Reply With QuoteBut your selling what exactly??
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm classing anything pre-ceramic as "classic".
I genuinely like both new and old however I've recently come off wearing a 16610LV for an extended period and decided to move back to my SD43 for daily duties (which it was for almost 2 years).
Obviously the SD43 is a big ol' hector compared to something more classic but I'm really struggling to fall back in love with the weight and size in all directions.
Going the other way to a "classic", I generally hate the bracelet for all of a couple of hours before it feels like a comfy old pair of slippers. Yes it's clanky feel and lack of adjustability is rotten compared to the new ones but it just feels right.
It may be due to wearing "classics" for all of my adult life, so it feels right but I'm struggling to gel with my moderns in quite the same way-and this from a guy who loves a 126660.
But your selling what exactly??
You need a price in this section
How much I can’t see the price, or do you want to trade for some swamp log??
What slippers are they? And what size
Oh what a prat I am! Sorry, I've reported myself-this should obviously have gone in watch talk.
You using Crapatalk?
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I'll buy 2 please. How much?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s quite allamaing
So you prefer old style to modern Rolex? No sure what responses you're looking for tbh.
Not sure what the next steps are here?
S
Horses for courses. Some love the older models, some find them too small. Equally with the modern watches some find them too big whilst others with perhaps larger wrists are drawn to them.
Certainly worth trying both to experience both sides of the debate.
Personally I prefer the 4 and 5 digit watches and like the bracelets, they are comfortable and fit in with the vintage feel of the watch. I guess most wearers wear these watches in a more casual setting, but if I wanted or needed the watch for its intended purpose I would certainly buy brand new.
I have a feeling that when materials don’t ‘age’....such as ceramic....they don’t age well. If you see what I mean. It’s normal for things to get older, and look older. Staying bright and shiny isn’t always good.
Which I why I guess that the modern ceramic watches will end up, unmarked, but less desirable and collectible
Basically I couldn't give a damn. I have a 16610 - 5 digit Sub and it's fine. My son has a ceramic Seamaster and that is also fine. I could wear either.
Often considered the 5 digits. Nice proportions, but I prefer that modern bracelet. Hence I have no 5 digit models in my collection.
All personal taste I guess!
I prefer my 16610 over the maxi case 6 digit models. Although I have a 6 digit Explorer 2 and like that case shape as well.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I like both as they have their own charms. I love the ceramic bezel and slightly bigger dimensions and heft of
the six digit with the vastly superior bracelets. I am also very fond of T dialled earlier models and they have a beauty of their own. It has become somewhat of a trend to make a public display of dislike for six digit Rolexes and to wear it as a badge of honor as if it is some sign of a superior taste or appreciation of watches. At the end of the day, it is a personal preference and for me both provide enjoyment.
I have love for them both. The ceramic is more “out there” (likely due to size and ceramic bezel). Ceramic has better specification with regards to bracelet, bezel, clasp, glidelock etc. The classics I see as elegant, sleek yet very classy!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I disagree with you and suggest that you seem to over react every time someone states that their personal preference is for the 4 or 5 digit references. Based on many of the threads on here clearly the 6 digit reference owners are in the majority and add in the fact that most of us cannot buy a 6 digit reference without having to pay a hefty premium it is understandable for people to consider the older watches which dealers are happy to sell to you without all the fun and games.Originally Posted by RAJEN
I would suggest that the majority of 'dislike' is with the system, the lists, waiting for the call, having to justify yourself to an AD before they consider you worthy of spending many thousands of pounds that people object to rather than the actual watches themselves. If these watches were freely available we wouldn't even be discussing it.
In most posts I see people expressing an opinion rather than bashing the 6 digit references. I recently wanted to scratch a GMT itch and if the new Ceramic BLRO was freely available I would have bought one, but I'm not paying a 100%+ premium, so I looked at the 4 and 5 digit references and there were plenty available. So it's not just a case of preferring old over new, but more a case of considering what is actually available for purchase. It is bonkers though when a 1675 or 16750 Matt dial is cheaper than the new Ceramic version including premium - just saying.
I've always had a foot firmly planted in the vintage/classic camp but I have to say that I love the modern ceramic models. They're a step up in terms of quality and i have no issue whatsoever with the dimensions of the "supercase". In fact, I just put this on for our anniversary lunch a little later today and it just blew me away (as it always does when i wear it)!
I agree. There is something special about a super case and ceramic bezel combination especially on 2 tone! Congrats on the 116613LN by the way. Lovely watch.I've always had a foot firmly planted in the vintage/classic camp but I have to say that I love the modern ceramic models. They're a step up in terms of quality and i have no issue whatsoever with the dimensions of the "supercase". In fact, I just put this on for our anniversary lunch a little later today and it just blew me away (as it always does when i wear it)!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For me Rolex is split three ways, vintage, classic and modern. Vintage = plastic crystal, classic is pre-ceramic, modern is ceramic supercase. Many own a mix of all three as each brings something different to the table.
If you’d asked me a couple of years ago I’d say ceramic, they certainly have more presence and enough bling to stand out but as time goes by I’ve begun to really appreciate the older models, first I was into the 5 digits but I’m increasingly beginning to explore the 4 digits, buying 4 digit is a bit of a minefield to be honest. But there is a certain charm with the vintage pieces that are hard to describe.
Yes about 18 -24 months ago I found myself in a rather unique position. I was in a small highly regarded small Spanish restaurant atop of a small mountain overlooking the sea and was was about to enjoy a very good lunch with my wife. We were sat at a table in the centre of the restaurant and after a few minutes noticed a man wearing a Sub and lo and behold I also noted another man sat at another table who was also wearing a Sub. This is quite a rare occurrence for me to be in spitting distance of two unconnected men both wearing a Rolex. You see it all the time in Rome / Florence / Venice but it's very rare in Spain.
After a further few minutes of surreptitious glances so as not to draw attention to myself it was fairly obvious that one guy was wearing a 6 digit and the other was wearing either a 4 or 5 digit. I was wearing a 16610. The 6 digit drew the eye more due to the bling but the other watch looked classier.
Yes the vintage / classic models are the way to go.
Last edited by Mick P; 24th August 2020 at 17:36.
Actually it’s just personal preference on my part to prefer 16610. No badge of honour here. And my tastes are subject to change for no sensible reason.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
You don’t need reason for personal preference. Perfectly fine if you like 16610, it is a lovely watch.
I found the best way to understand 4, 5 and 6 digit Rolex is view them like women, guess which is which
Hahaha. I was expecting a blonde silicone queen for the ceramic!!I found the best way to understand 4, 5 and 6 digit Rolex is view them like women, guess which is which
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ve got a mix of four, five and six digit references. If I had to cook up my dream features combo l, it would be the five digit case, with the six digit bracelet (esp. the glidelock on the divers). If it were a divers, I’d go for the ceramic bezel / for the GMTs, the aluminium. I’d also banish PCLs to Datejusts only.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Doesn't get smaller than that.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Yes slurping the soup was a bit messy.
One of the few vintage classics to have in a collection.I feel Ive been on a journey and arrived right back to where I should have stayed!.......but Ive enjoyed the scenery whilst it lasted.
I generally prefer the classics. Not a big fan of the maxi-case sizes...they feel like slab sided blocks of steel. The only modern Rolex that I feel was an improvement on the classic is the Explorer 2. The case is thinner than the other modern sports Rolex and the hands are an improvement compared to the classic which looks a bit 'weedy' nowadays.
5 digit references only for me. Got a ceramic 116710LN but gave it to my wife as I couldn't get along with the polished centre links and the maxi case.
Funnily enough, I think I feel the same. Of all the updates it's the Explorer II that works better than the classic versions. I'm in two minds about the Daytona, the ceramic bezel does add visual weight but it's such a different look I find it hard to compare the two.
I like them both for different reasons, the ceramic is very shiny and hard to read in certain lights but that’s less of a dealbreaker.
The older ones are a cuter shape too but the older bracelets would put me off wearing one every day.
Right now I am wearing a 2014 39mm Explorer which has a modern bracelet and yes it is very good. I also have a 16610 Sub with an old style bracelet and it may be not as good as the latest bracelet but it is probably still in the top 1% of bracelets on this planet.
I also have a 1980 Explorer11 which has a brand new original model replacement bracelet which will probably last for another 40 years.
I wouldn't worry too much about bracelets.
The latest models are technically superior in every way, the problem for some people is that these models look blingy and scream "LOOK AT ME - I AM WEARING ROLEX"
It's just a simple matter of what is more important to you and your taste.
I agree, I like the 16610 over the maxi case models, but like the six digit Explorer II. I think the Explorer II case would have made a better Submariner than the maxi case.
Rather crude mock up of a ceramic Sub dial and bezel on an Exp II case....
Last edited by oldoakknives; 31st August 2020 at 11:17.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Very good sir!Doesn't get smaller than that.
Nice 1675, Nick.
Little did I know when I posted that view how Rolex were doing something similar!I agree, I like the 16610 over the maxi case models, but like the six digit Explorer II. I think the Explorer II case would have made a better Submariner than the maxi case.
Rather crude mock up of a ceramic Sub dial and bezel on an Exp II case....
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
pretty much nailed it. Well done.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Posting Permissions
