Reply With QuoteProbably 1680.
I've been looking around but I can't find any decent comparisons and would appreciate a head's up from the TZ hive of knowledge.
I know in 5 digits the 16600 wears smaller than the 14060 which wears smaller than the 16610 (imo anyway) but I'm wondering if there's a consensus on 4 digits?
I'm thinking about the 1665, 1680 or 5513 but it's not easy to go try them on or compare side by side let alone against a 5 digit.
The 1665 looks like it might wear quite flat and be a good option? Or maybe I should just get a creamy 16800 and pretend it's a 4 digit!
Thanks in advance.
Probably 1680.
1665 has wonderful dimensions and if you get one with original ‘dome’ plexi has a great feel and presence also very legible
1680 thinner case and with ‘top hat’ bags character but feels more dainty than 1665 which on wrist feels a tad bigger than 16600.
To me the 5513 seems larger due to lack of date/cyclops so more dial.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by Billyloves2boogie; 18th July 2022 at 12:53.
I thought my 5513 and 1680 wear very similarly in terms of size, but both appear much smaller than modern subs of course.
1665 wears a bit bigger for sure
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1665 and 16600.
The case is slightly thinner but the bezel sits higher on the 1665.
Really helpful, thanks all.
Question - would a 4 digit be too delicate to daily or are there some variables at play?
I'm worried re cracked/ing hands and don't find much joy in owning watches I can't wear.
Someone probably already wore them daily!
I’ve got them all…1665 wears the biggest and is plenty big enough for me!
Just seen the too delicate question, def not - wear and enjoy, nothing will crack or fall off.
Back to looking at your 5513 then! But I think I need to try and find a 1665 to get on the wrist and see if it's acceptable, then maybe hunt one down.Originally Posted by Bluetinfloor
That side on shot of the 1665 had me drooling, I'd love to pair one with my 16600 one day.
Wasn't there one offered for sale here recently around the 17K mark ? Seems like a bit of a bargain now after I looked at the over polished ones being offered on C24 last night.
I have a 1680 and a 16600 and would say the 1680 “feels” a larger watch on the wrist.
Met up with a friend earlier who's also on here.
I think the red sub looks ok. Would love to see a 1665 to compare. The red to my eye looked bigger than the 16610 or 14060M. Maybe I should skip 5 digit and go straight to 4.
There's an interesting looking 16800 full set at a trusted dealer nearby but I'm wondering if that's a half measure and more of a 4.5 digit.
I can’t be of much help here but what a fantastic set of pics. The red Sub looks impressively beefy. I’ve not seen / worn one in real life but I agree with you that it seems bigger than it’s 5-digit siblings. How did you find yourself in a car with that many Rolexes?Met up with a friend earlier who's also on here.
I think the red sub looks ok. Would love to see a 1665 to compare. The red to my eye looked bigger than the 16610 or 14060M. Maybe I should skip 5 digit and go straight to 4.
There's an interesting looking 16800 full set at a trusted dealer nearby but I'm wondering if that's a half measure and more of a 4.5 digit.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I have a 1665 that I wear much of the time. I deliberately went out to find a suitable candidate that wasn’t too valuable (they all are I suppose) and that would take use in water. I ended up finding one recently recased by Rolex and subsequently unworn. I had Rolex replace the original case back, bezel and bracelet (all of which they let me keep) and then pressure test to its full 600m - which it passed. The dial and hands are original. So now I have a great 1665 that I can just wear and enjoy. All the marks on the watch will be my memories. Collectors will roll their eyes but sod it, I have a lovely watch to enjoy without too much worry.
If you’re ever in London, happy to meet up, show you and let you try it on.
PS - the only ache is the non-quickset date. Spinning more than a few days is a chore but it’s incentive to wear it often. Great rock solid movement too.
Last edited by JIG67; 24th July 2022 at 22:40.
Met up with a friend earlier who's also on here.
I think the red sub looks ok. Would love to see a 1665 to compare. The red to my eye looked bigger than the 16610 or 14060M. Maybe I should skip 5 digit and go straight to 4.
There's an interesting looking 16800 full set at a trusted dealer nearby but I'm wondering if that's a half measure and more of a 4.5 digit.
Not sure if I’ve sent you these before but here is a comparison with a 1665. From here it does look bigger but in person it the sub looked and felt bigger. Think the cyclops and the top hate crystal helps give that impression.
This particular 1665 had a service crystal so was not as domed as the original ones. The contrast in bezels can also play games with your mind on sizing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No size comparison pics (but I’ve had plenty of 1680’s and 5513’s) the 1665 for me is for me more substantial and yes I wear everyday (not brave enough to swim with though)lots of scratches on the superdome etc
I agree with that. My 1665 was bulkier all round but when wearing the height almost negated some of the visual width.
Some great photos on here, I’m envious
Nothing of note to add to the argument but they are lovely watches.
Think I’ve had mine about 4 years now and was a daily wearer for 6 months
When are you popping that in the post to me Jim??
Nothing of note to add to the argument but they are lovely watches.
Think I’ve had mine about 4 years now and was a daily wearer for 6 months
Been scouring SC and should have bought the 5513 spareparts had up in late 2020. Full set for £12k with an old Rolex service.
Looking at the one Hassan sold his service at Steven Hale was £1,550. Quite sobering when you add that on top of a purchase.
The 14060m, 16610 and 124060 are mine, the red sub and the GMT are my friends. Went into town to meet him and try on the red sub.
I think I saw this on a thread before. Maybe Haywood was being asked the price by someone as it had a new case?
That sounds like the perfect result in a way. Sacrilegious but hugely practical. Maybe the answer is to buy the most battered example possible and send it in for a service! A new case must be £3-4k but keeping the original might add 50%.
I live in London and I'm in the city a day or two a week for work. I might have to buy you a coffee if you're able to brave the moped muggers.
I think the trick is to find one that was recased a while ago so that the value has already taken a hit. Mine was recased in 2010 and had the docs to prove it was kosher - came from Jason (Sweeping Hand) who, along with Mike Wood and Haywood, I have bought all my pre-loved Rolexes from over the years and trust absolutely. I wanted one to wear and enjoy and so it couldn’t be a collector grade job; and that’s what I got for more than 50% less than an OK original. As a bonus it has original dial and hands but I wouldn’t have cared if they were service replacements. And best of all, I can wear it wherever - wet and dry. I’ve Pinged you a message by the way. J
I was originally worried about the size of four digits because of my experience with five digits but I've just bought a 5513 and it wears bigger imo than my 14060m. I think I should have skipped five digits and gone straight to four.
Based off my 5513 experience a 1665 or 1680 could be next at some point but we'll see. Quite annoying having to remember to take it off in the shower though.
Here's a comparison of 5513, 14060M, 124060.
My old 5512, which currently resides in Yorkshire.
I previously owned by a 1665 GW and a DRSD and found that the 5512 sat better on the wrist because of the slimmer case. That said, the DRSD definitely looked the best.
I think the perceived thickness helps
The domed crystal seems to make a watch appear larger or at least more prominent on the wrist.
I think Rolex got it almost perfect with the 5512/13 (got a bit closer with the 17)
The 5513 looks smaller to me than the 14060, but pics are always a bit misleading.I was originally worried about the size of four digits because of my experience with five digits but I've just bought a 5513 and it wears bigger imo than my 14060m. I think I should have skipped five digits and gone straight to four.
Based off my 5513 experience a 1665 or 1680 could be next at some point but we'll see. Quite annoying having to remember to take it off in the shower though.
Here's a comparison of 5513, 14060M, 124060.
Why can't you wear it in the shower? I thought a 5513 was still in the realm of vintage but usuable? Mind you, a shower is different to a swim.
Whatever, it's a gorgeous watch
You're right it does look smaller in the pic but I was trying not to have the picture full of dial reflection. It's probably just the maxi plots playing with my head and it's the same size or smaller. Probably a case of whatever we convince ourselves.
Wouldn't want to test the water resistance just in case. It was last water tested about 9 or 10 years ago and I wouldn't want to ruin the dial just because I was scrubbing my cheeks!
This one definitely wears bigger than my 14060.
It's a beauty and I can see myself putting the 14060m towards a 1680 or 1665 at some point.
5 digits aren't really my thing, never have been, but 4 digits might be a goer. I'll see where I end up.
Posting Permissions
