Has the 16610 become Passe or Still Hot?

[Ronin]

Just curious. I see 16610's everywhere these days. Actually, I see MORE 16610's in my city, and in airports, than I do Seiko's.

Also, from a REP perspective, REPS have become so good that at arm's length I am having trouble discerning a quality rep from a gen.

Have we finally reached the point "Who has the best Sub (16610)" is old hat? Passe', Boring? "Ohh look, another business traveler wearing a 16610..."

Personally, I see a 16610 in the wild these days and think _____________________________...

Thoughts? Fill in the blank.

[Nanuq]

Fill in the blank: "Ewwwwwww it's another contemporary / boring Rolex with a flat crystal. If only he had the sense God gave a newt, and had bought a lovely vintage instead."

[Guest zeleni kukuruz]

Mr R, for me it's Passe big time! Due the construction, its to darn modern for me, it lacks spirit, personalety and love!

[dluddy]

The basic modern Sub will and has been an iconic symbol of success and the first real purchase for many in business.

I don't think it will change and remember: today's modern = tomorrow's vintage

[By-Tor]

How could it become passe? It's a legend.

It's absolutely perfect and the slender lines and classy white gold markers perfected the looks after 1680.

Best Rolex ever (along with 16710). Absolutely no doubt about it... in my mind, anyway.

[dieselpower]

What a pillock, whether it's gen or rep.

[sgtguk]

It's a watch that's suitable for any occasion and the one that for me finds it's way onto my wrist the most, understated to say the least

So yes still hot and the one design that every other watch company wishes they had thought of first

[alligoat]

I'm with dluddy and By-Tor on this. In it's 22+ year run it's even morphed into a better watch- no lugholes, super luminova dial and hands, better end pieces on the bracelet and an improved mainspring. Besides, the early R, L, E and X serials are becoming collector's pieces in their own right. And we're lucky because we finally have great reps of this iconoc piece.

[danielv2000]

I prefer the 16600

[Ephry73]

I like the lugholes. What I like about the watch is how versatile it is and keeps its "cool" under all conditions.

E

[Nanuq]

The wearer's hoped-for response....

OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! It's a ROLEX!!!

My response....

Ewwwww, what's that stench?

[gavidoc]

Prefer the lug hole subs. If you have to go "modern" sub, I say go for 16800. Sapphire, matte dial, and can take the 93250. Best of both worlds.

[highoeyazmuhudee]

its too common for my liking.

VINTAGE BABY! it shows an appreciation for the pedigree, not just some trendy wrist jewelry

[Nanuq]

VINTAGE BABY! it shows an appreciation for the pedigree, not just some trendy wrist jewelry

Now we're talking. Give me a scabby old Tudor Snowflake over a brand new Rollie any day.

[freddy333]

Although I am not a fan of the metalized dials, I always enjoy seeing a Sub. It is & will always be a classic icon.

[HartDoc]

Now we're talking. Give me a scabby old Tudor Snowflake over a brand new Rollie any day.

Me too, I currently in search of a gen snowflake to go with my rep snowflake.

for under $3 k for a minty gen that looks good all day every day I take that along with a 1675 (havent decided if I going gen or franken rep yet)

[Ronin]

Excellent responses guys. Just what I hoped for.

It was the Submariner that got me into watches. (1680, 551x)

However, these days, when I see a 16610, especially a non-lug hole version, I can't help but think-- 'meh, another Sub, nothing special. Conversely, when I (rarely) catch a glimpse of a vintage Sub, my attention is peaked, and my response is cool, kick ass! Similar with other brands. If I see a Jaeger, Vacheron in the wild, I take even more notice, and am more excited. Seeing a Doxa, Ball, Sinn, Ebel, Bremont, even Longines in the wild makes me more excited than a 16610.

To By-Tor's point on the 16710 (GMT), now that is a bit more evolutionary in my opinion, and I still think cool when I see one. The 3135 movement GMT feature and slim design and the sapphire crystal seems right at home on it.

Design aside, could there be too much of a good thing out there. Sort of like the iPhone, seems like everyone has one these days and thus-- nothing special. If the roads were suddenly flooded with people driving Ferrari's, would they be less relevant as a product?

Keep the conversation coming.

When you a see a 16610 in the wild you think _______ ?

Do you think a 16610 will ever be as collectable as the Acrylic versions? (Not in my opinion, high volume produced, consistant (less variation) and more surviving. Will probably remain a used $4000 watch.)

[Nanuq]

If the roads were suddenly flooded with people driving Ferrari's, would they be less relevant as a product?

And there's the crux of the biscuit.

So we build our watches. That makes them unique, special, and we know the quality is superb.

[cc33]

When I see one I think, hmm he could have had a nice 5513 or 1680 or 1675 and the like, for the price he paid for that.... It's kind of a shame actually because I really believe that the prices of those 4 digit watches will skyrocket in the coming decades. I do not believe that the modern sapphire ones will be very collectible with the exception of the ones that didn't sell well (so less of them were made) and 'limited' ones like the lv green subs and such, and the few that had military affiliations (comex etc). Problem is they're too well made imo, the dials won't change over time, at least not anywhere as dramatically as the older ones. They are all exactly the same, there are no major dial variations or use of silver or gold gilt, no gilt handed versions or versions with diff hands. I think many would agree that when you buy a vintage watch you are buying a one of a kind item, no two are exactly alike. In the future when all these watches are up for sale, yes they will cost more than they do now but who cares, boring, meanwhile the old unique ones will sell for small fortunes. Everyone wants perfection these days, my bezel insert has a tiny scratch on it, service it and have rolex swap it for a new one and let them keep the old one?!?, ya that makes sense.. The owners won't even allow their watches to age. Like California girls, forever young.

[cc33]

Quote from a blog:

"I can only say - that collecting vintage rolex subs could be a very alternative pension plan ;-)

What is positive about having vintage watches as a pension plan.

It is fun

You can look at your investment daily

You can wear your investment

No tax when selling your watch investment

Risk - so so - but that is also true about stocks

It could be fun ....."

[m3amg]

Not passe for me and I still love it. My grail watch when I got it. I remember seeing the Pepsi dial GMT in the 70's and fell in love with the watch and had no idea what a Rolex watch was until I got much older. Then I learned about subs and got a 16610. Then I learned more and wanted a 1680. Now I want a 5513.

Edited October 26, 2012 by m3amg

[correctime]

I don't think the Submariner will ever "come to pass".

I've always been a Submariner fan and I'm not the "bling bling" kinda guy.

The 116610 is a Beautiful piece in it's own right....but the shiny ceramic insert and the maxi-dial set up just isn't my style. Beautiful, but just not "me".

The 16610 is an awesome piece as well (and an unforgettable icon) but I've found even the new shiny modern insert and glossy black dial, paired with deep, shiny rehaut to be "too much" for me as well.

So it's the 16800 for me...with it's matte finish dial, fading insert and yes...those lug holes...to me all the Subs are awesome but I'm a die-hard 16800 Fan now

[cougar1]

I think the 16610 is the very last of the great Rolex subs, classic in fit and function. The ceramics are horrific disjointed looking pieces of bling. Is is a bit of a shame that the 16610 became the 'one good watch' of choice for anyone with a good salary. You kind of get the feeling that you just can't approach someone with a 16610 and talk watches, say "nice sub" and 90% of the time you'll get a wtf "it's not a sub, it's a rolex" type answer. Still great watches though!

[By-Tor]

I never liked the vintages that much. 1675, yes, because it has slender lines. Vintage Sea Dweller is nice too. But the bulged crystal on 1680 ruins the watch for me. It's a taste thing... I totally understand the attraction but it just isn't my cup of tea.

Personally I think 16610 perfected the Sub. Maybe it has something to do with my age. I'm 40 now... I grew up admiring those 5-digit Rolexes. Maybe older guys feel the same way about the vintages... and maybe the young generation loves those fat lug versions. Personally I think they ruined the classic. Improving perfection isn't possible.

[Ephry73]

Long live the 16800 sub then !