Reply With QuoteFantastic photo as usual. Do you regard the Seadweller as a part of the Submariner family? If so I would say the Seadweller 16600 as the best model. Failing that 5513 is best!
Fantastic photo as usual. Do you regard the Seadweller as a part of the Submariner family? If so I would say the Seadweller 16600 as the best model. Failing that 5513 is best!
I'm not a big sub fan, but if i ever wished to get one, I'd try to get a great 5513 example. Really is the best sub. Great pic Tony!
Absolutely.Originally Posted by learningtofly
great watch all thought always love the date version
Sent from my SM-A530F using Tapatalk
Nice watch indeed. The model worn by Roger Moore in some of his appearances in the Bond films.
I was looking at one in a jewellers several months ago (when one could) and I was surprised how the bezel sits so low below the top of the plexi glass, compared to my sapphire 16610 model, which is almost flush to the top of the crystal. Looking down on it, you don't get that impression, only looking from the side on. Lovely to behold.
Do you wear it often?
Your photos really are something else!
Personally I think the Sub case is one of the great works of design genius.
It is functional, elegant, smart, casual, exactly the right size for most human wrists, and looks, just right.
If 5513's really were a little more ubiquitous, I think we might all be a little happier, but I am very happy with my 94110, as my only Sub, albeit a Tudor.
Lovely photo as ever Tony - I am trying to work out the prop it is sat on. Cooking pan - like a pressure cooker? Motorcycle part?
Dave
Lovely photo's but the sub dosen't do it for me and i have had at least 3.
Too small at 40mm but i am in a minority.
not necessarily
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Ha! Almost impossible to guess, unless you have one yourself - it's actually the central retaining bracket for a Bowens softbox
That was going to be my guess...........
There is no such thing as a best watch. We all have different tastes and different requirements. A Sub is way out of of place in an office environment but looks great when casual.
Great proportions on the 5513. Personally I feel the bracelets on the modern subs are a step forward and so for a day to day watch, I stick with the ceramics. Great pics!
I agree that the ceramics are mechanically better and the bracelets are game leaders but their problem is that they scream "look at me I am wearing a Rolex".
The 5513 is nicely toned down as it is, frankly, more gentlemanly.
While the Submariner is the original and the Submariner Date came later it would be very, very hard to choose between a Red Sub and a 5513.
I would agree though if SDs were included 1665 are hard to ignore but the proportions and height of the sub let it slip under a shirt cuff too so kinda perfect
Great thread and some amazing pictures.
It certainly is a stunning watch. Maxi dial, warm patina, perfect!
Aye aye, captain. Of the two, I prefer the 5513 and wear it far more often.
That’s why we end up down the rabbit hole
Last edited by bobdog; 15th April 2020 at 11:35.
What became of that?My old metres first...
A real beauty.
Stunning
I love the colour of the markers just like Tonys - perfection (not keen when they have turned Nicotine Yellow!)
I traded it against a white gold Daytona - another watch I should have held onto (although I subsequently traded the Daytona against my current 5513, ironically).
I did try to buy the metres first back, but it wasn't to be.
I'm not up to speed with all the model numbers and intricacies, but do feel like the cyclops sort of ruins the look of the watch for me. Horses for courses I'm sure, but Tony's just looks so... right.
Lovely rabbit hole to go down. Beautiful watches.
Difficult to pick a single model when something has been going for 65+ years. The 5513s pictured are stunning as are the Red 1680s and the SD 1665. I chose a 5512 over a 5513 and that is still floating around the forum somewhere. A 4 line maxi dial from 1978 is really something else.
I have to say that the most impressive Sub I've ever seen was a late 50s early 60s, not sure of the exact year - Red Sub in Mike Wood's collection. I didn't even know it existed and he showed it to me one day when I was in his shop - completely blew my socks off I have to say.
I think if I had the choice between a perfect 5513 and a perfect 1665, I would probably opt for the 1665, double red of course.
Yes, the 1680 started in 1969, but Mike Wood has a late 50s Sub that has a line of red text above the number 6 at the bottom of the dial. Clearly not a Red Sub in the same sense as the 1680s, but there was definately a much earlier Red Sub.
Pic found. Not sure if this is the same model as Mike's but at least it's a Red Sub years before the 1680. I wasn't dreaming.
And a write up on it.
http://rolexpassionreport.com/25593/...d-chronometer/
Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 15th April 2020 at 16:31.
Some lovely watches here.
Tony, you have owned some beauties and like a true man of taste are able to appreciate the vintage Rolex along with the modern. Unlike some boring old farts who can’t stop beating their 4 digit- 5 digit drums:-)
Nice sleuthing, Ken, and a bit of a watch! I'd be scared to put it anywhere near my wrist, thoughYes, the 1680 started in 1969, but Mike Wood has a late 50s Sub that has a line of red text above the number 6 at the bottom of the dial. Clearly not a Red Sub in the same sense as the 1680s, but there was definately a much earlier Red Sub.
Pic found. Not sure if this is the same model as Mike's but at least it's a Red Sub years before the 1680. I wasn't dreaming.
And a write up on it.
http://rolexpassionreport.com/25593/...d-chronometer/
The Rolex what, never heard of it
It is the Sharkey for men of taste.The Rolex what, never heard of it
Mr Stahl has some absolute corkers. Mad as a box of frogs but has more than a few serious watches. This one popped up on his feed recently and looks seriously special.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B-33pT3nI98/
Nice one Ken, you learn something new everyday. Well I do, we ran out of Corn Flakes so I tried Rice Krispies and I really liked them, good old lockdown.
That is my true ‘end’ watch in every single way, absolutely stunning.I traded it against a white gold Daytona - another watch I should have held onto (although I subsequently traded the Daytona against my current 5513, ironically).
I did try to buy the metres first back, but it wasn't to be.
What a Beautiful watch.
Your watches old and new are fabulous Tony.
The 5513 is a lovely watch, you can’t beat the golden oldies!
Indescribably beautiful, and a worthy grail in my opinion. Some time after letting it go I actually tracked down the watch in question to a dealer in the Netherlands. It was quite scratched up and they wanted five grand more than I traded it for.
An amazing watch, as are the other watches in this thread. I love how the dials are distorted (not sure why but I do and it is not something you can really tell anyone else.)
It is amazing how the design still look fresh today.
I think this is definitely one to keep!
Personally, I’d take a 16600 over any other Rolex. Well, any other watch actually.
However, the Sub is certainly the icon of the pair.
When I finally decided I needed a Submariner I knew I didn't want a modern 6 digit case, but I was too fearful of going vintage and all the authenticity/service parts malarky.
I think the 14060m strikes the perfect balance – original slim case, drilled lugs, vintage-style tapering bracelet, but luminova lume and sapphire glass. Just a superb everyday/any occasion watch …
An beautiful watch, I was lucky enough to have a superb example of a metres first 5513
As many have said here, they are absolutely iconic, end game watches, unfortunately I always felt too small for my larger wrist and moved on, aesthetically though... pretty unbeatable.
You are one weird dude Mick. 🤪
Is this the one you got from me Tony?
My old metres first...
Posting Permissions
