5513 v. 1016

[dbhak22]

Hi all, thought I'd start a discussion on comparing two very iconic references: the 5513 Submariner and the 1016 Explorer. This isn't a "which one should I buy/sell" question, just curious what folks out there think about these two references and if it came down to it, which do you prefer? (...and "BOTH" is not an option although obviously ideal!)

What most (if not all) of us know:

• Both are time-only references.
• Similar price points (assuming similar condition and no exceptional traits like rare dial configurations).
• Both are iconic.

Happy Friday all.

[Sky21]

5513 for me. The quintessential Rolex, ultimate staple of any collection. But the 1016 is fantastic too for sure. Only allowed to have 1, I go with the Sub.

[sensui]

I think it'd be the 5513 for me as well....but the 1016 just oozes vintage charm and is growing on me extremely fast (never would have guessed for a 36mm watch).

[HL65]

You can guess my answer but just in case the 1016 for me. It is perfect Rolex in so many ways. The size, look and comfort just so enticing!

[rmlovett1]

Both great choices...can't go wrong either way! If I had to choose just one....I'm A SUB GUY, so that'd be my first choice of the two. Then add the Exp later

[dbhak22]

Originally Posted by HL65

You can guess my answer but just in case the 1016 for me. It is perfect Rolex in so many ways. The size, look and comfort just so enticing!

Ken, you're still in the honeymoon phase with that beaut you just got your hands on, :)

[dbhak22]

Originally Posted by Sky21

5513 for me. The quintessential Rolex, ultimate staple of any collection. But the 1016 is fantastic too for sure. Only allowed to have 1, I go with the Sub.

Originally Posted by sensui

I think it'd be the 5513 for me as well....but the 1016 just oozes vintage charm and is growing on me extremely fast (never would have guessed for a 36mm watch).

Originally Posted by Richris1

Both great choices...can't go wrong either way! If I had to choose just one....I'm A SUB GUY, so that'd be my first choice of the two. Then add the Exp later

Well the 5513 is off to a commanding lead...

[watchcrank]

The 1016 is a really clean iconic little watch. Visually it would be my choice especially in an early gilt chapter ring.

But size matters and the 5513 would be my choice for every day wear.
m

[autofiend]

Tough call: Have to say the 5513 if pressed, but the 1016 is a close second.

[HL65]

Originally Posted by dbhak22

Ken, you're still in the honeymoon phase with that beaut you just got your hands on, :)

But of course

[Gina Marie]

5513.....drop mic

[Toronto Soup King]

If I could only keep one between the 1016 and 5513, I'd keep the 1016. And I really like the 5513

[Qtip.416]

5513 but the 1016 is very close behind.

[Lew Archer]

I've never bought a "vintage", "pre-owned", "pre-loved", "new to me", "used" or "second hand" Rolex.

I've always preferred to buy new, and always from an authorized dealer.

It's a costly but safe approach...especially when I was just beginning to learn about watches.

If I were to seek out an out of production watch, the one I'd look for would likely be the 1016.

It's a classic, has a rugged but understated look and an interesting history. The icing on the cake is that it was the model owned by one of my favorite authors, Ian Fleming.

Bond introduced me to Rolex. For years, I assumed the Bond Rolex was the Submariner. This view was based on the early films.

Fleming equipped Bond with a Rolex in the novels, when he specified a brand, but was vague about precisely which model. Since he owned a 1016, he may have been referring to that model.

It's a topic of debate, but clearly he owned a 1016 and I'm enough of a geek to want one for that reason.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[droptopman]

5513 for me. I have owned both references and really enjoy them both. The 1016 has many charms...wears unbelievably comfortable especially on the old folded 7836. Very thin case, super light and goes with anything and can be worn in almost any situation. Just a tad too small for me at 6'3".
I love Subs. My favorite reference of all time by far so not a fair fight.

[Old Expat Beast]

I'm pretty even on both, but the fact that you can get a later 5513 for about half the price of a 1016 would sway me if I was on a budget.

[Nicholas Bedworth]

1016 forever!What other watch could a man want? I've had mine for 45+ years. Unlike me, it keeps looking better and fresher every year. It's amazing that the design has stood the test of time for so long. Just look at a two year old mobile phone. Doesn't it look dated and dull? Of course I thought the brushed aluminum deal was date and dull when it was introduced, in the '90s. :)

[Bob the brush]

The 1016 every time, it just oozes Rolex vintage sophistication. The 5513 does, but not to the same degree.

[Karbo]

Very very very tuf call
1016 for personal emotional reasons

[roll9]

1016 for sure for me.

I love leather straps and in my opinion a 1016 looks better on straps than a 5513.

I prefer no crown guards.

It's also the most comfortable watch I own.

[seattleal]

Originally Posted by HL65

But of course

I can see why! Very nice Ken.

But I'm still partial to the subs - 5513 for me.

[Steph-paul]

Hard one ,while I really really like the 5513,(I don't own one), in my case I would go for the 1016, classy, size, simplicity etc... the list is long.
Then I own a 14160M G, so if only one it will be my choice.

[dbhak22]

1016 making a come back in this little competition, :)

[dbhak22]

Originally Posted by Lew Archer

I've never bought a "vintage", "pre-owned", "pre-loved", "new to me", "used" or "second hand" Rolex.

I've always preferred to buy new, and always from an authorized dealer.

It's a costly but safe approach...especially when I was just beginning to learn about watches.

If I were to seek out an out of production watch, the one I'd look for would likely be the 1016.

It's a classic, has a rugged but understated look and an interesting history. The icing on the cake is that it was the model owned by one of my favorite authors, Ian Fleming.

Bond introduced me to Rolex. For years, I assumed the Bond Rolex was the Submariner. This view was based on the early films.

Fleming equipped Bond with a Rolex in the novels, when he specified a brand, but was vague about precisely which model. Since he owned a 1016, he may have been referring to that model.

It's a topic of debate, but clearly he owned a 1016 and I'm enough of a geek to want one for that reason.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did not know the details about Mr. Fleming, very cool.

[dbhak22]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

I'm pretty even on both, but the fact that you can get a later 5513 for about half the price of a 1016 would sway me if I was on a budget.

Should have specified that the WG surround version of the 5513 doesn't count, :)

On a semi-related note, I can't believe Rolex would make such a change (WG surrounds + glossy dial) within the same reference.

[MrJ320]

Between the two it'll be the 5513 for me

[anths1]

Love the Explorer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mattedialdoc]

#5513


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by dbhak22

Should have specified that the WG surround version of the 5513 doesn't count, :)

On a semi-related note, I can't believe Rolex would make such a change (WG surrounds + glossy dial) within the same reference.

It happened to the GMT and Sub Date, too.

[dbhak22]

You're right...the 16750 and 16800, but at least those are transitional references?