PeteM Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 Heres a link to a pretty useful reference site http://luxurytyme.com/en/rolex-reviews/comparative-review-the-rolex-submariner-16610-vs-the-rolex-submariner-116610/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosnik Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 thank you for the interesting Link, Pete! IMO: I'm for 16610 with lugholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwatch Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 Great comparison. This is my favorite line from that article: ...they gave it hard to counterfeit features which stand out from the competition. That one made me laugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosnik Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smc Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 Just can't seem to fall in love with the new one, so i'll have to keep mine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Holbrook speaks the truth. The new fat lugs version is a visual downgrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4GTR Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 If it ain't broke... 16610. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 If it ain't broke... Exactly. Original classic: Ruined boxter-front 996: Best originals cost more in Germany than their 15 years younger counterparts (despite being technically inferior). You shouldn't try to "improve" perfection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 I have owned several genuine Sub 16610 models over the years and now own the genuine 116610 and it has grown on me to the point that the previous model now feels poorly made and cheap in comparison to the ceramic model. The finishing and especially the bracelet now feel that of an expensive watch. The clasp is beautifully made and the solid mid links give it a more robust feel. The watch case feels better made and the bezel feels smoother and more precise. It has much more wrist presence than the previous version and catches the light nicer too. As you can tell I'm now a convert and this model will in time be an icon as previous versions have become. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Holbrook speaks the truth. The new fat lugs version is a visual downgrade. +1 I did like his comment about the clasp though I know how much he hates the Classic Oyster clasps, but from what I've heard about people having weld failures on glidelock clasps (both rep and gen), I think it's safe to say that those 'cheap, flimsy' clasps simply can't fail in the way the new ones can (and do ) [Edit to add] I may be wrong, but am I right in thinking that the rep dealers were offering the 116610 before Rolex officially released it? If so, so much for the comment about counterfeiters and the bezel insert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krpster Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 I think both have their aesthetic pros and cons but for me (relative noob to rollies) the 16610 looks a little slim for it's intended purpose. The 116610 gives the sub a little more beef making it look more the part of a tool watch IMHO. They are both great watches so I wouldn't be able to choose one over the other. Instead I'd get both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 I say skip generations. Pick up 1680 and a ceramic version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneed12 Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Best originals cost more in Germany than their 15 years younger counterparts (despite being technically inferior). You shouldn't try to "improve" perfection. By-Tor, I usually take anything you say as gospel but you're wrong on this one my friend The 996 is lightyears ahead of the 993--Porsche had come to the limits of what could be accomplished with an air-cooled engine. Also, the Boxster has a distinctive look that's all its own, AND is a better sports car. I looked at a 996 and a 986 and ended up buying the 986; better handling for less money was the deciding factor. I've been waiting for the engine to blow up so I can drop a turbo'ed 3.6 in it, but it's served faithfully for ten years so I guess I'll keep waiting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 By-Tor, I usually take anything you say as gospel but you're wrong on this one my friend The 996 is lightyears ahead of the 993--Porsche had come to the limits of what could be accomplished with an air-cooled engine. Also, the Boxster has a distinctive look that's all its own, AND is a better sports car. I looked at a 996 and a 986 and ended up buying the 986; better handling for less money was the deciding factor. I've been waiting for the engine to blow up so I can drop a turbo'ed 3.6 in it, but it's served faithfully for ten years so I guess I'll keep waiting... Yes I know my friend. 996 is a superior car technically (as I said in my previous post)... it outperforms the old version in every department... it's an amazing car and a good looking car in its own merits, but not when compared to the 80's model which is an absolute classic. Just imho. I don't like the "Boxster front" on 996 at all. Pretty much the same argument against the new steel Sub... it has nothing to do with technical facts, just emotion. But of course those are just my subjective opinions. PS: Actually I'm a "Shark man" through and through. I love the 928. Especially the late 90's GTS... the only reason why I don't own one yet is that it's a scary animal. It eats your wallet dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praetor Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 I agree that it's a good move for Rolex though. Bigger and shinier things sell better, especially to the younger generation, whose main purpose of getting a Rolex is mainly a measure of their success. Notice how Rolex changed their advertisements from "The toughest watches in the world" in the 60s to "A crown for every achievement". But for those who appreciate the history of Rolex as tool watches, vintage is always better than new. It's funny because when I bought my first Rolex, (a wm9 16610), I began to like vintage Rolex watches more and am now planning to build a 1665 DRSD and a 5514. I guess I'm one of those rare ppl that go that path haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneed12 Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 PS: Actually I'm a "Shark man" through and through. I love the 928. Especially the late 90's GTS... the only reason why I don't own one yet is that it's a scary animal. It eats your wallet dry. Uh oh... I much prefer the 944 to the 928! In fact, I just last week bought back my first 944 Turbo from the guy I sold it to... It's got chrome phone dials on it now, but I think I might try and find another set of Fuchs like that. Or maybe just go 17" Boxster wheels with spacers, I dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 944 is a great car. Turbo version is a bad ass vehicle, and highly underrated very fast car which handles great. But for me the 928 GTS is simply the coolest car ever made. I have dreamed about one since I was a teenager. The lines of 944 are a bit dated (imho) but the 928 will always look absolutely timeless. PS: Sorry people for takin' this offtopic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneed12 Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 944 is a great car. Turbo version is a bad ass vehicle, and highly underrated very fast car which handles great. But for me the 928 GTS is simply the coolest car ever made. I have dreamed about one since I was a teenager. The lines of 944 are a bit dated (imho) but the 928 will always look absolutely timeless. PS: Sorry people for takin' this offtopic. I agree the 928 is a nice (better looking) car than the 944/951. Those wheels and the spoiler look incredible... but to me a Porsche will always be a driver's car first and the 928s are simply too heavy. Great highway cars though. I saw this in Zurich last year when I was there with a friend: And now, back to your regularly scheduled Rolex content... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosnik Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Some '44 are a real Classic too. Turbo Cab: Turbo CUP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prsist Posted December 14, 2010 Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 944 is a great car. Turbo version is a bad ass vehicle, and highly underrated very fast car which handles great. But for me the 928 GTS is simply the coolest car ever made. I have dreamed about one since I was a teenager. The lines of 944 are a bit dated (imho) but the 928 will always look absolutely timeless. PS: Sorry people for takin' this offtopic. +1 I agree, the 928 S4 is sexy, especially with the fat boys on back. I miss my 944 Turbo S, She was a rocket! As well as a sieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pman Posted December 14, 2010 Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 I'm must be one of the younger guys here. I love the new 116610 and the 996. I'll start with the Ceramic Sub. I like the maxi dial, ceramic bezel (the Sub bezel always looked cheap to me, even on the gen) and clasp. The Ceramic Sub bracelet feels much more substantial and quality. I always found it amazing that a watch that cost thousands had such a cheap looking bezel ring and 'tinny' bracelet. I liken it to closing the door on a german import compared to low priced economy car. I'm seriously thinking about buying one. I've actually gone to an AD to try it on, which I've never done before for any other gen. The watch is very impressive in person. It is hard to believe that by looking at Prsist 928 pictures that the 928 model was designed in the 80's. It still looks fresh and current today. I bought a slightly used 996 C4 about seven years ago. The 996 is a great car, it's the best car I've ever owned. I agree with By-tor, the car is technically better in every way. It doesn't have the soul of a 993 but as a P-car to drive every day a 996 can't be beat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted December 15, 2010 Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 It's not going to be a surprise that I still wait for a watch to replace the 16610 on my wrist ! I wear mine almost 90% of the time. I bought the rep of the 116610 and wear it from time to time but it feels ...fake Seriously, the new sub was needed for commercial purposes but the result will not replace the 16610/1680 ones. Never. There is something authentic in both the 1680 and 16610, a spirit. A bit like in a good old Alfa Romeo (sorry Porshe isn't talking to me, probably because I can't afford ). The 116610 is flashy, bling bling, m'as tu vu, new money, ... It will never be wearable with a suit in example, where a 16610 fits almost all dresses. Only my two cents of course. edit to say: I'm 50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiesn089 Posted December 15, 2010 Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 997, 987!!! Watches on the other hand, vintage, VINTAGE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Hmm, i think your out of here mr needo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.