Another excellent review. Thank you for posting it.
What do you plan to add next to your collection?
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.
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.
Thoroughly enjoyed that and the linked 16600 Seadweller review as I own both.
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
Nice review , then again Im a sub fan so already convinced
Last edited by higham5; 9th September 2019 at 23:05.
Great review, and reminds me why I want one rather than a SubC.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Interesting read. Thanks! Have you thought about doing one on the 16710?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
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..
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just to tempt you
That’s my 1972 one
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!
Good review of a great watch.
Thanks for the photos. That 5513 is just phenomenal.
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.
Fantastic reference
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
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.
I really miss my 5513. Still pretty happy with this one, though.
Sent from my SM-N970F using Tapatalk
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.
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
New wrist shot. I got lucky with my crappy phone camera this time. :D