Reply With QuoteI'm with you on this one. The 16610 is the perfect size for me and I much prefer it too.
Rolex Sub Date116610 rejected....Just TOO big compared to 16610.
IMVHO that is.
I could have collected a 116610 today but after checking size comparison to my old 16610 I decided to pass.
Looked a bit daft on my 6.75" wrist I thought.
comparison2 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr
I'm with you on this one. The 16610 is the perfect size for me and I much prefer it too.
It's the stupid blocky lugs, they're truly awful!
Saw a lovely pair of ladies Prada shoes in the window, I just had to have them for my wife.
But when I got them home, being a size 6, they looked daft on her size 2 feet!
They were still lovely, they just didn't fit.
Strangely they kind of work for me. Don't like them much off the wrist but wearing the new version I find it a much better size for my fat wrists and in fact having ruled out a sub based on the old model I really liked the new version when I got to try it on the other week and it now probably tops my wanted list.Originally Posted by Guitarfan
Size 2?? Is she 12 or a Thai bride? :)
I do agree 100% with you, and the lugs do not help
No, just little feet.
I'm with Dave on this - any watch bigger than 36" is like the watch is wearing me.
I have a replica Rolex datejust (the new 41") that someone bought me as an ironic present - feels like I'm wearing handcuffs!
Both!!
The dial looks the same, it's just the lugs and the crown guards that look bigger. I really think a lot of the size think is party due to what you're used to. I've been wearing a Casio frogman for the last week, I'm wearing my 16610LV today and it looks and feels like a very (too?) small watch on my 8" wrists. Give it a week AD I will put on my frogman and for a day it will feel/look huge then my mind will adjust. I have to say I struggle to understand how any old style sub or Seadweller was ever classified as a large watch though!
I'm firmly in the 'new subs are horrible' camp unfortunately so I will just have to stick with my old one.
Well done IMO the 116610 is a hideous lump all bling NO class.IMVHO that is.
I could have collected a 116610 today but after checking size comparison to my old 16610 I decided to pass.
comparison2 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
I like the old case but I like the new one too! I think it depends on wrist size a lot, how it will present.
Just looks a bad design now, nothing to do with wrist size, it's now ugly showing way to much case.
Also imo the cyclops looks dated on the new design where it sort of goes with the old design.
Best new sub is def the non date now.
I,ll be keeping the mk1 LV.
No one is buying the new ones on SC either even at the low prices.
That's a strange comment. Presumably you're not referring to the ceramic bezel or beautifully engineered bracelet... you must therefore think that the slightly different case shape makes (arguably) the benchmark for all other dive watches a "lump of bling".Well done IMO the 116610 is a hideous lump all bling NO class.
Each to their own.
There are a lot of watches failing to sell on SC. Sub Cs are certainly flying on other forums, because I've been watching them.
The prices on SC are too dear. Nowt to do with popularity.
I knew watches were getting bigger but WTF?
I used to hate the look of the new ceramic Subs in photos but...
...when I tried one on, my opinion changed. On the wrist I liked it a LOT. Lovely bezel, bracelet and maxi-dial.
Now I have the 114060 (prefer the cleaner dial with no cyclops) and love it. :)
Looks too big, I have the same opinion of the Datejust II and don't like them in much the same way I don't like those BMW X6's (a BMW shape but BIG), when it comes to watches I'm turning more towards classically styled 34-38mm watches.
Is that 3ft lug to lug? Does it include crown? Must be like wearing something between a carriage clock and grandfather clock? Would like to see some wrist shots.
Nothing a a good polish wouldn't sort out
A replica datejust eh?? Is that a step up from a fake?.
Nope, a fake is a fake.
Sorry, I come from a time and generation where subtle was more popular.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Ha ha, yep indeed!Nothing a a good polish wouldn't sort out
Whilst I prefer the older case, there is a lot to like about the new watch - the bracelet and Maxi dial are close to perfect.
It's just a matter of time...
I always thought the original a little small but the pumped up lugs and crown guards on the new leave me cold. Ugly, blocky lumps. The new bracelet, bezel and - less pumped up maxi dial applied to the original would create my near perfect watch - minus the date and cyclops, plus a domed crystal. Forget it. I guess I just don't like them enough.
Gray
I'd been thinking that. £500-£1000 off 'list price'. Who pays list anyway?
As to either old or new sub- they're both great watches in their own right and vive la difference
Disapproval noted - like I said - it was an ironic present!
Something I've always liked about the 16610 is the shape of the case from the side - especially from the crown side it's just so nicely proportioned or even 'elegant' - just something right about it. Does anyone have a side by side comparison of the old and the new? Genuinely curious having tried on but never owned a ceramic sub. I don't think I noticed the side profile.
A LOT of people pay 'list' for stainless steel sports Rolex models.
Why?
Not on here they don't...
Not used, but you'd be surprised - there have been a few members stating that they paid full retail. I would have thought that even a couple of hundred off is better in the buyers pocket, but some people just won't ask for discount or haggle.
It's just a matter of time...
The proportions of the new model are off. I purchased a 14060m recently. The newer ND model was almost the same price from a grey market dealer but, when I handled it, the balance of the watch case felt clumsy and ill considered. I agree that the clasp and bracelet of the newer version are a big improvement but that was not enough to sway my decision and I went for the older version instead.
I'd also extent this criticism to the new larger Datejusts. Give me a 16030 any day.
Not having owned one perhaps I can't really comment, but after a few years now, the same feeling resonates in that, they don't look right and the old classic has the better design. I think the old case with all of the upgrades like the bracelet, bezel etc would be cool, but won't happen
I love both cases and maybe the sportier fat lugs a little more. However the more solid bracelet in the new model swings it for me, although that's another topic of debate
I don't think it's possible to get £1K off a new ss ceramic sub from an AD, even Iconic can only get 9% off list for you.
The new model for me. The quality is a big step up. It feels so much better and the fatter lugs make it appear a more substantial watch.
Not sure about the bling comments. With the ceramic bezel and sapphire it's certainly harder wearing than the old one. I had mind for nearly 4 years and it's still looking good
My feelings exactly. Its as though rolex have finally decided to give the submariner the bracelet that, at the price, its owners over the years always deserved. Don't get me wrong, Ive heard all the "the old clasp and bracelet are perfectly adequate" and "light and comfortable" counter arguments, but its always been true that if people like a thing overall they become blind to its faults. "Bracelet stretch" was a term I became aware of on forums and dealer websites exclusively because of that one brand.
As for the case, well at first I was one of the doubters - after all, rolex aren't supposed to change things!!! - but after trying one on I soon got over it - maybe in the same way owners of the old subs justified the bracelets...
I understand the argument about the old shoulders being more elegant, but "elegant" and "understated" were never really seen as the point of the submariner were they? There was a time years ago when many thought the old sub was a beast of a watch (and the seadweller was far too bulky and tall. Look at it now - a forum darling!).
The good thing is that, for those who prefer the discontinued shape and size - and I still rather like it too - there is precisely one metric sh**load of them out there - its not like theyre a hard to source item, so - win/win for all...
Last edited by Umbongo; 21st March 2014 at 14:21.
I like the new ceramic subs (heck I have 2) - but I am not so much a fan of the new Explorer 2 cases..thought the contrasting orange hand.. so old gen Explorer 2's for me..
cheers
Matt
I´m with you!
Love my 16610, a perfect design IMO.
Fair dos. But that is then still a NEW watch to you with no financial risk or worries. If I was going to spend that amount of money on a nearly new watch from an unknown individual, I'd be happier spending only a couple of hundred more to actually get a new one from a dealer - Some aren't selling for a reason.
Anyway, thread was about the two sizes-
Being in the market for a Sub, I'm a bit stumped by the prices demanded as well. It's listed at €7k here and I regularly see watches with a few months of wear for sale at ~€6.x. That doesn't make sense to me, as I'm sure it's to be purchased from an AD for €6.5k. Those few months of wear and shorter warranty period have to be worth more? Then again, the market decides.Fair dos. But that is then still a NEW watch to you with no financial risk or worries. If I was going to spend that amount of money on a nearly new watch from an unknown individual, I'd be happier spending only a couple of hundred more to actually get a new one from a dealer - Some aren't selling for a reason.
Anyway, thread was about the two sizes-
Having worn a 116610, the lugs do seem like it went on a bit of a steroid breakfast. It's still a nice watch, but lacks the elegance of the 16610. For a big guy the 116610 is nicer I guess. I still appreciate both, but would say the 16610 is more beautiful.
Well, I have a 6.75" wrist - small, in other words - and I don't see a problem. Do you?
It's a funny thing, but when I first put this watch on I wore it for the best part of a week before changing it. It took, perhaps, a day to get used to it but after that I found (and find) it supremely comfortable.
Lots of other brands of watch have a variety of case shapes, and most have got substantially bigger over recent years.I'm not sure why Rolex needs to be singled of for this kind of scrutiny, nor do I see constant references to Panerai, Breitling et al as "ugly bling". If you don't like them, don't buy them, but there's no need to be rude about it as plenty of people on this forum own and love SubC's.
what is a ok price for a UK AD bought 114060 then 2nd hand if they are 5k new ? and still 4.5k from iconic.
I thought it would have sold on SC for £3950 but it seems not !
if you want a mint 14060 late model (unworn) watch from a dealer now they are £4.5k
how low do the new models have to be to sell the same day here ?
Private sale, I'd be thinking somewhere around £3750?
I agree with the OP; the case just doesn`t look right with the fat crown guard and lugs. Rolex have tried to solve a problem that didn`t exist IMO. I like the bezel, I like the dial and hands, the bracelet's an improvement, but why o why did they mess around with the case?
Paul
For the new ceramic version? No chance unless the seller is conducting a fire sale before flying off to South America to claim political asylum. :)
Posting Permissions
