either. Although they were produced for a relatively short 7 years from 2003-2010, they’re still plentiful.

I do agree with the above, however, that vintage is where the real collectibility lies. With the onset of luminova dials followed up by ceramic inserts, these mass-produced modern watches look uniform — and always will. The character and uniqueness of well-kept vintage/neovintage pieces are cemented in history and will only become increasingly desirable in the future.

All pure speculation at the end of the day and the fun really is in the appreciation for these fine creations.

This is right on the money. Perhaps I should have clarified. I may be new here but I am not a new Rolex collector. My question was to have some fun with fellow enthusiasts regarding a speculative, no strings attached, question. It was not to seek "investment advice" or to see which would be the bigger flex as another member mentioned above.

I own the SD43 I mentioned in my original post along with a BLNR and a DJ41 blue sticks. Geez, lighten up folks.

[alphadweller]

My personal preference goes for the SD43 mk1, and that's what I got. The LV never quite did it for me when it comes to actually wearing and enjoying. If we're talking money better preserved, I'd say the LV is probably a stronger bet, but watch investment is not something I endorse.

[WilsdorfNDavis]

Originally Posted by time4no1

Which of the two references below do you think will be more collectible 10 years from now:

• Sea Dweller - 126600
• Kermit - 16610LV

Never buy a watch as an investment.

[Mystro]

On pure value speculation alone, the 16610LV will be ahead by a lot. More mass appeal and wearability with its smaller size. Submariners in general have significantly higher appeal to the masses over a Sea Dweller.
That said the LV already established a rather high premium even before it’s discontinued so it’s an easy prediction. IMO.

[OSU1989]

Incidentally, as of now, the SD43 has one of the lowest price deltas on the secondary market over MSRP. I bet the large size could be to blame to some extent.

[georgew]

Originally Posted by OSU1989

Incidentally, as of now, the SD43 has one of the lowest price deltas on the secondary market over MSRP. I bet the large size could be to blame to some extent.

yep, it is just too big for most people, and does not have the hype the sub does

[geoach]

Originally Posted by OSU1989

Incidentally, as of now, the SD43 has one of the lowest price deltas on the secondary market over MSRP. I bet the large size could be to blame to some extent.

that....and wears like crap on the wrist

[travisb]

The LV already is. That said, it would play no role in which one I would buy if considering the two.

[EEpro]

LV easily. I've watched it triple and hold its value there to boot.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Mystro

On pure value speculation alone, the 16610LV will be ahead by a lot. More mass appeal and wearability with its smaller size. Submariners in general have significantly higher appeal to the masses over a Sea Dweller.
That said the LV already established a rather high premium even before it’s discontinued so it’s an easy prediction. IMO.

This ^ 100%.

The SD43 is not a hugely popular seller (relatively speaking), and there's a definite split of those who absolutely love it, and those who find it either too big and/or too uncomfortable. I think the considerably more rare SD4K is a good indicator of the long term appeal of the SD43 - i.e. loved by some, but generally overlooked and thus undervalued.

In comparison the 16610LV is already highly collectable and will no doubt remain so.

[rmlovett1]

Originally Posted by time4no1

This is right on the money. Perhaps I should have clarified. I may be new here but I am not a new Rolex collector. My question was to have some fun with fellow enthusiasts regarding a speculative, no strings attached, question. It was not to seek "investment advice" or to see which would be the bigger flex as another member mentioned above.

I own the SD43 I mentioned in my original post along with a BLNR and a DJ41 blue sticks. Geez, lighten up folks.

Originally Posted by travisb

The LV already is. That said, it would play no role in which one I would buy if considering the two.

Since you already know these aren’t real retirement investment $$$$ pieces….If you’re buying, pick the one you would like to look at most on your wrist.

I agree with Travis… If I was shopping for one of these watches, return on investment would have zero influence in my choice.

[enjoythemusic]

Both, everything is 'collectible' long-term if you're a collector.

[1William]

The LV would be the one for me.

[PenDelicate]

Really good question.

It's easy to knee-jerk and say, "Kermit," because it's more collectible *now*, and fitting more people's wrists, has more appeal.

And in ten years, this may still be the case.

The 126600 is surely produced in far fewer numbers, and that might cause its collectibility to rise. At some point its graph might intersect and surpass that of the Kermit's.

Probably not in 10 years, but perhaps 20?

[brandrea]

LV, not even close IMO

[Linuxpenguins]

Originally Posted by time4no1

Which of the two references below do you think will be more collectible 10 years from now:

• Sea Dweller - 126600
• Kermit - 16610LV

Sea Dweller 116600 (SD4k) - Not 126600.

[fsprow]

I think history suggests that it’s virtually impossible to figure out what will be collectible in the future. A good example is the Paul Newman Daytona, which languished unloved before escalating in price. Personally, I think that virtually all Rolexes are produced in very high numbers and are unlikely to present favorable economics down the road. Wear what you love is my motto.

[Calatrava r]

Ask me in ten years. Most people may not even want watches by then.

[Rollei35]

Originally Posted by time4no1

Which of the two references below do you think will be more collectible 10 years from now:

• Sea Dweller - 126600
• Kermit - 16610LV

anyone thinking any rolex pieces are collectible is delusional.