Rolex 16610 vs. Rolex 116610 Submariner Comparison Review - Old Pre Ceramic Vs New Ceramic

[@michaelbishop9157]

Much prefer the look and character of the pre-ceramic, pre-maxi case submariners. Like the more understated and classic look of the older subs

[@Gogettor]

Michael Bishop more class.

[@muriloninja]

I think I like the original better as well.

[@mariosolomon2513]

Sorry to be off topic but does someone know of a trick to get back into an instagram account..? I stupidly forgot the account password. I love any tricks you can offer me.

[@yosefsimon4099]

@Mario Solomon Instablaster :)

[@mariosolomon2513]

@Yosef Simon thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site thru google and I'm in the hacking process now. I see it takes a while so I will reply here later with my results.

[@chateaubullion2560]

I have the 16610 and visually I think it's more pleasing to look at. The maxi case looks out of proportion and in this case bigger is certainly not better. However I do like the new 116610 bracelet.

[@timmanion7459]

I own both and although it's almost becoming popular to bash on the super case , I've come to really appreciate the robustness of it . And the braclet on the 116610LN is without a doubt the best in the business. Just my opinion, but after starting with my first Submariner a 5513 , in 1968 and buying a few different models as they came out , I've come to love my new one . And yes , I've kept them all in my collection.

[@AtilioEscobar]

So much anxiety, you using that metal tip strap tool.

[@bobswatches]

Hope your recovery was speedy!

[@imranbecks]

@@bobswatches "Speedy".. I see what you did there.. Lol...

[@mdaydj]

its only a watch

[@pintthereof4598]

mdaydj it’s only £6,000

[@Creativemnds]

It's a subby. They're masterpiece watches and robust as fuck. No issues handling it with care

[@boezinter7013]

Great comparison, well done guys, best one I have seen yet. I will be getting one of these watches someday. Really still liking the 16610 still.

[@bobswatches]

Glad you enjoyed it! The 16610 is still a solid piece.

[@rockon21ful]

Classic case with new bracelet and clasp would be my perfect Sub🌟⭐️🌟⭐️🌟

[@alwong604]

trevor walker I did it mine, you won’t regret it

[@uzeyourillusion]

@@alwong604 did you buy the glide lock bracelet from Rolex ?

[@tidalchiang]

Are they competible?

[@nelsondav100]

I’ve worn mine daily since 1995 so I’m a bit partial to the older model.

[@oekon]

How is it now? No problems using it daily for so long? I'm thinking about buying a 1996 model because that's my date of birth.

[@nelsondav100]

Raffy it just keeps running and running. It’s been into Rolex once for cleaning and that’s it. Beautiful watch.

[@Creativemnds]

Mine is 1994 model. I wear it regularly. It looks like a new watch. Use toothpaste on the watch face and rub it in before you shower with it. The watch face comes out sparkling. Sensational watch

[@mossakassabi9870]

عندي.ساعات.قديمة.لبيع

[@jessedavis7555]

I love my 16610 🔥 Feels perfect with the right combination of weight and thickness under the cuff.

[@Yakman18]

Wow, the the older model really has a much more elegant case and look.

[@jaf6423]

I like the proportions of the 16610 better but the bracelet and bezel are way better on the new one. I would be very happy with either

[@nicholastesta5387]

What’s the better daily wearer for a 7.5 inch wrist? Looking to pick one of these up just can’t pick. It’d be great to get the 5 digit on a new bracelet.

[@mohawkman4506]

5 digit all the way ! I own both an the 5 digit are way more comfortable! Plus the 5 digit have more of a tool look 👀 as apposed to the 6 digit that a bit more flashy an dressy

[@duck853]

The supercase was the reason I passed on picking up a 116610 Submariner in 2010 as a retirement present to myself. There were no 16610 new old stock to be found at the time. Unfortunately the 126610/124060 doesn't look as though it did enough to return the gorgeous form to the Submariner. I'm going to an AD to see if there one in person to see (Japan has a couple places).

[@PrBaLLaz123]

Always love your content. Which camera set up are you using? Such great lighting and very sharp clarity.

[@toddaod295]

I actually found a brand new original 97200 (glidelock) bracelet which fits the 16610 as if it was the original bracelet. 16610 no holes V2009 and 97200 bracelet...I have created my dream watch. Not only better proportioned but less glittery and shiny as with the ceramic bezel. Also the more aggressive, sharp teeth of the bezel on the newer 116610 would always "catch" clothes and whatever it comes in contact with and move around quite often. This doesn't happen nearly as much on the less aggressive classic 16610 bezel. I did wear the 116610 for about 1 year and "IMO" prefer the 16610.

[@msbrownbeast]

I also prefer the older 16610. I still have mine - L series, 1st year it came out - the tritium lume no longer shines ( but doesn't matter). The current Sub case with the fat lugs is ugly. It adds unnecessary bulk and weight to an already heavy watch.

[@andrewgiblin3468]

Love the old one as it has way better proportions IMO, I have a new one with the maxi case and prefer wearing my 39 mm Stienhart homage.

[@Baztation]

when is the last produce of 16610 before the change? is it 2009?

[@martin.B777]

16610 is in a CLASS of its own!🤑

[@Ninjadom]

Good video. The DJI Mic 2 does have Noise Reduction too. Quick Press the power button and the light turns green for Noise Reduction mode.

[@grozwano]

I have a 16610 with engraved rehaut. It is way better that the new one. But that’s ONLY my opinion

[@michaelfleming8490]

9:09. Yeah, I had such a big dinner that my wrist is now fatter and I need to expand my watch bracelet lol. It’s more like if it’s a hot day (or a really cold day) and you need to fine tune your clasp.

[@BestCommentor17]

Why in the new one have blue light tint on the cyclops lens??

[@andrewwolkowich]

I like the older one better.

[@thelazyrouleur]

I feel that the 16610 feels a bit more discreet and subtle than the 116610. Will be my next purchase for sure!

[@bobswatches]

I agree @p.bathy... It definitley does not stand out as much as the 116610, I think it serves as an even better daily watch! Would you wear the 16610 daily or just on occasion?

[@thelazyrouleur]

@@bobswatches I have a few watches in my rotation but if I do purchase a 16610, it’ll certainly be worn as often as my Breitling Superocean 42!

[@Baztation]

yah yah Great video!.....I go for vintage all the way

[@johntiscione7507]

I own a 114060 submariner..like the new style lugs and the glidelick bracelet is heads above the old clasp..i prefer the clean look of the no date..116610LN is still a beautiful watcj

[@bobswatches]

The updated bracelet really is a wonder isn't it? Thanks for checking out our video!

[@Thevoiceofreason84]

John Tiscione me too 👍

[@JoeNunez.83]

Does de ref 116610LN came with green lumen in certain years?..

[@richarddawson5836]

Older version looks much better. Classier look. The maxi case looks clunky.

[@douglashodge7364]

Got a 2009 16110 and it cost the same as 2010 11610. I just think that the 16110 has much better style and in my humble opinion the best looking watch ever made

[@rodolfogarcia-rq5xi]

I have a 16610 . Is it possible to change the bezel of a 116610 and place it on the 16610? Thank you!

[@ujjwalkarki5680]

no

[@tonielcock8891]

I like the 16610

[@Joe-zk7tm]

Thank you for this great video! Good Job!!

[@bobswatches]

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it!

[@jayden5718]

I have both, and I like them both in their own ways. I love the glidelock on de 116610

[@jimbojet8728]

A great vid. So clear and concise. My preference is the Ceramic version. I like the larger watch feel on my wrist. Thank you

[@davewoo7114]

vote for 5 digits. always vinatge which classic. Just like a Classic sport car,

[@Ahtche]

great video , im going to get the sub2020 im hesitating between the date or no date

[@armancz]

Vintage, all day every day.

[@bobswatches]

Ages like a fine wine. Thanks for checking out our video!

[@thegorn]

Dude keep that scratchy strap tool away from the watches! The older one had a better size for sure.9:05 "had a big dinner and need more room". Dude it's a watch band, not a pants belt.

[@cfrincon]

The ceramic bezel just works so much more for me. Plus the 116610LN looks so much more beautifully proportioned.

[@bobswatches]

The ceramic bezel insert really turns the watch into a luxury piece.

[@Longshore79]

Bob's Watches exactly. You can dress up the ceramic Version.

[@icolater27]

Older is nicer. New one is to big and tacky.

[@dutchdeno]

The 16610 have proven it self through time, now let’s see how the 116610 age with time.

[@bobswatches]

Only time will tell!

[@bobmichals7651]

Does the new sub weigh more than previous model?

[@alwong604]

I have a 16600 and 116660 and my favourite improvement is the bracelet and glidelock

[@redhatblacksfarmy1616]

Bit zoom in would have been good! Good Video though!

[@bobswatches]

Thanks!

[@cat1racer]

The older one looks better.

[@riverito911]

Got mine in 2003. Almost as daily driver, despite owning about 20 watches, most of them more expensive than the Sub.

[@carlosguilhermesilveiraped5017]

The new model is obviously a more "modern" watch with improvements over the older model. However, it is just too bulky/beefy. Unless you are 6'4" and 250 lb. it will just look too heavy (which it is) on a "normal" wrist. The case is uglier, square. The 16610 represents the "classic" submariner better. More discrete, just looks nicer.

[@portauthority888]

Agree

[@Agent-vj3ns]

126610 shits all over both

[@oldirtydave22]

Lmaoooo this aged well

[@randyvillanueva3875]

I enjoy my new style Sub, but I think the difference between the two make getting a “Kermit” easier to justify. Thanks for the video!

[@portauthority888]

I like chunky watches but feel that Submariner should remains at 40mm. That's much classier.

[@authorjohnwquinn]

Love the new one! Saving up my money for it.

[@bobswatches]

Glad you made a decision on the one you want! Thanks for stopping by our video comparison!

[@mpfour4203]

The 16610 with a solid bracelet, and a double safety clasp. It is a divers watch, so the bracelet is a big thing for me. And a ceramic bezel would be a bonus, but not a dealbreaker.

[@davidnguyen1151]

Thank you for this video. I love the micro adjustments and the ceramic dial. So it’s the 116610 for me!

[@brois841]

I'd take the 116610 in every way except the width of the lugs!

[@Baztation]

me2

[@CharlieHustle1687]

Pre-ceramic all the way, the ceramic isn’t a true sub to me, it’s bling.

[@Herman-zc7te]

The older one because it more subtle.

[@secondopinion6654]

*I got mad at Rolex for coming out with a ceramic insert without a retrofit after decades of putting a delicate wafer thin anodized aluminum ring on a SPORTS WATCH and doing lots of service work just from replacing their delicate aluminum ring. Ridiculous. So I took my 16610 and put a ceramic insert in it made for it's bezel. It's the best of all worlds. The delicate aluminum insert is put away for safe keeping so that no one can tap it too hard with, oh let's see, their finger nail and dent it/scratch it.*

[@spalkin]

Just a couple of things, the lugs on the 11 aren't longer just fatter. Also the brushing on the lugs went to straight instead of circular. The watch wears bigger because the rehaut ring is steeper, therefore more open and the dial is larger in diameter. I can't stand the way they're going bigger and bigger. I hoped that androgynous dinner plates were going out. I would love the 16610 with satin ceramic.

[@fggfgffgfdgdfg7781]

i really like the old classic case size although the new bracelet and clasp is superior - Wearing the old one on a black rubber and the newest version with steel bracelet

[@mathew3293]

I've owned both of these watches, and currently have the sub c date and no date in my collection. I always preferred the 116610 over the 16610, mainly because of the superior bracelet and clasp. I always felt the stamped steel clasp on the 16610 looked flimsy and felt cheaper than it should on such a prestigious watch. Additionally, the maxi dial is more modern and the thicker lugs gives the watch a more imposing look. Not to mention the ceramic on the bezel is very durable, ideal for someone who wears these watches daily. 16610 aluminum bezel was prone to fade

[@PerKolind]

The old bracelets are terrible. It actually feels so cheap on the wrist, compared to the Sub C. Also glidelock is awesome obviously.

[@mathew3293]

@@PerKolind 100% agreed. Glidelock on sub c is probably the best clasp system on any sports watch on the market.

[@chongalawi6569]

Maybe this topic was raised before but I just noticed that some sub have the "300m" text on the dial written with a space between the "300" and the "m" and others don't have that space. Is this normal? I wanted to raise this topic because someone may think it is a fake watch (the one without space)

[@jeffp5162]

Just looking at the images. The earlier model looks much more classy, dare I say better quality.

[@ahuramazda980]

The indices on the older model also look smaller in comparison.

[@phughes4224]

The bracelet on the newer model is MUCH better.

[@hottubsgalore]

I've watched lots of comparison videos and not one of them mentions that the six-digit (116610) has "ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX" engraved along the interior perimeter. I love that little detail which I think makes it look more luxurious.

[@anima89x]

If you like that it’s worth that last 3 series of the 16610, released in its final 2-3 years, also had the engraved rehaut you mentioned.

[@genedevilliers2503]

Hour hand on ceramic model is also “beefier’’.

[@sachexplorer9500]

Old is gold....end of story 😊

[@eldiabolico3750]

You could have synchronized the two watches “Bob”...

[@bobswatches]

Should've. Would've. Could've. "Diablo"...

[@garysteven9600]

Like the newer version much better, just wish i could find one.

[@rmoshammer]

I really have a problem with the ceramic bezel, it can break if I pop it off to remove a grain of sand furthermore the plastic ring underneath should be changed everytime…

[@bloodymarvelous4790]

I took my 116600 Sea-Dweller in to have a link removed from the bracelet, and having that watch in their hands visibly excited the staff. They immediately recognized it, and started them off on a whole rant on the history of the model. I doubt you get that with a modern Submariner...

[@bobswatches]

That's awesome! The 116600 Sea-Dweller is such a respected piece, and it's great to see the staff appreciate it like that. The history behind it adds so much character, especially compared to the modern Submariner. It must feel special to own a watch that sparks that kind of enthusiasm!

[@johncorcoran2569]

Love the maxi dial.

[@daytonadiscdriver]

Zoom in! The background is......neat, but I’m here for the visuals of the watch. Not the tools on the table.

[@nobletype]

How is the 6 digit sub able to have a bigger bezel but still stay the same size? Are they actually the same size? Doesn't seem like it

[@mitchd949]

The bracelet on the 116610 looks too narrow for the case.

[@sethliberty9228]

Is this sacrilege? I want the 116610 on a leather strap

[@detonator2112]

The old one is just SO much better looking. It's like a fitness chick vs. an overweight chick with a huge waist. Sorry 116610 owners but that's the way it is.

[@alle1919]

detonator2112 I have both. I do not agree with your observation. And, I love both models. But, if you have a baby wrist then I can see your point.

[@986C]

Lol. Sure.. the old one is better. Sorry you can’t get one dude.

[@VergiliarEcaros]

But the bracelet of the old one is so cheap, like a steinhart bracelet

[@detonator2112]

@@VergiliarEcaros True. But it's part of the appeal. It's very comfortable bracelet. I briefly had a 116610 but traded it back to 16610 almost immediately. I just didn't like the "Breitlingsque" looks. The old one is perfect.

[@christophermills7304]

@@VergiliarEcarosthe bracelet on the later versions of the 16610 had the solid end links and screws so its only the clasp that differed from the new one.

[@FMK178]

For me especially the shiny look of the bezel is simply to ! much and to bold. It feels for me pretentious, hey, look at me, here I am. The maxi dial looks for me unbalanced in relation to the dial. For my very small wrist the especially the length of the lugs fit to big. Even the clasp feels for me much more small pretty and balanced to the bracelet. The new one has much improvement but the balance of all is definitely not mine. Motto: "Make it fat again", for me the new one reminds me close to brass knuckles in comparison to the older one. I own a Hulk and a 16610 from 2010. I prefer as a daily the 16610.

[@AZadeh-nd8vx]

The 116610 is actually a bigger watch. It measures 40.3mm whereas the 16610 measures 39.6mm - it's almost 1mm bigger. Also as you mention, the case is bigger and blockier - so it is a bigger watch

[@navegandolejanooriente6268]

I wish Rolex made the new 126610 the happy median of theses models but they went bigger :( the new submariner just doesn't wear as nice as the 16610 but imagine if they re issue the 16610 with the new movement and complete solid center links and on the fly adjustable clasp?

[@RobertGeez]

The ceramic bezel insert is just too shiny. It looks horrible in daylight. It doesn’t look black. Much prefer the classic Sub with perfect proportions and Aluminium insert that always looks black.

[@BossDD20]

Nice comparison. Still tied between the two. Probably will prefer the aluminum bezel for its more toolish design.

[@bobswatches]

Thanks!

[@WilfriedLeuze]

16610

[@bobswatches]

🔥

[@truxton1000]

I got a near unused 16610 from 2009, it's a marvel of a watch. The ceramic Sub is not as elegant and I much prefer the older model.

[@danbrennan153]

I'm thinking I would go post 2010 and get the upgraded solid bracelet with adjustable clasp (big improvements) and accept the ceramic bezel... Also my understanding is that due to the additional material on the supercase, affords potential additional polishings beyond a 5 digit model.???

[@007Chancellor]

I love every update EXCEPT the "maxi-case." It doesn't fit the watchface. The bracelet looks like something added on as there is no flow from the case to the bracelet.

[@RyzFragz34]

Love the ceramic. So glad I got the newer version.

[@jimbojet8728]

RyzFragz34 well done.

[@ErikS-]

The glidelock is portrayed firstly as extension for divesuits... I honestly must say I use it mainly for doing adjustment for my wristsize. I use it often. I have a lot more watches and I dont think it can be compared to a “microadjustment”. The glidelock I use very often. Microadjustments on other watches I never ever use.

[@jessyfavor9593]

Great selection of watches ridiculous prices

[@CTcuttinUp]

Does anybody have 16610 for sale?

[@patrickflynn8989]

I dont like the lugs on the new one and.. by the way....You would want your head examined if you decide to bring it saltwater diving when cheap digital dive watchs are better.

[@skr1b]

Enjoy the video showing both of the watches but your bias for the new model is very clear and detracts from an objectionable viewpoint and true comparison.

[@yankeedoodle6293]

The maxi dial lost its charm.

[@tylerconlon1990]

The old is better but for the jingly jangly bracelet

[@gizamlukeable]

Now that the 2020 Sub is out. “Fixing” the fat maxi case, I’m having a hard time deciding between the classic 5 digit and latest.

[@carlosguilhermesilveiraped5017]

The case size on the 116610 is NOT 40 mm. It is 41 mm, according to the official Rolex website. The new model really IS bigger than the 16610. Need to update the video.

[@emrakul5681]

The 2021 Model is not the 116610 reference that is actually 40mm. The newest sub has a different reference number, I think it begins with 124

[@carlosguilhermesilveiraped5017]

@@emrakul5681 you are correct. That (the 126610) is the "new model" The 116610 is not. What I wrote above is wrong. The 116610 is new to the 16610, but is no longer the "new model".

[@emrakul5681]

@@carlosguilhermesilveiraped5017 yes i am sorry, I meant the 126 and Not 124 :) The 126 is now because popular demand going back to the old 16610 days as it seems. But I like both older models, the 16610 and the 116610. But the quality of the 16610 bracelet and clasp would be a problem for me. And the glidelock of the 116610 is such a great feature plus the ceramic bezel.

[@carlosguilhermesilveiraped5017]

@@emrakul5681 thanks for the observation. Yes, the apparent confusion is that people are calling the "ceramic model" the "new model". The truly new is the 126610, but the 116610 is also "new", compared to the 16610. Yes, the new clasp is way superior, but we all have lived with it for decades. Overall, to me the 16610 is much better looking. Personally I dislike the fat lugs of the two "new models", and dislike even more the 41 mm case of the 126610.

[@emrakul5681]

@@carlosguilhermesilveiraped5017 I also dislike the 41mm case of the new one. I like the 16610 the most, as it is the most modern reference to the actual thing, the original Submariner. I would love to have a 16610 with the ceramic bezel and the new bracelet. But as this is unlikely to happen and I like the built quality of the 116610 more and also the glidelock and the ceramic bezel, it will most likely be my next diver. The 16610 is lighter and maybe wears better, but the quality and heavy feel of the new bracelet just gets me.

[@michaeldgs]

Had the 6 digit - couldnt get used to those fat ass lugs. Sold it and bought a tritium 5 digit... much more charm and looks like a sub should - perfect. Good vid👍

[@dutchdeno]

Michael S 👍

[@robertharris4117]

Bought a 5513 in 1978. Gave it to my son, as a grad gift. Now I wear the maxi and it's a nice step up.

[@ralphthebulldog5163]

Probably the only investment i made that's made money! paid £4750 back in 2014 for mine.

[@williamstalvey6920]

Always go with a tool watch....definitely, go for holes in the lugs and the ceramic bezel is not my cup of tea. OLD school rules, greatest watch ever made. Holds incredible value, nothing to show off, ceramic is for those who sit down when they pee.

[@bobswatches]

Well said! They age like fine wine.