I have been on the lookout for a Rolex Sub for a while now, with no great hurry. looking at different sources/prices etc.
the new ceramic bezel, non ceramic, matt dial etc, and I have preferences that change now and again, but one thing keeps nagging me,
I have always been romanced by the idea of a Rolex or a Speedmaster from 1968 (my birth year), but have been put off with the cost of possible servicing and the fact that it might be a little more fragile than a modern version,
I don't own a Rolex at the moment, and I am interested what you guys would do, but to be honest I am more interested in your opinions on this, pro's and con's.
what do you guys think?
couple of example for reference
Vintage Rolex Submariner 5513 (1968)
Rolex Submariner Date Watch 16610 (2009)
Last edited by soundood; 21st May 2013 at 09:51.
IMO, the 1968 one, without a shadow of a doubt. A lot more original and personal. The modern subs are on the wrist of every Tom, Dick and Harry. And if you have it serviced by an independent, e.g., Duncan, you are in good hands and you can save money.
the irony is that you can purchase either for around £4500, again I just don't knowOriginally Posted by o u t a t i m e
I agree with this. I bought a new Explorer 2 42mm for my 40th in April but only because it was on interest-free credit. had I had £5,500 in cash I would have gone straight for a vintage Sub. As it was I traded a car for a vintage Sub a few weeks later and the Sub is just something else. I'm in the happy position of having both old and new but given just the one I'd have the vintage.
"A man of little significance"
I would prefer Vintage. They have "spirit", especially when its from your year of birth. Of cource its a kind of nonsense with a birthyear watch but there is some nostalgic thing you cant explain.
I bought this speedy from my year of birth (67). I love it. But I dont like Rolex and the one I would bear it has 5 digits in front of the cents.
I would go for something vintage myself either Rolex or a nice Omega Speedy and I wouldn't forget a Gmt 1675 as they are great watches and cheaper than the Subs .
The modern stuff is nice but Vintage pieces do look so cool on the wrist in comparison
Last edited by marksh; 21st May 2013 at 11:02.
I have a birth year 5513 and a modern 14060m. Without a shadow of doubt, the 5513 gets the nod over the 14060m. It has a warmth through its patina that only time, not ££, can provide.
Vintage all the way - here's my birth year (1968, coincidentally) 5513 ;)
Got 3 BY watches so I'm inclined to say BY :-)
I had a 14060 which was very nice indeed,but I let it go as I just found the 5513 had the edge over it tbh.
Another for birth year here.
Was the looking for the same as you, a 1968 5513 but ended up with this.
Might at some point look at a 5513 but very happy with the GMT.
Also picked up this 6105
Which was not only a birth year, but also a birth month.
Malc
Birth year all the way for me. It puts another layer of perspective on the watch, knowing it is as old as yourself.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Never understood vintage, just couldnt understand why anybody would want a tired old watch with faded lumes on their wrist until I got one! Its the watch I head straight for when I open the watch box, the new models just pale into insignificence, it has such a warmth and presence that has to be experienced.
4 year old on the left 28 year old on the right.
There's something also to be said for grabbing a BY sports Rolex as soon as you can afford it - I'm 58 and I'm not likely to make a 6204 or similar without a lottery win!
You also need to think how often you're going to wear it, especially when considering service costs: as long as spares remain available and nothing expensive breaks or wears out it's not really going to cost more to have an older watch.
I'd go for the new one. Patina just doesn't do anything for me. I might consider my BY as it is less vintage ('86) but i'd probably still go for new.
Hi,
This really depends on the type of guy you are! First, you'll need to experience a new and an old (Have you ever even seen a 5513?). Some, may not like the matt dial or the T makers, nor the acrylic superdome crystal. Do you like vintage in general? Old cars, jeans, leather jackets? Not considering price, would you pick a DBS or a DB5?
I would pick the 5513 anyday.....considering how much Guys around you just wear a Rolex because....it's a Rolex, this would make it way more personal to you! IMHO
Serge
One thing to note is that if it were to be a daily beater, I'm not sure I would want to subject a vintage BY Rolex to the wear'n'tear'n'abuse. Not because it could not take it, but because it is far less replaceable and is an appreciating classic. I tend to wear my 5513 occasionally, in rotation, when I feel like wearing something a bit more special (to me). A bit like taking the vintage sports car out for a special drive on a sunny weekend, not as the daily train station car.
Sounds way too much - you have to spend more time on the correct sites.....
I wouldn't get too hung up on Birth Year, personally.
Find a good vintage one from around then, it's more important than having one from 'that' year.
Vintage vs New? In many cases new is very different, but in the case of a Sub or a Speedmaster most people would hardly notice the difference, would they?
If it's important to you, go with whatever's best for you. If not, errr, do the same!
I can't see any difference between the Subs shown here (is the new one slightly bigger?), so I'd probably plump for the one which cost the least for the condition I was looking for.
Fortunately, I don't feel the need to own a Sub (I'm not going to try one on, in case I do!), so I don't need to worry if I can afford a birth year one or not
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
I did try a modern one (16610) for a few years, but it didn't scratch the itch, a 1968 Submariner.
The longer I left it though the more expensive the watch I hankered for got.
Very happy with what I actually found, not my birth year but close enough.
I would go vintage as well, and if it is birth year all the better, indeed that is what i am looking for !
Has to be vintage.
I have a T<25 14060 and I love it but I really do feel the need for a '65 5513....... after I have replaced my Tuna and sold a kidney for PAM312.
To keep me going I do have a '65 Oyster Precision and a lovely Oct '65 ( Birth Month and Year ) US Military issued Benrus has hit the mat this morning
Ta
Pitch
I never liked any of the '54 vintage Rolex or Omega I saw so I ended up with another 08 GMTc which is on my wrist all the time.
Would definately go for a BY Rolex myself.
Like many others I've had the 14060M but just didnt feel as special.
Now looking trough next possibilities and a 5513 from '77 is one to look out for...
Havent found one though....
well I have decided on a birthdate vintage,
after trying on a two year old sub and the new sub, they just seemed so ordinary and lifeless,
that is after I had a 1968 sub 5513 in my hands today, I would have taken it, but the guy wanted £5750, to be fair it was in very good condition, but still too much for me to pay,
about pricing, I was thinking somewhere between £3800 -£4500 for a good condition one with box and papers (at least authenticity cert), what do you guys think?
ohh and thank you for all the wonderful pictures of your vintage watches, just gorgeous.
In my opinion; Vintage Rolex all the way!!!
Last edited by JYvdK; 22nd May 2013 at 17:53.
There is a nice condition 5513 at a finnish jeweller in Helsinki for 4500€ right now, maybe worth a look?
the year is 1967...
http://www.sepanviisari.fi/miehet.php# (tagged under "Rolex Submariner v.1967)
If it were 10 years younger I would have gotten it already :D
looks very good, have the hands and dial been replaced? Some vintage watches are like triggers broom!
It's just a matter of time...
The caption says "Serviced vintage Submariner, dial has been replaced but the original dial comes with the watch. Watch ref. 5513 rarely on sale"
So yep, but should still be a full set :)
I bought a 2008 model 16610, that year coincided with my 40th birthday, so you can always purchase a model year that fits a significant life event...marriage, birth of a child, wedding anniversary, 50th....or even divorce of you're celebrating that!
This is very true.
I'm just fascinated that the watch would resemble my age as well :)
Well sadly ths is not to be without a vintage 5513.... :/
But a Q for all you vintage owners out there: how is the servicing of an older model done?
Is it sent to Rolex HQ every time or how do you get yours serviced?
I might go vintage if the lume looked really good, but I am not so keen when it looks puffy or patchy. I like prefer the design of the 16610 over the most recent Sub, so would be quite happy with that.
ATB
Jon
I`d go for a 16610 or 14070 as recent as possible without paying daft money for an unworn example. Far more appealing than the latest ceramic bezel incarnation.
For me, the vintage Subs with their plexi glass and matt dials are appeaqling if every detail is correct and the bezel hasn`t faded significantly. In reality such a beast is hard to find and commands a premium price so I`d go for a recent model instead. Sure, there are differences between the vintage and modern but they are essentially the same watch! There's a lot of 'kings new clothes' surrounding Rolex Subs.
I take issue with the earlier comment about 'every Tom Dick & Harry having a 16610'. That's utter rubbish; very few people own and wear Rolex Subs, they are NOT an everyday watch and don`t be fooled otherwise.
Paul
Go for a new non date ceramic sub perfection!
I'd never imagine giving a baby a new Rolex, even as a christening present. OTOH, if I could afford it, I'd consider doing that for a favoured relative, as a 21st present - as my Grandparents did for me. Unfortunately, I chose a Heuer Quartz 2000 Sports Chrono! But a Rolex (run-out 1680, ideally) would have been nice.
So I'd go now for what I could have bought for my 21st - which should give a few more interesting options, and for you would get you into a 16600, or 16610, or 16760.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
