4-digit or 6-digit GMTs — which stands out the most

[shedlock2000]

I have never really been worried about theft, so this post is not grounded in such a concern. However, I was wondering which you thought ‘stand out’ the most between the two references?

I was wondering whether or not people actually recognise a 1675 anymore — especially since the 6-digits have been out nearly 15 years now!

I currently own both, so one has to go (I am a one watch guy). Functionality aside, which do you think makes the biggest statement (I want to go with the opposite).

Here are some (not terribly good) photos:







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BankAnden]

4-digit statement - watch nerd, relaxade sports and low key in most peoples eyes

6-digit statement - a luxury watch

[Lew Archer]

A Rolex is a Rolex is a Rolex...wear what you like for yourself, for your own enjoyment and needs. We don't control what others think, perceive or what judgments they may make.

[mikkey]

Hard to say, they're both keepers for me.

[Kenny G]

The 6 digits stand out the most to non-watch people…and perhaps many watch people too if they’re not into vintage/neo-vintage.

That 116710 is a beauty.

[brandrea]

I’d say when Rolex switched to ceramic they became more noticeable

Lovely 1675 btw

[Jawnz]

I love my 1675 even though I recently swapped it out for all service parts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MrMercedes]

I love them both!

[Devildog]

Keep the 1675.

Do you really have to ask?

[Brockenbrough]

Another “keep both, but definitely 1675 if only one” vote

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Jawnz

I love my 1675 even though I recently swapped it out for all service parts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Mine is all service too — I am all about functionality rather than originality; I like my 1675 to look new too (and work in the dark).




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I’d say when Rolex switched to ceramic they became more noticeable

Lovely 1675 btw

I think this is what is pushing me too. I am not really a showy kinda guy in that way, so I wondered if the 116710 made too much of a statement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

The 6 digits stand out the most to non-watch people…and perhaps many watch people too if they’re not into vintage/neo-vintage.

That 116710 is a beauty.

When I see a photo of it on me, I am taken with it — but it often seems too sparkly when I look at it directly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RFC]

You could say the same thing about Subs. The new 124060 is bigger, flashy, and bling. The 4 digit 5512/5513 are perfection. The 5 digit Subs and GMT’s are the perfect compromise.

[Kenny G]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

The 6 digits stand out the most to non-watch people…and perhaps many watch people too if they’re not into vintage/neo-vintage.

That 116710 is a beauty.

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

When I see a photo of it on me, I am taken with it — but it often seems too sparkly when I look at it directly.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The 116710 definitely pops way more than the 4 digit due to the ceramic bezel, gloss black dial, polished centrelinks, and larger physical dimensions. The beauty in it though for me is that it does all that while wearing a 3 piece suit. The modern Pepsi and Batman lack that sophistication imo…unpopular opinion I know.

Both of your references are great, but different…making them a nice pairing imo.

[Uned]

I like both but I have more of the 6 digit.

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by RFC

You could say the same thing about Subs. The new 124060 is bigger, flashy, and bling. The 4 digit 5512/5513 are perfection. The 5 digit Subs and GMT’s are the perfect compromise.

Im sure it applies there too, but I’m not a sub guy these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Kenny G

The 116710 definitely pops way more than the 4 digit due to the ceramic bezel, gloss black dial, polished centrelinks, and larger physical dimensions. The beauty in it though for me is that it does all that while wearing a 3 piece suit. The modern Pepsi and Batman lack that sophistication imo…unpopular opinion I know.

Both of your references are great, but different…making them a nice pairing imo.

I agree with you on the other GMTs — I don’t have a hankering for one at all. Now, we’re the root beer to sport the starburst Bellini dial for the early ‘80s, and it’d be a different matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by RFC

You could say the same thing about Subs. The new 124060 is bigger, flashy, and bling. The 4 digit 5512/5513 are perfection. The 5 digit Subs and GMT’s are the perfect compromise.

I like the functionality, but the sapphire crystal and the bezel dimensions don’t sit well with me for some reason. I did have a 16710 back in the day, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andad]

Your choice Steve.

They both have about the same ‘attraction’.

[minute_man]

Originally Posted by Andad

Your choice Steve.

They both have about the same ‘attraction’.

Have to agree with Eddie on this one, Steve.

[SolanaWatches]

I think the 6-digit reference stands out more to the uninitiated eye.

Based on what you said you're trying to accomplish, I would stick with the 1675.

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Andad

Your choice Steve.

They both have about the same ‘attraction’.

Thanks for your thoughts, Eddie! I appreciate your counsel. Given that I’m an old WIS, I wondered if it was just me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by minute_man

Have to agree with Eddie on this one, Steve.

Thanks, Basil! It’s a tricky decision. Is suspect that the 116710 might look less showy with a brushed bracelet….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[996marty]

The 1675 for me would be a keeper. Let’s face it they both standout but for me the older watch has less bling

[996marty]

The 1675 for me would be a keeper. Let’s face it they both standout but for me the older watch has less bling

[minute_man]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

Thanks, Basil! It’s a tricky decision. Is suspect that the 116710 might look less showy with a brushed bracelet….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bet it would. When I had mine, while I didn't hate the PCL, every time I looked at the bracelet peeking half way under a cuff, I...half wished they weren't there.

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by minute_man

I bet it would. When I had mine, while I didn't hate the PCL, every time I looked at the bracelet peeking half way under a cuff, I...half wished they weren't there.

I looked at a photo of one the other day and I was surprised how the PCLs make the bracelet look thinner, too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by minute_man

I bet it would. When I had mine, while I didn't hate the PCL, every time I looked at the bracelet peeking half way under a cuff, I...half wished they weren't there.

I looked at a photo of one the other day and I was surprised how the PCLs make the bracelet look thinner, too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Number3]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Keep the 1675.

Do you really have to ask?