By-Tor Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 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. +1 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! Maybe in the US but not necessarily here in Europe. If someone here wears a Sub he's automatically a "watch guy" in my eyes. You don't see them that much. A lot of older guys are wearing DateJusts. I never liked DJ's that much... that's a real "old man watch"... especially this version with a Jubilee bracelet... it's really difficult to see its attraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panerai153 Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I am, and have always been a vintage Rolex fan. However I must confess, I have a very nice "P" serial 16610 in my watchbox .Mine is from 2000, so it's a ways away from being a vintage, but it does have lugholes which was one of my requirements when I started looking for one a few years ago. Will they ever be "collectible" ? Who knows?. I'm sure the 166610 has been produced in far greater numbers than probably all the previous subs combined, so there are lots and lots of them out there.Possibly in 30 or 40 years, they may be as revered as the 1680. Why do I own one? Well, first it is the natural progression from the 1680. There is no question that the 3135 movement is a really great movement, more than likely superior to the 1570 series. I am confident that it's more water resistant than my vintage models, so I can wear it and really forget about getting it wet under pressure. Although I don't use it when diving, I could if i wanted to. I'm not a big fan of the flat sapphire "fingerprint magnet" crystal. In fact my MKII Kingstons have a much nicer curved sapphire crystal. No doubt the bracelet and end links are better fitting and sturdier than the old 9315's and/or the 7206 Rivet bracelets.They aren't necessarily more comfortable, but they are more solid and longer lasting.Lastly, if you are collecting watches to keep and ultimately pass along to your sons, grandsons, etc. I can't think of a nicer watch to leave as a gift to remember you by. I know most of you fellows here are probably of the age that "passing something along" is pretty low on your priority list, at my age, it begins to become more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ephry73 Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 My attraction with the Rolex I hate to admit comes from my dad. His custom was always something that he bragged about. He was always a fan of Sean Connery and of course, I did research for my dad. I love the vintage pieces, but the subs in particular are my favorite. As a waterman I tend to lean towards five watches. Practical, useful tool watches will always be my favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seacraft Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think the 1680 might be the best all around. Many more collectable - though you can get in trouble with Reds - it is just the quintessential sub. Part of why I chose the slightly more cool & underground 1680 cousin - a Tudor Snowflake 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 ....." My kids college fund generation project Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted October 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I have to agree. By-Tor's analysis is spot on. The 16610 is the evolution, perhaps final evolution of the "Great" Submariners. It is a great watch and thus successful in its sales numbers. Just like an iPhone. Personal feelings aside, design aesthetics aside-- is it a victim of its success? To get back the to the real question-- Does seeing a 16610 in public wow you, woo you? Put another way, and keeping on topic here in the Rolex sub forum-- What Rolex, being worn by stranger in public would WoW you? (My bet is it would NOT be the 16610) YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woof* Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I have to agree. By-Tor's analysis is spot on. The 16610 is the evolution, perhaps final evolution of the "Great" Submariners. It is a great watch and thus successful in its sales numbers. Just like an iPhone. Personal feelings aside, design aesthetics aside-- is it a victim of its success? To get back the to the real question-- Does seeing a 16610 in public wow you, woo you? Put another way, and keeping on topic here in the Rolex sub forum-- What Rolex, being worn by stranger in public would WoW you? (My bet is it would NOT be the 16610) YMMV. I'm impressed when I see someone wearing a vintage Daytona....like twice in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieselpower Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Like everything, time is the greatest test of all. In 50 years time how will the 16610 compare to the 1680 and then the 5513 from the 70's? For me it's a no brainer, the 16610 will be regarded as a nice, blinged up impersonation of the real thing and given that we live now and not 50 years hence then I'd go for the classics every time. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. PS @Nook, was crying laughing at your Clint Eastwood reaction to the modern piece - my sentiments exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrashish Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think the 16610 was the natural evolution of the Submariner—though the 116610 is a bridge too far. So it will never be passe. And I still get excited when I see it in the wild. My theory when it comes to watches is to never spite the watch for its owners. That said, here's a little story to illustrate the difference between vintage and modern Rolex owners. A few years ago I worked at a bike rental kiosk in downtown Chicago while I was in school. I was wearing a mediocre 16610 rep at the time, though it was generally concealed underneath the cuff of my jacket. One time, a guy came in wearing a shiny new GMTIIc. I complimented him on his watch, and he sneered at me, saying "Oh, I see that you have one too?" His sarcasm was hard to miss. I punted, and just moved on with my sales pitch. A couple of weeks later, a middle-aged Australian guy came in with a BEAUTIFUL 1675 on a jubilee bracelet. I didn't say anything until he was leaving, when I blubbered that his watch was one of the most beautiful vintage Rolexes that I'd ever seen. He was taken aback, and thanked me. He said that he'd had it since it was new, and was considering selling it since the GMT hand was sticking sometimes (he figured that he could get maybe $1000 for it). While I SHOULD have offered to pay him a grand right there and then... Instead I told him that he should keep it or give it to his kids (he loved that second idea). And then told him that he could definitely get more than a few thousand for it, if he decided to sell. He was so happy to talk about his watch and its history—and was genuinely excited that someone had an interest in his watch. Granted, that's too small of a sample size to draw any broad conclusions... But I think we all know how much more interesting vintage owners are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panerai153 Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think the 16610 was the natural evolution of the Submariner—though the 116610 is a bridge too far. So it will never be passe. And I still get excited when I see it in the wild. My theory when it comes to watches is to never spite the watch for its owners. That said, here's a little story to illustrate the difference between vintage and modern Rolex owners. A few years ago I worked at a bike rental kiosk in downtown Chicago while I was in school. I was wearing a mediocre 16610 rep at the time, though it was generally concealed underneath the cuff of my jacket. One time, a guy came in wearing a shiny new GMTIIc. I complimented him on his watch, and he sneered at me, saying "Oh, I see that you have one too?" His sarcasm was hard to miss. I punted, and just moved on with my sales pitch. A couple of weeks later, a middle-aged Australian guy came in with a BEAUTIFUL 1675 on a jubilee bracelet. I didn't say anything until he was leaving, when I blubbered that his watch was one of the most beautiful vintage Rolexes that I'd ever seen. He was taken aback, and thanked me. He said that he'd had it since it was new, and was considering selling it since the GMT hand was sticking sometimes (he figured that he could get maybe $1000 for it). While I SHOULD have offered to pay him a grand right there and then... Instead I told him that he should keep it or give it to his kids (he loved that second idea). And then told him that he could definitely get more than a few thousand for it, if he decided to sell. He was so happy to talk about his watch and its history—and was genuinely excited that someone had an interest in his watch. Granted, that's too small of a sample size to draw any broad conclusions... But I think we all know how much more interesting vintage owners are! Pretty amazing how the "clubby" status is diluted and finally disappears as products become more popular, and folks buy them for the prestige value rather than because they are really good well made products. Sort of reminds me of the Land Rover/Range Rover folks. Years ago, when the only Rovers in the USA were the old Series models brought into the USA in the late 60's and 70's. The owners of these old machines are all members of the "land Rover Owners Club" which really isn't a club at all. When I owned mine, every time i passed another old Rover, I dipped my lights, waved. etc. Of course when the Range Rover was reintroduced to the US, it came back not as an ugly duckling little utility vehicle, but a high toned luxury vehicle. I can guarantee the Range Rover drivers don't smile and wave at old Rovers or new Rovers either. The Aussie with the 1675 was like the old Series 2A owner, the a**hole GMTIIC owner was like the RangeRover HSE owner. No affection and connection to the brand at all. He bought his Rolex, because he wanted something on his wrist to reinforce his insecurities about him actually "Having Arrived". The absolute worst thing that can happen to an insecure person is to see someone who they deem "unworthy" with the same stuff that they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3amg Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Interesting and comedic to see the broad conclusions and stereotypes members here buy into just from seeing a modern Rolex on somebody. I guess that is how the Amish view people who drive actual automobiles and not the good old horse and buggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc33 Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 No, it's like comparing 60's cars with modern ones, not horse and buggy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
automatico Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 "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." +1 "I think the 16610 was the natural evolution of the Submariner—though the 116610 is a bridge too far." +1 VINTAGE BABY! it shows an appreciation for the pedigree, not just some trendy wrist jewelry" +1 The 1680, 16800, and 16610 are certainly classics. I never really warmed up to 'bezel watches' for an everyday watch so my favorite rolex to actually wear has never changed...slow set steel DJ, same one for 40 years (plus a few along the way). My favorite bezel watches are 1675, 5512, 5513, 1680 in that order. I have them all but only the 1675 is all genuine. Just can't get used to 'top hat' crystals on 1680. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'm actually pissed off that my WM9 with gen insert & crown & bracelet mods is pretty much indistinguishable from the gen. I could use a good excuse to buy the gen. Maybe I'll get the 14060. But wait... my dad already has one and promised it to me. Funny... after being in this hobby for nearly 10 years the circle is complete. Plain old Steel Sub gets the most wrist time at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted October 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 ^^^^ 14060 Non-COSC FTW. Seeing a 14060 (especially Non-COSC, which is easily confused for a 5513 until you validate sapphire) gets me excited still. I just don't get excited when I see a 16610. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmj Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Vintage for me please... The 16610 is very common .. I am however not adverse to a custom non cg version from project x or the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) The basic modern Sub will and has been an iconic symbol of success and the first real purchase for many in business. Right. For the vast majority, who also have no affection for haute horlogerie in general, the basic modern sub is a reflexive purchase upon reaching a certain level of success. It's like one of those no brainers, which also makes it particularly uninteresting but still a very handsome piece. I don't think it will change and remember: today's modern = tomorrow's vintage Heh, and that's partly why I have my son's birth year sub sitting pristine in a safe for him. Edited October 28, 2012 by chieftang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now