Has anyone else "downgraded" from a 116610LN SubC to 16610LN?

[zjd168]

The sub is due to the upgrade at anytime. I hope the next one will look like the 5 digit version, but equipped with ceramic bezel, glidelock and the new movement

[Oscarpapa]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

Wow, it seems you have the best of both worlds!

Your 5 series may not be as well built as the new 6 series but the design sure as hell looks aesthetically better, just look at the way the lugs flow into the bracelet for one!
For me you've made a good upgrade looks wise and I would do the same.

[busytimmy]

I wouldn’t call it a downgrade, but after trying several variations of modern subs and GMTs, I settled on a datejust41 as being the most well proportioned and comfortable wearing modern Rolex. If I was to go sub/gmt again I would definitely be shopping 5 digit. 6.75 Inch wrist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[siempreko]

It is an upgrade if you are happier with it! They are all great watches! Each has their own “pros and cons.”

Personally, I prefer my 6 digit over my 5 digit... but, I can fully appreciate why many prefer the 5 over the 6...

May each of us find the watch that we love, and wear it in good health!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[busytimmy]

Originally Posted by zjd168

The sub is due to the upgrade at anytime. I hope the next one will look like the 5 digit version, but equipped with ceramic bezel, glidelock and the new movement

Unfortunately, based on where the gmt has gone, the new sub won’t look like the old 5 digit example. The maxi case is here to stay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Speed]

For me...the 16610 cannot have an engraved Rehaut, and should have lug holes.

[77T]

5-digits > 6-digits was not an upgrade except inside as the movements became more accurate, and were given some better parts. If we could have the new movements inside the old cases, I wonder how many would have kept their 5-digit models?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TimeToWatch]

That’s an upgrade IMO. I prefer the 16610 to the 116610

[dr35mm]

That's no downgrade imo.

Both great references, I've had both but I couldn't go back just because of the glidelock.

[KarlFr]

One of my used-Rolex pushers in Benelux informed me that he can´t get enough supply of the old 16610, selling so fast now since price still is reasonable and soon a cool classic.

[SubMarine]

Originally Posted by Speed

For me...the 16610 cannot have an engraved Rehaut, and should have lug holes.

If that's what you desire, there are plenty of options to choose from. Most 16610 models have lugholes and no engraved rehaut. There are also many vintage 5 digit options such as the 16800 that satisfy your criteria.

[uncle_paul_hargis]

Not exactly the same, but I went from a 116710LN to a 16610. The GMT (granted it did have PCLs) felt really flashy. The 16610 is lighter, really comfortable, and classic. I love it. The proportions are perfect. I thought I would really dislike the older bracelet and clasp since the new ones are so nice, but I find the older model to be great. Got it sized perfectly and never worry about it. I’m sure I’ll hit a time where I may wish I had a glidelock, but today is not that day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SubMarine]

Originally Posted by uncle_paul_hargis

Not exactly the same, but I went from a 116710LN to a 16610. The GMT (granted it did have PCLs) felt really flashy. The 16610 is lighter, really comfortable, and classic. I love it. The proportions are perfect. I thought I would really dislike the older bracelet and clasp since the new ones are so nice, but I find the older model to be great. Got it sized perfectly and never worry about it. I’m sure I’ll hit a time where I may wish I had a glidelock, but today is not that day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you desire the glidelock, it can be easily obtained for around $2k by itself. I believe it can be perfectly mounted to the 16610 watch head.

[Speed]

Originally Posted by SubMarine

If that's what you desire, there are plenty of options to choose from. Most 16610 models have lugholes and no engraved rehaut. There are also many vintage 5 digit options such as the 16800 that satisfy your criteria.

Thanks. I’ve already got one. A Y serial which has had chamfers lovingly restored by the former ABC Watchworks crew, now at LA Watchworks.

The Y ~ 2001 /2002, was the last to have lug holes.

[marcotagudelo]

Originally Posted by Speed

For me...the 16610 cannot have an engraved Rehaut, and should have lug holes.

the 14060 fits more that description

[4BostonB]

Originally Posted by uncle_paul_hargis

Not exactly the same, but I went from a 116710LN to a 16610. The GMT (granted it did have PCLs) felt really flashy. The 16610 is lighter, really comfortable, and classic. I love it. The proportions are perfect. I thought I would really dislike the older bracelet and clasp since the new ones are so nice, but I find the older model to be great. Got it sized perfectly and never worry about it. I’m sure I’ll hit a time where I may wish I had a glidelock, but today is not that day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm really tempted to get the PCLs on my GMT brushed. There are some times where I like being able to dress up the watch, and I think they work well in that context, but it's super blingy when you wear it with a T shirt outside in the sun.

Look at this: https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...3&postcount=17

[Speed]

Originally Posted by marcotagudelo

the 14060 fits more that description

The 14060 had lug holes but you can certainly get a pre Y serial 16610 with a date that meets those specs.

[chloebear]

I was just visiting with a pharmacist buddy who wears a 5 digit Sub. I was wearing my modern GMT LN. I could not believe how much I loved the charm of his older 5 digit Sub. The faded aluminum bezel looked amazing. And just like that my next watch has now changed. I'm now strongly considering an older Sub or Sea-Dweller. Why must I like every Rolex model?

[SubMarine]

Originally Posted by Speed

Thanks. I’ve already got one. A Y serial which has had chamfers lovingly restored by the former ABC Watchworks crew, now at LA Watchworks.

The Y ~ 2001 /2002, was the last to have lug holes.

The 16610 never had chamfers...

[Atlantic]

Originally Posted by 77T

5-digits > 6-digits was not an upgrade except inside as the movements became more accurate, and were given some better parts. If we could have the new movements inside the old cases, I wonder how many would have kept their 5-digit models?

With all due respect, both the 14060M and the 114060 Subs use the same 3130 movement, the late 14060M also came with parachrom blu springs. The same situation exists with the late 16570 Explorer II and the 116710 GMT-Master II, both use the identical 3186 movement.

[77T]

I get your point about the movements themselves.

The current parts made for the very same movements benefit from better metallurgy and improved manufacturing tolerances. None of these improvements merited a change in movement caliber deeignation.

For example when Rolex took over KIF and changed the name to Paraflex. That first year (I think 2008) it was just a name change. Now, the same system enjoys improved alloyed metal and jewels ground to finer tolerances as better machinery and controls yield increased accuracy and life between overhauls.

My point is that the 5-digit cases are svelte and highly sought by many collectors vs. today’s chunkier designs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Atlantic]

Interesting information! Happily, in addition to my 114060, have both a late Z serial 14060M Sub and an M serial 16570 3186 Polar Explorer II in my collection.