closing tag is in template navbar
Time Factors Watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: Review of Rolex Submariner 16610

  1. #1
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804

    Review of Rolex Submariner 16610

    How could you possibly write a “review” of the most iconic watch in the world, the Rolex Submariner? There must be hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of reviews of this watch already. Wouldn’t it be like beating a dead horse?

    Probably. But let’s write one anyway.

    LINK TO THE REVIEW



    It's just a quick, simple writeup with some of my photography. Enjoy... and let me know if you find any mistakes.

  2. #2
    Another excellent review. Thank you for posting it.

    What do you plan to add next to your collection?

  3. #3
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebird84 View Post
    Another excellent review. Thank you for posting it.

    What do you plan to add next to your collection?
    Thanks man.

    I have no Rolex purchases in mind at the moment. I think I'm done. But isn't that what we always say haha.

    I actually ordered a Davosa GMT homage just for the kicks. The case looks a lot like 1675/16750 and I can't stomach the current prices of the real things. I want to "test" the looks with the Davosa first.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    Thanks man.

    I have no Rolex purchases in mind at the moment. I think I'm done. But isn't that what we always say haha.

    I actually ordered a Davosa GMT homage just for the kicks. The case looks a lot like 1675/16750 and I can't stomach the current prices of the real things. I want to "test" the looks with the Davosa first.
    Haha! I think we all try and convince ourselves that.

    I know what you mean. I’ll keep an eye out for future posts on your website.

  5. #5
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Somerset (U.k )
    Posts
    10,592
    Thoroughly enjoyed that and the linked 16600 Seadweller review as I own both.

  6. #6
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by ben4watches View Post
    Thoroughly enjoyed that and the linked 16600 Seadweller review as I own both.
    Cheers!!!

    Thanks a lot man. Appreciated.

  7. #7
    Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,492
    Thanks for posting, plus the other links - really good of you to take the time, always something new to learn - the 16610 is a great watch

  8. #8
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    1,973
    Nice review , then again Im a sub fan so already convinced
    Last edited by higham5; 9th September 2019 at 23:05.

  9. #9
    Grand Master oldoakknives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Brussel land.
    Posts
    16,373
    Great review, and reminds me why I want one rather than a SubC.
    Cuidich 'n Righ

  10. #10
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    124
    Interesting read. Thanks! Have you thought about doing one on the 16710?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsmith1974 View Post
    Interesting read. Thanks! Have you thought about doing one on the 16710?
    Oh I've already done a review of the 16710. Check here:

    Review of Rolex GMT Master II

    PS: Thanks all for the positive comments. Appreciated.

  12. #12
    Master murkeywaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Near the sea
    Posts
    4,062
    Great work as usual, maybe other watch owners local to you could lend you their watch for the day so you have access to more watches = more reviews.

    This wrist shot I really like, I have a 14060 and sometimes while driving I'll look at it and think that just looks perfect, great watches..



  13. #13
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by murkeywaters View Post
    Great work as usual, maybe other watch owners local to you could lend you their watch for the day so you have access to more watches = more reviews.
    That'd be great.

    But actually I have plenty of my own ex-watches that I have photographed back in the day (like 16613 Sub, Breguet XX Chrono, Seamaster Chrono "Bond", TAG Heuer Link Calibre 36, Aquagraph, etc.) that I could review but I haven't done it yet (because of my work and family takes so much time). I'm not completely happy with some of my old photos though.

    Thanks for the comments, everyone.

  14. #14
    Your pic with the caption 5512-14060M shows the uncertified 5513, not the four-line 5512.

    Otherwise, VG.

  15. #15
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    Your pic with the caption 5512-14060M shows the uncertified 5513, not the four-line 5512.

    Otherwise, VG.
    Thanks.

    Yes I know. That was the only similar photo (with others) from the book and I used it. The text "refs 5512-14060M above the pic" clarify it and that photo just represents the "era". The 1680 white version isn't from the very beginning of the date Sub production, either. I believe the red Sub was the first one?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    Thanks.

    Yes I know. That was the only similar photo (with others) from the book and I used it. The text "refs 5512-14060M above the pic" clarify it and that photo just represents the "era". The 1680 white version isn't from the very beginning of the date Sub production, either. I believe the red Sub was the first one?
    I think so. The Sub's my favourite Rolex, too.


  17. #17
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Oh man, that's just amazing. Too bad these are out of my budget. Beautiful!

    Do you have other Rolexes in your collection?

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    Oh man, that's just amazing. Too bad these are out of my budget. Beautiful!

    Do you have other Rolexes in your collection?
    Thank you very much, it's a lovely piece but it hardly gets worn because of the non-quickset date. I've an OP 39 blue dial and a DayDate 36mm. Also these:



    P-serial 16610 owned from new. My gateway drug to watches.



    Mark I Maxi dial 5513 (1978)

    Oddly, both of these have the flat S. Like a reversed Z.

  19. #19
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    That 5513... wow!!! I love that watch and I want that watch. :o

    My previous K-serial was a "Flat S" too... and I had that SWISS ' MADE spacing as well. Similar dial as yours. I sold that (it was a full set) to a friend and bought this new K-serial which DOES NOT have the "Flat S". I wonder why such variation? Maybe Rolex use several different machines to print the dials... hmm.

  20. #20
    You are too kind. I'm lucky in that I got both my vintage subs a good few years ago. I thought the prices were pretty nuts back then, but I wouldn't be able to justify buying them at today's prices.

    I believe Rolex used to use various different dial suppliers. Don't know when they stopped doing that.
    Last edited by Holsterman; 10th September 2019 at 17:27.

  21. #21
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    3,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    You are too kind. I'm lucky in that I got both my vintage subs a good few years ago. I thought the prices were pretty nuts back then, but I wouldn't be able to justify buying them at today's prices.

    I believe Rolex used to use various different dial suppliers. Don't know when they stopped doing that.
    Case on your 5513 looks in great nick
    Treat yourself to a mk3 insert for the 1680-its such a nice dial it deserves it.

  22. #22
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    I'm curious how the 5513 wears compared to the 16610.

    I had 14060 and for some strange reason it felt smaller than the cyclops version. Of course the diameter is the same but it felt "flatter" somehow. Does the domed crystal on 5513 "increase" the wrist presence?

    I've never tried one on. One of my collagues owns a 1680 white which I've tried... but 5513 is my dream.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    I'm curious how the 5513 wears compared to the 16610.

    I had 14060 and for some strange reason it felt smaller than the cyclops version. Of course the diameter is the same but it felt "flatter" somehow.
    The 14060 is a touch smaller than the 16610, both width and depth-wise (fractions of a mil)... I’m not sure if that difference occurred with the plastic Submariners.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    I'm curious how the 5513 wears compared to the 16610.

    I had 14060 and for some strange reason it felt smaller than the cyclops version. Of course the diameter is the same but it felt "flatter" somehow. Does the domed crystal on 5513 "increase" the wrist presence?

    I've never tried one on. One of my collagues owns a 1680 white which I've tried... but 5513 is my dream.
    Something I've never considered. If I have the time, I'll attempt comparable wrist shots tomorrow. Here's a rather shaky Friday thread wrist shot I took a while ago (6.75" wrist). It's my "coolest" sub IMO.

    Last edited by Holsterman; 10th September 2019 at 23:01.

  25. #25
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Thanks.

    Interestingly enough my 16600 also feels smaller and "narrower" than my Sub.

    It's thicker and higher and the dial is actually 1mm smaller than on the Sub (because of thicker crystal). The lack of cyclops increases the effect even more.

    People say that the Dweller wears bigger but I disagree. Sub wears wider and flatter. Of course the Dweller feels _more substantial_ and heavier - but not bigger, literally. That's why I prefer the Sub on the wrist (although the SD is a real gem and a collector's item).

    Last edited by JPE; 10th September 2019 at 23:24.

  26. #26
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    3,830
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    I'm curious how the 5513 wears compared to the 16610.

    I had 14060 and for some strange reason it felt smaller than the cyclops version. Of course the diameter is the same but it felt "flatter" somehow. Does the domed crystal on 5513 "increase" the wrist presence?

    I've never tried one on. One of my collagues owns a 1680 white which I've tried... but 5513 is my dream.
    The 5513(Maxi Dial) will have a bit more presence on the dial than the 14060 due to maxi plots I would think and the super dome looks amazing as you can see.

  27. #27
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by Hood View Post
    The 5513(Maxi Dial) will have a bit more presence on the dial than the 14060 due to maxi plots I would think and the super dome looks amazing as you can see.
    I didn't want to hear that. Now I want a 5513 even more. :D

  28. #28
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    3,830


    Just to tempt you
    That’s my 1972 one

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    Thanks.

    Interestingly enough my 16600 also feels smaller and "narrower" than my Sub.

    It's thicker and higher and the dial is actually 1mm smaller than on the Sub (because of thicker crystal). The lack of cyclops increases the effect even more.
    Yes, I've tried on the 16600 on a few occasions over the years, and tried my hardest to love it back when it was THE one to have, but ultimately it's too thick and top-heavy for my taste, so I never actually picked one up.

    Compared with the monstrous crap Rolex have churned out since then, it's actually quite dainty!

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Hood View Post


    Just to tempt you
    That’s my 1972 one
    Hood, that is an absolute stunner!

    Put that away...you’re tempting me...

  31. #31
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Glasgow(ish)
    Posts
    334
    Good review of a great watch.

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    I'm curious how the 5513 wears compared to the 16610.
    HTH

    My very manly 6.75" wrist -



    5513 -



    16610 -



    OP 39 wears the same as a sub -



    Weedy 36mm way too small -


  33. #33
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Thanks for the photos. That 5513 is just phenomenal.

  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    Thanks for the photos. That 5513 is just phenomenal.
    Thanks again. I spent many months looking for a reasonably good example, patience is key.

  35. #35
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    derbyshire
    Posts
    459
    Great review, not long since had my Swiss only A serial 1999 16610. Absolutely love it, feels more special than my SubC LV


  36. #36
    Craftsman ozzyb123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    London
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    How could you possibly write a “review” of the most iconic watch in the world, the Rolex Submariner? There must be hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of reviews of this watch already. Wouldn’t it be like beating a dead horse?

    Probably. But let’s write one anyway.

    LINK TO THE REVIEW



    It's just a quick, simple writeup with some of my photography. Enjoy... and let me know if you find any mistakes.
    Definitely doesn't need a review but still good fun nonetheless

  37. #37
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    A quick lume shot. I could have done much better if I really put my mind to it but I guess it's ok.

    Last edited by JPE; 10th October 2019 at 21:28.

  38. #38
    Fantastic reference


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by JPE View Post
    A quick lume shot. I could have done much better if I really put my mind to it but I guess it's ok.


    Better?! Look great JPE!

    I've seen a few pictures of people putting ghosted bezels on 5 digit Rolex's, actually looks pretty cool.

  40. #40
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Let's share it here too.

    I always thought the no-date version wore smaller and “Tools” from The Rolex Forum confirmed my thoughts. Here is the exact dimension chart of the two.


  41. #41
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    315
    JPE: I chatted about this with you on Facebook some time ago related to 16600.

    16610
    I have now tried all of these and my conclusion is that here is nothing that beats 16610LN/LV with lugholes and SEL in terms of wearability. Now, I haven't measured this, but looks like the thickness over 14060m comes from the caseback bulging out a little bellow the lug level. For me this makes the watch sit perfectly on my wrist because of a high wristbone. Perhaps someone can confirm this?

    14060 and 14060M
    Both of these are great, but they lack the substantial feel of the 16610 SEL bracelet. 14060m feels smaller and sits somehow lower, with the lighter bracelet it also feels lighter. This is highly subjective, but the watch seems thinner than 16710 and wears closer to 16700 than anything else.

    5513
    I have worn one very briefly, so this is not the most accurate description. I would say this is similar to 14060 in terms of wrist presence, but has the acrylic and the vintage vibe and feels a little thicker and a little lighter compared to 14060 which makes it very hard to judge. I think the observed thickness might be because the bulging of the acrylic glass, but since I don't own one and can't measure one, perhaps someone can chime in. I haven't worn a maxi dial, so I can't say about the observed size of that one.

    16600
    Leaving this out as it is a totally different watch in terms of wearability. I don't own one, and it is likely I will not get one at this moment, but you never know.

    Conclusion
    If bracelet is big part of your submariner experience, I'd just stick with 16610 from 2001-2003. For the no date, I'd go with 14060 (or even M) or 5513 depending on your budget and how much vintage feel you want. Keep in mind that, I'm still contemplating whether to get 16600, 14060, 5513 or 116600. In the end 16610 is just too perfect and makes the decision hard.

    TL:DR: 16610 ruined submariners for me.
    Last edited by ollipekka; 16th March 2020 at 08:38.

  42. #42
    I really miss my 5513. Still pretty happy with this one, though.

    Sent from my SM-N970F using Tapatalk

  43. #43
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by ollipekka View Post
    JPE: I chatted about this with you on Facebook some time ago related to 16600.

    16610
    I have now tried all of these and my conclusion is that here is nothing that beats 16610LN/LV with lugholes and SEL in terms of wearability. Now, I haven't measured this, but looks like the thickness over 14060m comes from the caseback bulging out a little bellow the lug level. For me this makes the watch sit perfectly on my wrist because of a high wristbone. Perhaps someone can confirm this?

    14060 and 14060M
    Both of these are great, but they lack the substantial feel of the 16610 SEL bracelet. 14060m feels smaller and sits somehow lower, with the lighter bracelet it also feels lighter. This is highly subjective, but the watch seems thinner than 16710 and wears closer to 16700 than anything else.

    5513
    I have worn one very briefly, so this is not the most accurate description. I would say this is similar to 14060 in terms of wrist presence, but has the acrylic and the vintage vibe and feels a little thicker and a little lighter compared to 14060 which makes it very hard to judge. I think the observed thickness might be because the bulging of the acrylic glass, but since I don't own one and can't measure one, perhaps someone can chime in. I haven't worn a maxi dial, so I can't say about the observed size of that one.

    16600
    Leaving this out as it is a totally different watch in terms of wearability. I don't own one, and it is likely I will not get one at this moment, but you never know.

    Conclusion
    If bracelet is big part of your submariner experience, I'd just stick with 16610 from 2001-2003. For the no date, I'd go with 14060 (or even M) or 5513 depending on your budget and how much vintage feel you want. Keep in mind that, I'm still contemplating whether to get 16600, 14060, 5513 or 116600. In the end 16610 is just too perfect and makes the decision hard.

    TL:DR: 16610 ruined submariners for me.
    Excellent observations. Thanks.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by pseunomis View Post
    I really miss my 5513. Still pretty happy with this one, though.
    That's a stunner! Cheers.

  44. #44
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    66
    Interesting! Thanks for sharing again.

    I have a 16600 - my first and only Rolex - and love it. I only have slim wrists but it wears perfectly and the extra height is mainly in the case back, which slots into the hollow in my wrist perfectly. (I bought it over a 14060M.)

    Would love a Kermit, but the prices are obviously a bit daft.

  45. #45
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyMango View Post
    Interesting! Thanks for sharing again.

    I have a 16600 - my first and only Rolex - and love it. I only have slim wrists but it wears perfectly and the extra height is mainly in the case back, which slots into the hollow in my wrist perfectly. (I bought it over a 14060M.)

    Would love a Kermit, but the prices are obviously a bit daft.
    Yes the Kermit prices are absolutely crazy.

    Personally I never quite warmed up to them. The maxi dial is nice but the green just isn't my color. Haha.

  46. #46
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Rotherham
    Posts
    301
    Another great review JPE cheers.

  47. #47
    Craftsman JPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by Toad monitor View Post
    Another great review JPE cheers.
    Thanks man. Appreciated.

    PS: Here's yet another 16610 vs 116610 video. I kinda liked this one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0quLfeuVPp0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information