Old v New Rolex.

[Mick P]

My wife and I went to a restaurant up in the Spanish hills yesterday for a late lunch. It was one of those long and lazy lunches typical of Spain, not the usual rush you get in England.

Anyway whilst indulging in the meal and chatting to the wife I noticed some chap on another table wearing a Subdate and for the first time ever there was another chap on another table also wearing a Subdate. The difference however was one was wearing a newish model, probably a 116610 which was all shiny and new and looked imposing whilst the other was obviously wearing the previous 5 digit generation and it looked a bit less garish.

I spent a few minutes glancing at one watch and then the other and just felt that the older watch looked more like what a watch should look like. It just blended on the wrist whereas the new one was visually dominant.

It made me think that Rolex got it right those years ago and what a pity they did not put the new improved mechanisms into the old bodies.

Is it me or are the latest Rolex just a bit too loud ?

[Chairman LMAO]

It's not just you. The modern collection is too brash for my liking. This is where the BB58 has stepped up to the mark.

I've got a 5513 and a 1016, they're both 'just right' in my opinion. The only issue being that their inflated value makes me wonder what else I could have with the money invested in them!

[wildheart]

My wife and I went to a restaurant up in the Spanish hills yesterday for a late lunch. It was one of those long and lazy lunches typical of Spain, not the usual rush you get in England.

Anyway whilst indulging in the meal and chatting to the wife I noticed some chap on another table wearing a Subdate and for the first time ever there was another chap on another table also wearing a Subdate.

That's why I sold my SMP 2254 got fed up of seeing them everywhere. Subs are two a penny in London, just look around on the tube. There's loads of brands that make far more unique models. The sub for me is like a BMW, look good but too common.

[bobdog]

Precisely why I got into vintage, tried the modern Rolex first and soon realised they were not for me, difficult to sound sensible when discussing their merits with someone who hasn’t tried one but the staggering price escalation over the past few years bears testament to this. I can certainly appreciate the merits of a new model when a bit of bling is required, I have one myself, but permanent bling rapidly wears thin, unless you are that way inclined.

[Vanguard]

I bought a new Sub 116610, kept it a few weeks and sold it and went back to a 16610, I just couldn't get on with the square case and it being so much wider than the bracelet, no doubt it's better made, the bracelet is a massive step up in quality and I really like the ceramic bezel too, they've just completely ruined the case shape in my opinion.

[CaptainSlow]

I've owned vintage and modern Rolex and in all honesty I prefer the newer stock as they just feel like they are of a better quality.

Fair enough they do appear more brash but isn't that just Rolex keeping up with what the market wants?

[mjc1216]

I have owned both and sold both for different reasons(old one felt cheap with crap bracelet and new one looked too blingey)

Don't like either and much prefer other models in the Rolex range.

[Deckard81]

I bought a new Sub 116610, kept it a few weeks and sold it and went back to a 16610, I just couldn't get on with the square case and it being so much wider than the bracelet, no doubt it's better made, the bracelet is a massive step up in quality and I really like the ceramic bezel too, they've just completely ruined the case shape in my opinion.

+1
The case shape is my only issue with the new models.

[higham5]

Vintage watches especially with patina look as if they have a story to tell. They echo lots of shared experience good and bad. But we all have to start somewhere and the scarcity of tobacco dialed Subs and Speedys is pushing lots of peope out of the market.

Are watches like cars and the manufacturers go maxi like the mark xxx VW Golf. We have just bought a 2018 ND mk4 MX5 its the same weight and close dimensions to the Mk 1 , maybe watch manufacturers could learn from going back to the original as Mick states above

[Boots2]

I know where my heart lies

[MalaMD]

I prefer the look of the old but with the build quality of the new. I think that's why I'm drawn more to Tudor than Rolex nowadays (and the fact that you can actually buy them!)

[Speedy2254]

That's why I sold my SMP 2254 got fed up of seeing them everywhere.

I'm surprised to hear you say that - I've owned a 2254 for 11 years (my first "grown up watch"). One of the reasons I chose it was that it wasn't a Sub - even then Subs were what my mother calls "ubiquitous", the other was how few you'd see about the place. I still don't see that many 2254s, plenty of the blue "Bond" ones though!

[JeremyO]

I'm surprised to hear you say that - I've owned a 2254 for 11 years (my first "grown up watch"). One of the reasons I chose it was that it wasn't a Sub - even then Subs were what my mother calls "ubiquitous", the other was how few you'd see about the place. I still don't see that many 2254s, plenty of the blue "Bond" ones though!

I smile to myself when I see someone wearing the same watch as the one I have on whether it be my Submariner or my SMP300. Clearly we both have good taste!

Only once have I seen another Seamaster 120M though.

[Itsguy]

Apart from that, you’re mainly talking some slightly larger lugs, crown guards & indices, which aren’t exactly ostentatious.

The OP is not alone and to me these details do make all the difference. Most of the range lost its charm over the years as it attempted to upsize and become more obviously ‘luxurious’. The changes can all be justified as technical improvements but the lean, understated cool was gone. You can see why they did it, it’s hard to charge £5k for a watch with fuzzy blobs of lume on a matte dial, surely white gold surrounds are an improvement, and yet the old maxi dials and 1016s just have something. It’s the same story with the lugs, the attempt to make the watches look bigger without actually changing the size of the dials just looks like steroid abuse. There are some signs of improvement, like the black and white dialled Oyster Perpetual 39s where they’ve made a larger take on an understatedclassic without ruining the proportions, though even there I wish they’d stopped at 38mm. But as I’ve said before, few decide to buy a Rolex because they want something understated.

[Stringer]

The OP is not alone and to me these details do make all the difference.

Fair enough, and the lugs are infamously a very marmite thing - to each their own.

Personally, I tend to look at watches as a whole and value the technical improvements much more than the look/feel of the older models.

Happily, these things last decades, so everyone can make their own choice.

Whilst I do agree it’s bigger & brighter than its predecessors, I still don’t think of the Submariner in its base model as an ‘in your face’ watch. Quite apart from the legions of look-a-like ‘homages’ and the fakes, it’s a reasonably common watch, that hasn’t changed that drastically over the years. They take as much flak online for being dull & conservative. Contrast with the wave-effect ceramic dials, brighter colour schemes & fussier part-polished bracelets of the current Seamasters, or with something like the glossier Blancpain Fifty Fathoms or an over-sized Panerai.

But as I’ve said before, few decide to buy a Rolex because they want something understated.

I tend to think that anyone buying a SS Rolex Submariner to make a statement is relying more upon the brand/crown logo, or the iconic design, to communicate something, rather than the actual package itself. If someone wants to draw attention to their wrist & wealth, there are many larger & more garish options.

[paskinner]

Although the steel Daytona has gone ceramic, and got shinier, it's still quite a modest sized watch. Let's hope it stays that way.

[NickRed71]

. It’s the same story with the lugs, the attempt to make the watches look bigger without actually changing the size of the dials just looks like steroid abuse.

That made me snigger. A few years ago in VRF a poster put the original and new Milgauss models said by side, and described the latter as a instance of horological obesity.

I prefer four-digit models, not only for the case but also the dials. Matte is less shouty to my eyes and then there’s the gentle ageing of the lume. I have tried to like the post-1016 Explorer but I can’t quite do it. Here’s mine:

free screenshot




Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Martylaa]

I had a 14060M and also the 116610, I actually preferred the older case with the smaller crown guards and although the ceramic bezels are more resistant I actually prefer the older models.

Its each to their own but for me, it's the older versions I prefer and don't feel they are as blingy as the new models...

[gbn13]

I have both 5 and 6 digit reference Submariners and like them both, for different reasons. As far as other steel models such as Explorer, Explorer II and GMT Master(II) I prefer the old, rather than the current models.

[Hocuspocus]

Having owned an older Sub then ceramic GMT and Sub I prefer the new Sub. The quality feels better and the bezel isn't too "blingy" in everyday wear.

I think the Sub has updated well over the years, particularly in contrast to other brands.

By contrast I didn't like the ceramic bezel on the GMT. That did feel too "blingy". Although I did appreciate the quality, particularly in the bracelet. I sold it and bought the Tudor GMT and a couple of SINN (which will be passed on to my two boys when they turn 18).

I don't get the Batman or the new pepsi at all...

Then again, and apropos nothing, a mate was showing me his Hublot the other day. It was awfully garish.

Each to their own.

Carry on...

Sent from my SM-J530F using TZ-UK mobile app

[744ER]

I agree the steroid cases have not aged well, but I think Rolex are aware.

The new 36mm datejusts have almost exactly the same case as the old 162XX models, slim lugs and all.

The 126710 gmt is said to have a slightly different case but its hard to see.

So with any luck the basel 2019 submariner reveal will be a further slimmed down case...
Not that it matters cause noone will be able to buy one anyway...

[ywl23n]

I am a fan of Rolex, new and old. Love the aging of the old ones, but I do like the look of the enlarged case on the modern references, even on my small wrist.

But the vintage prices are running like mad. In a local auction yesterday, a 1977 1680 watch only was sold at the same prices as a brand new unused full set Hulk. The way the inflation is hitting the vintage market, I dont see a 1680 coming my way anytime soon!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[paskinner]

No doubt, moving to the newer designs has badly damaged sales.

[verv]

No doubt, moving to the newer designs has badly damaged sales.

Can you evidence this please?

I like and wear both so am pretty neutral.

[Stuno1]

The more I look at the maxi case the more I think it’s too blocky and big looking. With the trend seeming to go back to smaller watches I wonder if Rolex will return to the old case style.

[NickRed71]

Can you evidence this please?
.

I thought he was being sarcastic. Long waiting lists, overheated secondary market...not signs of a brand that’s struggling.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Chairman LMAO]

Make your own mind up:

[Stuno1]

Make your own mind up:

This sums it up perfectly. The old case is so much sleeker and refined.

[D4RW1N]

Make your own mind up:

I can see I’m swimming against the tide on this one, but I’m still on the “new side”.

Given the ground swell of opinion against me though, I’m beginning to wonder why it’s so difficult to buy a new one. You’d think ADs would be drowning in the things based on this thread 😀😀

[Montello]

Make your own mind up:

I made that image a few years ago when I was choosing my Explorer.

Even though the 214270 does not look that much bigger in that image it does wear quite a bit bigger.

I viewed the 14270 and the 114270 as essentially the same ...

I liked the 1016 but they are expensive and as a long term proposition I wanted something newer.

The 36mm is the classic size but if I was fatter maybe I’d gone for the 39mm. I think the case design is still faithful to the design.

In the end I went for the 114270 but one without the engraved rehault.

I’m still happy with my choice.

I never understood why the moved the EXPLORER text down the dial.

[nunya]

Any of the Professional Series watches with a numbered bezel looks better in their older sleeker case, not a fan of the "huge" step from case edge to bracelet.

IMO

[MartynJC (UK)]

Try a YM. Modern but with a classic shape



Martyn

[ColDaspin]

Try a YM. Modern but with a classic shape



Martyn

The shape is great but I've never come to terms with those bezels. They always look to me like they've been produced in some cheap mould.

[mtagrant]

Same here - nice case shape

Try a YM. Modern but with a classic shape



Martyn

[Gomers]

Try a YM. Modern but with a classic shape



Martyn

Totally agree. Fatter lugs but with more pronounced tapering compared to the Sub-6. The Sub should have this case design in my view.

For me, the bezels don't work as they are a fraction deeper than the old ali inserts giving the impression of too much bezel IMO. Fat crown guards don't help either.

[Halitosis]

Fashion over the last decade has seen watches grow, and I would rather Rolex had enlarged the Oyster to 42mm than "bulked it out". However I still prefer the beefier look (including face, hands, crown guards etc.), not to mention the shiny scratch-proof ceramic bezel and infinitely superior clasp. I'm a one-Rolex guy who updated after 17 years from a 5-digit to a 6-digit and I'm afraid I couldn't go back.

[redmonaco]

Too common for me to want to wear ��

[paskinner]

Two guys wearing the same, very obvious, watch in one restaurant. A good reason to select something else.
In parts of the world...such as Dubai...everyone seems to be wearing the same watches.

[Holsterman]

Two guys wearing the same, very obvious, watch in one restaurant. A good reason to select something else.
In parts of the world...such as Dubai...everyone seems to be wearing the same watches.

I wear what I like and keep it under my sleeve. I've never seen another OP 39 nor a platinum Day-Date in the wild, for instance. Subs occasionally, yes, but so what? It's not a competition.

The most interesting wild watch I've seen was a 5711 on a very well-dressed Dutch gent in his 60s or 70s in a cafe in Amsterdam.

[paskinner]

I wear what I like and keep it under my sleeve. I've never seen another OP 39 nor a platinum Day-Date in the wild, for instance. Subs occasionally, yes, but so what? It's not a competition.

.

Not a competition? Have you read the endless threads where guys plead for advice on how to jump the queue and get ahead of others buyers? It’s a competition, whether we like it or not.

[RAJEN]

Two guys wearing the same, very obvious, watch in one restaurant.

What a ridiculous comment!
Rolex Sub is not an uncommon watch. Your frequency of sighting it might depend on where one chooses to go and how closely one is watching what others are sporting. Most non WIS would not notice it. Unless one is looking, there is nothing 'obvious ' about them. I really feel for you if you are going to base your decision on what to buy/wear based on what you see on someone else's wrist.

[beechcustom]

I agree that in pictures, the super case lugs do make the bracelet look skinny but on wrist it is not noticeable. I also think that the current 40mm pro ss range are not as blingy in real life as one might think. I've been wearing my BLNR for a few weeks now and nobody has noticed it. I do wish the current GMTs had brushed bracelets as the pcls are scratch magnets but the improvements in movement, bracelets, superlative timing spec and 5 year warranty is enough to justify new vs. old. I absolutely would not pay over RRP though.

[mtagrant]

No interest in older, vintage models. It is the newer references for me all the way. Same with cars - not into classics either

[numberjack]

The old new perfect Rolex.

[Deckard81]

The old new perfect Rolex.

Too thick... nearly perfect

[walkerwek1958]

Definitely prefer the skinnier cases on the older models, the fat lugs don`t do it for me, particularly on the Sub. Viewed objectively, the newer models are better in several areas, but note 'better' enough to justify buying one for me. Exceptions to this rule are the 36mm models, the fatter cases looked OK on those.

Paul

[Holsterman]

I too am very averse to the thicker lugs on the 6-digit Subs and GMTs. Which is just as well as the prices and availability are not ideal! The OP 39 has nice slim lugs and is very elegant, so I got one of those with a blue dial as my "modern" Rolex. Meanwhile, the Tudor BB 58 looks more like a Rolex Sub than a Rolex Sub.

[Andyg]

The old new perfect Rolex.

It would be with a slimmer case and superdome crystal. But then it would be 1665

[Vanguard]

I'm not sure we're even talking vintage, even a Sub from just 11 years ago was a more balanced and well rounded design even if the quality is not on par with whats produced now

The SD4K was as close to a perfect blend of old & new for me but I foolishly sold it

[Itsguy]

No doubt, moving to the newer designs has badly damaged sales.

Ha! Yes they do seem to know their market but I reserve the right to prefer their earlier work. It’s a bit like preferring pre-Vegas Elvis, or the Rolling Stones before they got to the 80s stadium rock stage. Even Jim Morrisson got a bit chubby in the end, and so has the Sub. I think Rolex themselves are gradually coming round to this point of view, they can hardly have failed to notice the interest in their vintage models (even if it’s partly addressed via Tudor). It’s the reason the Daytona got a black bezel again.