16610 vs 116610

[HL65]

Congrats and great choice!

[Robbyman]

On its way to me is a nos 16610.

I had the chubby new one but I just could not fall for its charms.

My pre ceramic will share a SubC bracelet with my BLNR though so I get the best of both worlds.

[ancientmariner]

Originally Posted by Robbyman

On its way to me is a nos 16610.

I had the chubby new one but I just could not fall for its charms.

My pre ceramic will share a SubC bracelet with my BLNR though so I get the best of both worlds.

Good call

[Lew Archer]

Originally Posted by BLK

I like the one on the left but I want a new watch.....!

Just to throw in another possibility--consider the Sea-Dweller 4000 Ceramic (NOT the new, 43mm version released this month at Baselworld, but its 40mm predecessor, which is now discontinued but still available new).

Why? Its case shape is closer to the classic shape you prefer, while it has all the contemporary enhancements. Bracelet, glidelock, ceramic bezel, maxi dial. It may be found with the matte dial or the gloss dial (like the Sub's gloss dial).

Yes, its more money. But, it's a fantastic watch and even more robust then the Sub). It's a bit heavier than my 16610, but one quickly gets used to its weight. It doesn't have the cyclops, of course, but, you get the date complication without any distraction from the dial (aesthetically, some prefer the clean look of the Submariner over the Submariner Date; the cyclops free Sea-Dweller gives you both the clean look and a date feature).

It's also probably likely to hold its value and perhaps appreciate in value, as it has been discontinued after a relatively short (less than 3 years) production run and will be the last of the classic 40mm Sea-Dwellers.

Just a thought...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jweald]

Originally Posted by Chadridv

Here's generally what I've picked up on from sub owners after a few years of observation.

Bracelet - SubC Hands Down
Case Shape - Preference
Bezel/Material - Preference

I personally went from a 16610 to 116610(LV) and never looked back. As mentioned the bracelet and glidelock are on different levels of quality. I personally like the ceramic bezel much more, and the case shape while at first was my only hang up has become something i truly love about the watch.

I say 116610 for sure. You need to get both on the wrist though to be positive.

I had a 16610 for 18yrs and loved it but it had its little flaws in the bracelet. Thought it couldn't be bettered but have had the SubC for last 12 months and absolutely love it. The glide lock clasp is such a convenient aspect and likewise the look of the case whilst different and moving away from the classic shape really appeals to me.

[bncapass1]

To me, the SubC 116610 and the 114060 was a rare move on Rolex's part to sort of “cave” to changing market demand for larger, thicker watches. Again a rare move on Rolex’s part as they pretty much seem to avoid change just for sake of change it would seem. The 16610 and especially the no date 14060 IMO hark back to the intended purpose of the Submariner’s origins as a problem solving tool watch. It's case thickness was perfect for it's intended purpose and not steroided up due to a changing consumer market for super sized watches. Just my opinion. This was such a issue for me back in 2010 while the Ceramic 116610 was hitting the AD’s to pickup a new 16610 before they were all gone. I’d say just recently, I have started to grow a bit of fondness towards the Ceramic 116610 looks.

[JCC296]

early 16610 with tritium dial ( and of course with nice patina...) for me. It's a good investment play and old watch with patina just looks so much nicer.

[JP.]

My friend John Holbrook wrote a nice comparison review of the two.

http://luxurytyme.com/en/rolex-revie...ariner-116610/

[16610v]

It hard to choose I like the maxi dial but not much a fan for new fat case.

So I choose 16610LV

[SeaDweller50]

I’m a SubC convert. I absolutely love mine, much more than my previous 16610 for many reasons.

[Tampashooter]

Put simply, if it doesn't have an EZ link or glide, i'm not buying it. Period. The best thing Rolex has ever done.

[Rokoru]

This is why I love the 16610LV.
I like the maxi dial and markers but I love the slimmer classic case shape.. So I went for the Kermit... I traded in my 114060

[Stevec14]

It’s all personally preference. I don’t like the boxy case, so 16610 all the way for me. I get the point on the bracelet, but let’s not pretend the old one is crap. It’s perfectly strong and I wouldn’t choose a watch purely on it.

[slide13]

Originally Posted by Stevec14

It’s all personally preference. I don’t like the boxy case, so 16610 all the way for me. I get the point on the bracelet, but let’s not pretend the old one is crap. It’s perfectly strong and I wouldn’t choose a watch purely on it.

But lets also not pretend the old one is good either. The claps on it is, well, crap for a $7000 watch. I mean, I get it's charm and it's absolutely functional but so is a $100 Seiko. The solid end links and bracelet links are perfectly fine on the older watches but the clasp really is pretty bad considering that we're only talking 10 years since it was current. Same holds if you go back far enough to get to folded end links.

Doesn't mean it's a bad choice though, it hearkens back to a different time when watches were more utilitarian. I don't dislike it myself but part of it's charm is that it's such a crappy piece on such a nice watch head. It was sort of like Rolex was giving the middle finger to everybody else in the industry....showing that they don't have to keep up with the times and do a modern clasp because the rest of their watch was so good.

The Glidelock clasp is far superior and a great reason to choose the watch...it makes on-the-fly adjustments easy and it's something I do use.

I prefer the modern watch myself but I get why people go the other way. I actually have been looking at 5 digits myself recently not because I prefer them necessarily but because I really want a watch to wear on a NATO strap and the older lug-hole cases and shoulderless springbars are the absolute best for that setup.

[jrs146]

Originally Posted by Rokoru

This is why I love the 16610LV.

I like the maxi dial and markers but I love the slimmer classic case shape.. So I went for the Kermit... I traded in my 114060

I agree the 16610 is the best of both worlds. That being said I’ll take a 6-digit bracelet any day over older ones. But I do love the Lv!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by jrs146

I agree the 16610 is the best of both worlds. That being said I’ll take a 6-digit bracelet any day over older ones. But I do love the Lv!

Great pic of a classic watch. I recall a thread a while back where someone fit his Kermit with a Glidelock clasp; either that, or he put on a whole new bracelet. It was a great combo.

[Stevec14]

Originally Posted by slide13

But lets also not pretend the old one is good either. The claps on it is, well, crap for a $7000 watch. I mean, I get it's charm and it's absolutely functional but so is a $100 Seiko. The solid end links and bracelet links are perfectly fine on the older watches but the clasp really is pretty bad considering that we're only talking 10 years since it was current. Same holds if you go back far enough to get to folded end links.

Doesn't mean it's a bad choice though, it hearkens back to a different time when watches were more utilitarian. I don't dislike it myself but part of it's charm is that it's such a crappy piece on such a nice watch head. It was sort of like Rolex was giving the middle finger to everybody else in the industry....showing that they don't have to keep up with the times and do a modern clasp because the rest of their watch was so good.

The Glidelock clasp is far superior and a great reason to choose the watch...it makes on-the-fly adjustments easy and it's something I do use.

I prefer the modern watch myself but I get why people go the other way. I actually have been looking at 5 digits myself recently not because I prefer them necessarily but because I really want a watch to wear on a NATO strap and the older lug-hole cases and shoulderless springbars are the absolute best for that setup.

Respectfully, we can agree to disagree. I am wearing mine now and it doesn’t feel in the slightest bit crap. As good as a 6 digit - no, but not crap.

I Do agree that the glidelock is superior but it depends on what you need. I have a wrist that doesn’t seem to swell like a balloon, so the adjustment for me is unnecessary. That said, I bought an omega recently with an adjustable clasp and thought it was the best thing ever for fitting (initial, not on the go) so maybe it has more going for it than I give it credit for.

I prefer the older watches. not for the bracelets (obviously), but for the looks on the wrist. That is the most important thing for me. I couldnt wear a watch I didn’t like just for the fact it had a better bracelet than the old one.

[jrs146]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Great pic of a classic watch. I recall a thread a while back where someone fit his Kermit with a Glidelock clasp; either that, or he put on a whole new bracelet. It was a great combo.

Thank you! I have a 116610LV I wonder how they would work. Maybe I’ll try.

To be honest I like the easy link bracelet better than all the others. It’s just enough of an adjustment for a hot summer day without the bulk of the easy link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rb10chris]

I appreciate all the improvements in the 116610, however I do think the 16610 looks better. That said if I was deciding between new or old, I'd look for a 1680 or 16800 before a 16610.

[Frankduncan]

16610 will surpass 116610 in value in the years to come. I personally like asthetics of it better, and I think it's more comfortable.

[hbombkid]

I have a ceramic sub and love it mainly for the bracelet and bezel.

Now if cost was not an issue I would probably do this

1. 16610 LV
2. Glidelock bracelet
3. Spare black bezel to easily swap for traditional look

I should have done that a couple years ago when prices for the LV were reasonable.

Another option if available buy the 116610 LV bezel and swap out but would need the right tool.

[Rsubnodate]

I have had both but the new bracelet on the SubC makes it all worth it.

[jb335]

There are two kinds of people in this world. 5 digit people and 6 digit people. The trick is to figure out which one you are and then be that person.

Unless you're both, and then you buy em all.

[katiedaddy]

I have 14060M and very happy with its slimmer profile but do admire ceramic bezel and clasp of new version.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrs146]

Originally Posted by jb335

There are two kinds of people in this world. 5 digit people and 6 digit people. The trick is to figure out which one you are and then be that person.

Unless you're both, and then you buy em all.

Yeah that’s the worse. Please help me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andrejb]

I’ve owned a 14060M twice and a 114060 twice lol.

I currently own a 114060 and here’s what I’ve determined.

Prefer the proportions of the 5 digit sub. But the overall quality of the 6 digit ceramic subs just completely blow the 5 digit subs out of the water.

The bracelet, bezel action, heft, everything is just so solid. You can really tell Rolex means business with these new ceramic pieces


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gtr600]

If only 1 sub, get the sub ceramic with date. Never looked back..... the wider sub just makes it look modern. Big is in.

[Fany]

I just would prefer the 16610 atleast for style and versatility.

[samson66]

Clasp, bracelet and bezel definitely six digit. Glide lock and ceramic bezels are BIGTIME improvements over the five digits. Ceramic bezels are just stunning

Case shape, like the old ones. Maxi case just looks blocky to my eyes.