5 Digit vs 6

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Moggo

I have a 16610 and an SD4K, I put the 16610 away when I got the SD4K a year or two ago.

I got the 16610 out with the full intention of selling it but I put it back on and it felt 'right', no way I would sell it now.

The 5 digits are very comfortable, almost like you are not wearing a watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn't have said it better myself I love everything about the 5 digit models. The only drawback for me is the small hands and hour markers. It's mostly why I wear a 216570. It's comfortable, I like the lugs and no matter how I look at the watch, I can tell the time

[Basque1]

Forgive my lack of knowledge, when we talk about 5 or 6 digit are we referring to the model# of the watch? So what about a 4 digit# such as 1675?

[Mirx]

I too have been alternating between the 116610LN, 116200, 116710LN and the 16610 for quite some time now (years).

Admittedly, and just as surprisingly, I keep going back to the 16610 far more often than I ever thought I would. This is mainly due to comfort although aesthetics do play a part too.

I appreciate all the improvements on the 6 digits references but cannot stop going back to the 16610 whenever I feel like wearing a watch that feels like an extension of my body. I just never even know it's there on my wrist. The clasp may be flimsy compared to the update (and I wish it was not), however this is not something I ever think about when I wear it. I do think about how good it feels on the wrist though, how light it is and how perfectly proportionate it is.

There were times when I though I would be selling the 16610 off as my modern Rolex watch range expands. I can say with confidence now - that will not happen. If anything, I am contemplating extending my 5 digit ref. collection in the future.

[red1108nyc]

50/50

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Basque1

Forgive my lack of knowledge, when we talk about 5 or 6 digit are we referring to the model# of the watch? So what about a 4 digit# such as 1675?

Yes, model #. Fours are even cooler than five digits, but broadly speaking they tend to require more study/effort, etc to collect, so have fewer followers in the General section here.

[Basque1]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Yes, model #. Fours are even cooler than five digits, but broadly speaking they tend to require more study/effort, etc to collect, so have fewer followers in the General section here.

Thanks for the info, mine is a 4 digit being that it is a 1973 model. RSC did some modifications back in 1996 and the bezel insert and dial face were changed from Root beer to black and the jubilee bracelet was beyond repair according to RSC and a a TT Oyster was installed instead. Nevertheless, it has been my trustworthy companion for 43 years and ticking.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Basque1

Thanks for the info, mine is a 4 digit being that it is a 1973 model. RSC did some modifications back in 1996 and the bezel insert and dial face were changed from Root beer to black and the jubilee bracelet was beyond repair according to RSC and a a TT Oyster was installed instead. Nevertheless, it has been my trustworthy companion for 43 years and ticking.

That's great. Those changes are all part of your own watch's evolution and you should be proud to have kept it going for so long

[SeaDweller50]

5 digit for me personally.

[Gaijin]

I love the 5 digit when it comes to models that have bezels with numbers and 6 digit for Datejusts, Day Dates, OPs etc. Hope that makes sense.

[landroverking]

Weight doesn't mean great. I prefer 4 and 5 models.

[sirish19]

I have had my 5 digit 16710 for 15 years and have recently added a 114060 Ceramic Submariner. I love the bracelet on the 6-digit Sub and the ceramic bezel, but I love the sleek classic look and feel of the 5-digit GMT as well. I currently have 6 watches in the collection and they all get wrist time. The 6-digit probably gets a little more time in the rotation but only because it is newer and the GMT will eventually go to my son as his birth-year watch and I want to keep it in fairly good condition.

[Basque1]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

That's great. Those changes are all part of your own watch's evolution and you should be proud to have kept it going for so long

Here it is

[Sherpa23]

I have two 5 digits and one 6 digit: Polar Explorer II, WG Zenith Daytona, and a newer Panda dial Daytona.

The 5 digits don't have bracelets as the Explorer II has a NATO strap and the Daytona is one of the leather strap gold ones. I purposely kept the 5 digits that don't have bracelets as that's the only part that really holds the 5 digit watches back to me. The 6 digit and new watches have really superior bracelets that feel more substantial and robust and it really makes a difference.

[Hollister]

The bracelet thing is totally overstated. There's never been a problem with any of mine, and once the watch is on, it's on. I have a 6-series bracelet (without glidelock) and I can't tell much difference. Certainly nothing important (to me).

The 6-series advocates would do far better concentrating on the tech innovations in the movement, rather than banging on about bracelets IMO.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by sirish19

I have had my 5 digit 16710 for 15 years and have recently added a 114060 Ceramic Submariner. I love the bracelet on the 6-digit Sub and the ceramic bezel, but I love the sleek classic look and feel of the 5-digit GMT as well. I currently have 6 watches in the collection and they all get wrist time. The 6-digit probably gets a little more time in the rotation but only because it is newer and the GMT will eventually go to my son as his birth-year watch and I want to keep it in fairly good condition.

Lovely Pepsi. So much more elegant and stylish than the brutish-looking Sub (IMO).

[faz]

I own both 5 and 6 digit subs and love them both dearly, each in its own way. I actually appreciate the difference between the two, giving more distinction during rotation.

[ayonae]

I own a GMT batman and 16610 sub.

When I go on vacation, I always wear the GMT for the dual time-zone function. Its beautiful, works great and feels good on the wrist. When I get home; and I do this every time, I run upstairs and switch off the GMT for the 16610. A feeling of "ahh, this feels right" hits me and I smile. Its like a piece of me has been missing its back together again.

Logically, the 6 digit is superior in every way in terms of engineering. (I'm an engineer too!) There is just something about the lightness of the 5 digit and the way the lugs taper better with the bracelet. It just looks and feels right to me. More character maybe? I cannot fully explain it.

For me...

Emotion > Logic... therefore, 5 digit > 6 digit.

[Nikrnic]

I Like both but ive sold my 5 digits and now have all 6 digits except for one 1977 Datejust 16030 thats been in our family since new.

[topjimmi]

5 digit every time for me. Never warmed up to the 6

[dba]

I haven't warmed up to the two 6 digit watches I've had. I'm in the process of getting rid of my 116710LN and going to a like serial number 16610. Can't wait.

[JParm]

I've been in love with my Hulk since I got it, so the 16710 hasn't gotten much wrist time. I wore the coke all weekend and when I went to put on the Hulk today, it felt like there was just something missing.

There really is something special about the 5-digit watches that seem to be unexplainable, as some have already mentioned here. While the 6-digits feel more robust and are built like tanks, the 5-digits have the elegant lines and classical feel that truly seem timeless when measured up against it's bigger, younger brother.

[Onikage]

Originally Posted by Hollister

The bracelet thing is totally overstated. There's never been a problem with any of mine, and once the watch is on, it's on. I have a 6-series bracelet (without glidelock) and I can't tell much difference. Certainly nothing important (to me).

The 6-series advocates would do far better concentrating on the tech innovations in the movement, rather than banging on about bracelets IMO.

x2 After a period of absence from the watch scene (I'd bought an Omega and put my Rolex needs on hold) I returned to find the Sub + GMT were now a different shape and both only offered in black - I took some convincing and went directly to the Rolex website to find a picture of a suit sleeved man swiping into a hotel room with the new SubC on display..

The maxi proportions still look odd to me now. I don't care if the bracelet is the most wonderful and technically advanced engineering marvel known to man, I don't like the actual watch it comes on.

[Dusko.Popov]

6-digit all day, every day. More robust. More comfortable (5-digit bracelets feel “comfortable” only inasmuch as they’re insignificantly constructed).

I like my 5-digits because their older and I’ve had them longer.

They have no charm or classicness beyond that.

(To the guy who told the no date Submariner story earlier) that’s probably the reason why folks think your 14060 is cool vis a vis something new when you wear that 5-digit and pop into your ad. I always get delightful comments when I wear my 16610lv. Offers to sell or trade it. Some want to see it. That stands to reason. 5-digit references are not made anymore so of course it will draw interest versus something that a dealer gets monthly and readily keep in their dealer case.

That doesn’t make it a better watch.

It’s just a novelty.

Bona Fides: my 5-digit warriors - 16622; 16610lv; 16710; 16610

[Dusko.Popov]

Originally Posted by Hollister

The bracelet thing is totally overstated. There's never been a problem with any of mine, and once the watch is on, it's on. I have a 6-series bracelet (without glidelock) and I can't tell much difference. Certainly nothing important (to me).

The 6-series advocates would do far better concentrating on the tech innovations in the movement, rather than banging on about bracelets IMO.

The movement with tighter tolerances, the parachrome hairspring thingy, the anti-counterfeiting crown lasering, the engraved rehaut, and the glidelock clasp, and the thicker and more robust lugs, and the ceramic bezel, notwithstanding, the bracelet stands out to me as still significant.

The 5-digit bracelet legitimately sucks. It feels cheap and has the construction strength of a fisher-price toy *comparatively*. The bracelet wears like crap *comparatively*. It’s “comfy” only inasmuch as it’s so insignificantly constructed.

That’s not a type of comfort that I care for.

The bracelet thing isn’t overdone to a lot of folks. It’s mentioned testimonially so much because a lot of folks have compared and contrasted and they see that the 6-digit is so much better.

Doesn’t make 6-digit references better than 5-digit references or vice versa. That’s a matter of opinion. I love my 5-digits. The Lv especially. But I think that there is a strong case to be made for the crappiness of 5-digit bracelets comparatively no matter what side of the fence you’re on as to what generation overall you like more.

[Shamorai]

The 6 digit Rolex are stunning! They look and feel like an expensive watch.

[Stevec14]

I have both - a 116710LN and a 16610LV. Both are fantastic and it's great to have both the newer and older watches.

The older one I feel has slightly better proportions, and a certain old school charm. The newer seems better made, has a more sturdy feel about it and is more jewellery compared to tool in my book. For sure it has loads more wrist presence.

It's all down to personal preference, and I certainly don't think one is better than the other. For the record, mine get equal wrist time in my rotation near enough.

[Montybaber]

I suspect the salesman in an earlier reply saw it as an opportunity to sell a new watch

When you walk into a car dealership they are not trying to sell you a new car to get their hands on your 'trade in' sat outside ;)

5 digits are very nice watches but a bit small looking on the wrist, and a bit lacking in quality in the bracelet and just didnt impress me enough to buy one, each to their own and all that (some 6 digit haters should remember that)

[wuyeah]

For Submariner. 5 digit over 6 digit.
For Submariner LV. 6 digit over 5 digit.
For Pepsi 5 digit because I can't afford the 6 digit.
For Explore II Polar 6 digit over 5 digit.

For wear, 5 digit I find more comfort, better balance. There are some models 6 digit really looks better. In general, I prefer 5 digit shape and fit better.

My watches go by whatever I wear that day. To pick 5 digit vs 6 digit is never my point of concern.

[aalyu]

5 digit = lighter, less wrist presence therefore more comfortable daily watch
6 digit = more wrist presence, better quality strap

Both have their pros and cons. Both are great!

[Devildog]

Sorry, but I don't buy the "insignificantly constructed" or "cheap" line people take with the 5 digit bracelets.

Yes, the clasps were stamped but my 16600 bracelet felt like it was indestructable. Hollow centre links are probably more labour (or machine intensive) to produce than solid ones are, so I doubt Rolex used them to save money.

The cast clasps are a significant step forward in perceived quality (fmachined from a solid foged block would be eben better), but I've heard of just as many (if not more) failures of the 6 digit clasps than the 5 digit ones. and glidelock aside, the old stamped clasp was probably more adjustable than the fliplock (albeit you needed a highly specialised tool () called a "wooden toothpick" or even sometimes a "pin" to do it). I'm not sure the fliplock is even that useful - 5mm seems quite a large increment to me. The most I've ever had to move my glidelock is one 2mm increment.

To me quality is more than just weight. Its about strength, and there is no question that 5 digit bracelets and clasps were just as strong as 6 digit ones are. And both are only as good as their weakest point, which for both will be either a pin or springbar.

Perceived quality is just that - a perception, and more expensive is often no better. And give me a 5 digit case over a maxi case every time.