Does Anyone actually prefer 116610 over 16610?

[By-Tor]

I had a chance to examine the new fat lugs 166610 in person (gen) two weeks ago. It was my collague's watch.

While it's definitely a great watch technically it's really hard to see its attraction.

Especially when compared to perfection that's 16610. It's difficult to describe it but the new one looks very clumsy and it has lost all its slender, attractive "lines".

For example here, in this forum 16610 seems to be at least ten times more popular than 166610. I wonder what kind of sales figures the gen has drawn as this seems to be the case on the gen forums as well.

I think it would have been a good business move for Rolex to leave the no-date version available as the old 14060 version so that people could still buy a new classic Submariner.

What do you think?

[rek001]

By-Tor, where you been hiding buddy? Good to see you posting.

 

I agree, I've tried to like the new Submariner but it's not growing on me. The design is just trying too hard to be "modern" to appeal to a younger market.

It reminds me of the new Cadillac design language, sharper, more aggressive lines, more pumped up curves, more muscular. I don't care for the new Caddys much either, lol.

[JoeyB]

Like the 116710 before it, I think Rolex made a mistake by going to the fat lug case. The ceramic insert is a huge improvement over the stamped metal insert on both, and the maxi dial/hands are nice for older eyes and don't take away from the watch. The solid end link/mid link bracelet, already improved over cheap looking stamped steel, benefits from an added Glide-Loc clasp, and the Triploc crown on the 116710, to make the watches the most durable and practical in the line. But the fat lug case negates all that for me. Though I love the 6542, the 16710 'K' series with the Glide-Loc clasp is till tops in my book. 

[By-Tor]

I don't mind the flimsy clasp at all. It's very comfortable and bullet proof and wouldn't trade it for anything.

When I wear my gen Steelfish and hand it over to anyone for examination, they're ALL impressed of it. Even a non-watch person can immediately tell it's an expensive watch. Of course "expensive" is relative when talking about only $2K watch but for "normal" people that's hell of a lot money for a timepiece.

Classic Rolexes don't impress people much. They're only impressed of the brand and the reputation.

But for me a classic Rolex is like an old Porsche 911. When you take a look at its cabin, it's almost like VW-Beetle. There's nothing but the steering wheel. It's really "raw" and stripped in every way. A Toyota Crown from the same era is more luxurious and modern.

But an old classic 911 will always cost more than the 996, which was never accepted by the Porsche enthusiasts (although 996 is much better car in all technical terms).

I think such dramatic change in design was a big mistake, especially with Submariner. I would be curious to see the sales numbers.

[correctime]

The 16610 Submariner is the Rolex "icon".

Mention Rolex and people automatically think Submariner.

I'm not a huge fan of the "chunky, bulkiness" of the 116610's or any of the new ceramic line by Rolex.

I'm a staright up 16800/16610 fan.

But IMHO the 2201.50 Omega (42mm Planet Ocean) is twice the watch the 16610 is and about half the price.

And "alot" less than half the price when going Franken status with a PO.

Impressed when handed a Brietling SF...I should think so. AWESOME timepiece

I had more notice with interest from the v5 42mm PO (stock) when I had one over that of the 16800 Submariner (all gen with the exception of the midcase)

[gplracer]

But an old classic 911 will always cost more than the 996, which was never accepted by the Porsche enthusiasts (although 996 is much better car in all technical terms).

here here!

[preacher62]

I can truthfully say that I have never spent one minute dreaming of any of the modern subs. I think the 166610 is "clunky" to use a descriptor. I even drilled lug holes in my MBK 16610 so it would look even more vintage.

[jpz5142]

Now, if they were to redesign the sub to be in a similar case shape as the 216570 I'd be all over it. But then again I'm probably a target demographic for the "modern" Rolex. But I really don't like the 116610, fat lugs make it look ugly!

[dan_189]

Are we talking 166610 vs 16610 or 116610 to 16610? Or just modern Subs in general?

 

Either way 116610 vs 16610 IMO if we were able to source 1:1 cases and genuine parts more readily they would be (if not more) popular. Its the fact the 16610 can be built most to perfection that drives its praise and following... Or at least thats the case for me!!

 

Ive seen the 116610 in person, its nothing short of amazing which you would expect especially compared to the 116610 reps that are being made,,,   

[ceocorona]

Very different watches for two different audiences.  I agree that the classic sub should live on to satisfy those looking for the timeless classic that the 16610 is.  

[panerai153]

I'm not a huge fan of either one, although I own a gen "P" serial 16610. To me neither one holds a candle to the 1680, but then I'm really a vintage lover!!!

Of the two though, I much prefer the 16610. I don't like the g

Big chunky CG's on the 116610, and the whole watch looks too massive.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[By-Tor]

I just found out about this black and blue GMT.

What a silly Invicta-like color combo. Why don't Rolex give its customers what they want? Read: The iconinc Pepsi that's so "Rolex". Can't they make ANYTHING right anymore? It's like they're pissing on their old traditions and enjoying it.

This is cool only if you want to know what time it is in Gayville.

[ubiquitous]

Through the years, the Submariner's design has always been an evolution.

 

With the new 116610 however, it seems to be more of a revolution than anything.

 

Personally, I have not warmed up to the new case, despite the improvements (both aesthetic and mechanical). I think most of it (to me) is how imbalanced the case/bracelet combination is.

 

Seems that Rolex is trying to follow the trends of the watch world instead of simply doing what they do best.

[JoeyB]

That blue/black is just ugly. And the Blue GMT hand is likely more difficult to see while on the wrist than the green one. A 'Pepsi' ceramic insert with the red hand would be an improvement. 

 

I think Ubi is right, Rolex went with the bigger watch case to match a perceived style from the competition. It's like forcing the issue, and that rarely works. 

[robertk]

I much prefer the 16610. It's a classic design that is one of the best rolex designs ever. I agree that the 116610 is just part of the trendy direction of Rolex.

[dan_189]

Regardless of what Rolex do people will still buy them and they will still be popular. The style doesnt completely deviate from previous models. Im sure people would have had similar conversations from 1680 -> 16800. As ubiquitous mentioned its an evolution, no one can stop it!

[By-Tor]

Yeah... but Rolex case was almost 100% similar from the earliest 1680 to 16610. That means over 40 years.

Evolution? Of course... nothing against that. I wouldn't have had a problem if they had just improved the clasp and put a ceramic bezel on it. But this was no evolution... Rolex butchered and ruined the classic beautiful lines.

Let's face it: The only other case change (besides this) was when crown guards were introduced back in 1967.

[automatico]

Imho...

The only thing that beats a 16610 is a flat dial 16800.

The only thing that beats a 16800 is a 1680.

The only thing that beats a 1680 is a 5513.

The only thing that beats a 5513 is a 5512.

The only thing that beats a 5512 is a hammer.    

 

"I don't mind the flimsy clasp at all. It's very comfortable and bullet proof and wouldn't trade it for anything."

+1

 

I'm kinda stuck in the past.    

[dan_189]

In terms of clasp I like the newer glidelock clasp for minor adjustments, its clever