Reply With QuoteThanks.
Loved this line: "I genuinely love them both and in the long run we’re all dead anyway – so why not enjoy the short life while we’re here?"
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk
I wrote this new article to my blog. Actually I wrote it back in 2012 but never had time to finish it.
These are just my opinions and views of the different 5-digits, not gospel. I've owned almost all of them and I wanted to share my views and photography. And by no means it's not inteded to be another 5-digit vs. 6-digit debate. The article just concentrates on my favorite models, nothing more.
I hope you enjoy the article. Let me know if you think something should be added.
Here's a link to the article. Enjoy!
Which 5-digit Rolex to buy?
Thanks.
Loved this line: "I genuinely love them both and in the long run we’re all dead anyway – so why not enjoy the short life while we’re here?"
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk
Buying watches that cost several thousand euros/pounds make ZERO sense so why on earth would anyone ask that question? But they do. Haha.Originally Posted by stefmcd
Thanks man. :)
Excellent article
I do think the 16610 is THE Submariner, as I think the cyclops is an part of the look. I always find the 14060 dial looks like it’s missing something. I appreciate in TZ land I’m in a minority!
I’m also in a minority with the 16570, as I strongly prefer black to polar too. It’s my favourite sports Rolex, as unassuming as it is.
D
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Completely agree. Although I love the 14060 I felt _exactly_ the same way. Not that I miss the actual date option but the lack of cyclops felt a bit strange.
On Sea-Dweller it's different... because the Dweller is actually different watch. If you haven't owned one I guarantee it's more different than you think.. you can't quite capture the difference to the pictures fully.
People say that the original Sub came without the cyclops but over the decades cyclops have _become_ the standard.
Like the article.
I think im gonna come out in the corner of the 14060. IMO its the last of the pure subs and therefore has a place for me that the 16610 doesn't occupy, even though I prefer the SELs and extra thickness of the sub date, just to be contrary.
the 16600 has always worn a bit top heavy for me but they are outstandin. GMT's always seem small and more fragile on the wrist. Love to look at them, annoyed when wearing them.
I completely agree about the 16600; I wanted to love it but didn’t. The 16710 hits the sweet spot for me although I’ve never actually tried a five digit sub.
Great article though OP.
Thanks man.I completely agree about the 16600; I wanted to love it but didn’t. The 16710 hits the sweet spot for me although I’ve never actually tried a five digit sub.
Great article though OP.
The only issue with the 16600 for me is the smaller dial. That actually makes it wear a bit smaller than the 16610 Sub.
Other than that it's probably the most perfect 5-digit. Not instantly recognizable as a Rolex (like 16610) though. Perfect aficionado Rolex if you want to go "under the radar".
To be honest... between 14060, 16600 and 16610 it's pretty much even playing field.
If you want the "pure, original Sub" with perfect, clean lines you'll get the 14060.
If you want the "real man's macho connoisseur 'Sub'", you'll get the 16600.
If you want THE Sub that everyone recognizes, you'll get the 16610.
Good article, thanks for posting.
I prefer the looks of the 14060 to the 16610, but the functionality of having a date is too much to give up on.
Great read thank you, DJ 36mm though not 34mm. Looks like a early Merc 204 C Class you are sitting in the last pic?
Fixed.
Yes. Merc C-class, registered Feb 2011 before the major facelift. Good eye. I've owned it since 2012. Been very, very reliable car.
Last edited by JPE; 3rd August 2019 at 07:55.
It's just that if you buy a ExpII to _keep company_ to your Sub, SD and GMT it's nice to have one white dial in your collection.
However if the 16570 is your only Rolex the black one is just as good option, if not even better.
Cheers.
Money spent on a watch you don't really like is money wasted. Would it make sense to recommend that a man with three pairs of trousers and thinking of buying a fourth buy a skirt instead?
Not really. Just my own reasoning preferring white over black ExpII.
Rolex makes several great watches with a black dial which I already owned, and relatively few white dial watches, which made the white Explorer II an easy choice for me, if for no other reason.
Thanks for posting this JPE, it's a great read. Right up my street as I collect the 5 digit references.
Thanks, all.
Small addition. "Tools" from the TRF made this excellent dimension chart between the 14060 and 16610.
I added that to the review.
Last edited by JPE; 5th October 2019 at 02:16.
An enjoyable read, thanks for posting
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Excellent read having just purchased a 16610 yesterday!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My pleasure!
- - - Updated - - -
Cool. What kind of 16610? Let's see some pics!!!!
I was after a late edition with engraved rehaut, but when the examples I went to see were not as expected i couldn’t refuse this one:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What a beauty!!!! :o Congratulations... that, in my opinion, is the best and coolest Rolex ever made. A true icon.
And personally, I don't like the engraved rehaut myself... but that's just me.
Well thank you!
Those kind words from someone who knows his 5 digit Rolex’s make me feel even happier with my purchase.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
