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
Make your own mind up:
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
I know where my heart lies
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!)
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 😀😀
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.
Disagree!!!!
The modern bracelets give an impression of quality because they’re heavier. The old Sub bracelets might feel a bit lightweight but they certainly stand up to wear and tear, don’t let the design fool you into thinking the bracelet isn’t high quality.
I have a friend who bought a 16610 new in 1999. He’s worn it as an everyday wearer literally, it was his only watch for years, and the watch is still in great condition. It’s had one service and a light refinish over the years and it still looks/feels like an almost new watch.
The latest models feel heavier and that’s enough to convince people that they’re far better. I’m not disputing that the latest bracelet design is an improvement, or that the ceramic bezel will stand up to scratches far better, but to dismiss the the 16610 to the role of ‘occasional watch’ is a bit short-sighted to say the least.........and it does look far nicer! I owned one for a while and only sold it because I decided to thin the collection down. In hindsight, a bad decision given the price rises but I’d got totaly bored with the dive watch thing so it seemed right to sell it.
Try a YM. Modern but with a classic shape
Martyn
Perhaps Rolex is just making bigger, chunkier watches to fit the “larger” wrist of the larger average person today?
If I'd pay above list for the new sub date I wouldn't want it to be garish, I'd want it verbally abuse waiting staff and fellow diners.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
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.
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.
[QUOTE=frp422;4945179]You mean like this? Looks like they may have overdone the polishing on the crown guards, but I do like the chamfered lugs (this started out as a 114060 according to Tempus Machina who produced a limited run of this modification).
Ant
Love that! Very Black Bay like (which is not a bad thing).
[QUOTE=MalaMD;4945305]I quite like the case modifications, but not sure I approve of recreating some kind of "homage" dial with the Rolex branding. Saying that, it may be more practical to buy a good 5-digit model and retrofit the glidelock clasp, therefore retaining more originality but getting the benefit of upgrading the part most people complain about. Make an old one newer rather than making a new one look older (which is the current trend across much of the industry)
Ant
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.
Last edited by paskinner; 12th May 2019 at 11:48.
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.
the issue could be that the general age group of the forum have grown up with the original case shape and due to our age find change sometimes hard to accept ......goes for his coat .I actually like the newer look but have owned both case shapes
I am a owner of both 5 and 6 digit. I find them both worth collecting
Sent from my CPH1851 using Tapatalk
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.
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!
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.
Ok. I’m looking at getting a vintage oyster Perpetual but not being as knowledgable (read anal) as everyone on here what should I be looking for/ scared of
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
I have the older 5 digit Sub and couldn’t care two hoots who else has one or if it’s common or not, I love it and enjoy wearing it so that’s all that matters, I certainly wouldn’t wear a watch just to be different..
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Too common for me to want to wear
Last edited by redmonaco; 14th May 2019 at 09:08.
I just picked up a 16600 and it feels refreshingly small for what was once considered a bulky watch. I'd have a DSSD but I prefer the smaller 5 digit watches
Sent from my SM-G903F using TZ-UK mobile app
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...
For me the 5 digit sports Rolex are the perfect size. I tried on the No Date Sub in the AD (3 year back when they was easy to source!) and loved it but was disappointed to see it didn’t fit right and was too big imo. The 14060m I have fits perfectly!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk