Rolex Rumble: 7 Reasons Why Pre-Ceramic is Better Than Ceramic

[@marinlicinaify]

My biggest reason to love pre-ceramic is that it's less bling and more tool. The aluminium bezel is just less shiny, and the watch dial and hands are less prominent. Now obviously, the 16610 is in no way a stealth watch: anyone will spot any modern-ish Submariner for what it is from a mile away. However, to me, the 16610 still feels like luxury for yourself - confident functionality first: sturdy, precise, can withstand any outdoor condition. The best you can get. Whereas the ceramic ones just feel like luxury to show off to others: "look I got this expensive thing almost no one can get."

[@ron74555]

For me, the biggest reason to choose pre ceramic was the aesthetics. As someone with 6.75" wrists, the pre ceramic looked so much better. A watch should be an accessory to what you're wearing, not the star of the show. I tried on the 5 and 6 digit subs back to back and it was a no brainer that the 5 digit sub looked so much better and in proportion. Do I wish it had the more modern bracelet? Sure, but at the end of the day, the look of the watch was what was most important.

[@DrRolexPhD]

I totally agree, even with my big ol 7.5 inch wrists.

[@ericspaans4008]

Agreed

[@ambastious]

you can replace the clasp 1 to 1. It's so much more comfortable

[@metro2171]

Everything you said is subjective and is relegated to your own reality , that I can understand . As. A Pre ceramic Rolex collector I owned a few subs as well as Tudor gmt . However nothing compares to the feel and aesthetic of the modern Rolex both sub and gmt . I was very fortunate to pick up the batman and Pepsi at my authorized dealers this year and I can emphatically state that my pre ceramic Pepsi and sub are definitely not on the same level .

[@dinamiena6186]

Again this is your own reality because i also owned pre ceramic and ceramic and the 5 digit is more satisfying. Except the clasp.

[@dr.raymond4337]

Although I do have a Batman, the biggest reason I have not pursued a ceramic Pepsi, is that the hues of the ceramic are off; that cyan cast to the red gives a purplish cast that I find unattractive. The reds and blues of the aluminum bezel are much more true to color, prettier and classic.

[@DrRolexPhD]

Totally agree. Idk what they did to those colors, but it's definitely off. I appreciate that it's probably not the easiest process in the world, coloring that ceramic, but still.

[@Saints-Forever]

I wear my preceramic sub and gmt alot more than my ceramic sub and gmt due to comfort and aesthetic. For someone with a smaller wrist size (

[@mboydatlanta1]

Great video. I love my pre-ceramic. My main 2 reasons are the size first of all. I have a 6.75 wrist, and the watch fits my wrist perfectly. It's there, but it's not overpowering . And the second is the Ceramic is just too shiny. It doesn't look classic and genuine. The pre-ceramic has more true contrast. Thank you again for a great video

[@Tonysoprano497]

I don’t own any pre ceramic but I tend to agree with what you say . Pre ceramic are far more romantic. Takes us back to the day when Rolex were bought to be worn and not babied. I would love to own a pre ceramic new old stock and enjoy the journey . I think personally wearing other people’s battle scars dosent appeal quite so much . Not to say I wouldn’t still really enjoy a vintage piece . Although I enjoy my modern pieces I sometimes think they are a bit too shiny and clinical , almost as if the watch has become secondary to the jewellery aspect.

[@DrRolexPhD]

Yeah it's really special to know that most of the scratches on a watch are yours. My Sub was BARELY not NOS, had like 2 micro scratches on it. So I didn't pay NOS prices, but I got an (essentially) NOS watch. It was a dream come true.

[@triniboy05]

Before I accepted that I’m not a “big sports watch” sort of guy (subs, GMTs, YM, etc.), I preferred the pre ceramic due to the dimensions and such. What steered me towards the 124270 Explorer over the 114270 (which I had actually owned previously) was the bracelet, and updated movement. If it’s something I anticipate having for the rest of my life, I wanted the latest and greatest. Nice discussion, thanks!

[@DrRolexPhD]

Thank you 🙏 Yeah with the the Explorer I 100% agree, in fact I'm on the wait-list for one now. It's not the same as these big chunky ceramic bezel watches.

[@triniboy05]

@@DrRolexPhD yup, exactly. The 126610 felt huge dude. Nice tidbit on the chamfers too, never thought of it, cool observation.

[@DrRolexPhD]

Thanks man

[@WatchJapan]

I like and have both. The only Pepsi worth having though is a pre-ceramic 16700 or 16710. The colours and the bezel font are just so wrong on the ceramic model.

[@mikemike-hl8cw]

Great content. I would add the ability to change bezel/bezel inserts on the pre-ceramic, especially the GMTs. One 16710 can have Pepsi, Coke, and all black inserts changing the look and adding versatility to the watch. Even the Kermit can be changed to black as an example. Not only are these not options on the modern ceramics, but if you do need to replace a damaged bezel it will cost more on the ceramic.

[@DrRolexPhD]

Great point. It's nice to have that option to switch things up every now and again. I'll admit: black on black can get a bit boring.

[@owenmccord5078]

The Black on Black GMT is definitely my favorite since it sort of flies under the radar. A bit of color is always fun, though!

[@DrRolexPhD]

Yeah I love that watch too

[@jdwxflyer]

All of the above! But I will say, for me, it begins and ends with the proportions. I fell in love w/ the GMT master in the 70s and in my mind’s eye ‘that’ is what a GMT Master should look like. I appreciate the ceramics for what they are, but I’m drawn to the pre-ceramic. Enjoy your work, keep bringing it!

[@dopagony9946]

I also had a ceramic sub and a ceramic GMT. Sold Both. Now I have a 14060M and have no plans of selling it. I recently sold a DateJust 41 in hopes to find a Neo-vintage model 90s-2000s, much slimmer, lighter, and more elegant - in my opinion.

[@owenmccord5078]

Agree across the board. The lack of chamfers make the watch look like a Black Bay (not that there's anything wrong with BBs.) The new subs are simply to big and blingy; more of a piece of jewelry than a tool to tell the time. I dig the older ones for their subtlety.

[@ralfwindte5986]

Well, there are a few pre-ceramic Subs with antimagnetic Parachrome blue spring.

[@mikedavid6681]

I've noticed the text font too. The classic text was great the modern text looks like comic sans

[@jz6873]

Tried both several models few hours and indeed, you nailed it!

[@atc_ed600]

To me a tool watch as an instrument the bezel and the dial are the 2 areas where it should not deteriorate and compromise its purpose, the bracelet is an accessory to keep the said instrument secured to your wrist so I understand Rolex reasons for their used materials and technology.

[@andrewgiblin3468]

To me a pre-ceramic screams watch guy and class, not someone that bought a modern Rolex for the bling or jewelry aesthetic. I just generally like them far more.

[@DrRolexPhD]

I agree.

[@Leftystrat]

Your obviously an intelligent astute , learned individual . I think the oldies have more soul, tooly look. I hate bling on a watch I’m going to swim in😊

[@Hilighted]

Best review, thank you! I own a Submariner 14060M and a GMT Master II 16710. I could easily afford a six-digit Rolex but that mismatched bracelet would drive me nuts every day. It literally looks like you installed an incorrect bracelet. The fact that pre-ceramics are low-key and more industrial looking is a bonus to me.

[@RootBeerGMT]

Ceramic doesn’t show the wear, which is better. The bracelets are also far better on the ceramic.

[@davidhost7133]

Enjoyed this video very much. My 1994 ,16610 in immaculate condition isn't going anywhere.

[@michaelfierman3256]

So I was watching along and waiting...waiting more...why isn't he talking about the most important aesthetic difference?...and finally YES! #7 I'll admit I'm really into fonts and text formatting, so yeah. The previous typeface was just so elegant, but I guess the new bolder font just goes with the larger overall iterations of these references. and yes, the proportions of the newer ones for me are not graceful. In a perfect world we could have the dimensions of the pre-ceramic with the new bracelets. Who needs world peace? Great episode!

[@DrRolexPhD]

Haha, thanks Michael! You know, I think right at the beginning of the 116610s, like the first batch, had the old font. But I could be mistaken.

[@bgandjsco1]

What do you think that Steve McQueen Submariner is worth. But getting to what you are talking about I like the proportions of my Tudor Balack Bay 58 better than my ceramic Sub

[@DrRolexPhD]

Well it sold at auction for $234K, which is nuts (and awesome). The BB58 is sweet. Great proportions.

[@jimbojones9154]

I’ve owned both pre and modern ceramic subs. I kept the modern. Maxi dial does it for me. With that said the next on my list is a 5 digit sub with maxi dial. Those pre ceramic bracelets are wonderfully light but the clasp doesn’t stand a chance next to the glidelock.

[@dkosandianos]

having both,the ceramic is on another level

[@Leftystrat]

Plus the 3135 movement is a proven force. See how the 3235 holds up over the next few years then we’ll get a fair picture. I have both but wear the pre c seadweller more as you can take anywhere

[@Dirtywesterner]

the pressed clasp and the hollow links are dealbreakers for me,pre-ceramic subs are inferior in their movements,style, and wearability

[@duanekemp4234]

You just sold me on a Ceramic....

[@desireless4092]

Today, pre - ceramic are more expensive or cost as much as my 124060. At least for me - it's not an option. Going to AD and asking for a discontinued watch makes no sense to me. At least where I live we have a Rolex AD, not a jewelry or 3d party watch store, THE Rolex. I am ok with the bezel being scratch proof, because to counter your point - it's one less part I have to worry about seeking, since the bezel is one of the most abused parts and I am already a bit thoughtful about the bezel of my Speedmaster. I hate scratched up bezel that looks like he had gone trough hell. I'd like a vintage date sub since this is my favorite Rolex line, with the no date sub being my grail. It is what it is. Plus I ain't paying 10k for a shitty bracelet. I also don't like to buy beaten up watches by someone else. Just my preference.

[@givemearolex]

For me I'll pick both if I have the money. Haha. The main reason why I'll pick the newer ceremic version is because of the movement 70 hrs power reserve.

[@DrRolexPhD]

Yeah tbh I'd love a ceramic GMT in my collection

[@richierich7609]

This is a great video. If I could have found a preceramic before I bought my ceramic one I might have done so. Current: most modern Root Beer.

[@DrRolexPhD]

Thank you 🙏 Well, first of all, I actually think the modern root beer is a great watch. But of course, my preference, if I had to choose, would be the pre-ceramic one. Do you ever consider trading it?

[@Jesse-ek3en]

image @ 2:48 says it all

[@DrRolexPhD]

Seriously!

[@drunkenbelafontemaine]

Totally agree, tropic/ghost dial/ dial patina what ever, I just forked out on a bluesy 2007 because they turn purple over time and the lugs are sexy thin unlike the modern lugs that are fat chunky, cuts in to your wrist, trust me I sold a hulk it was way to chunky. Anyways it’s just my opinion “everyone to their own” pick what makes you happy, much love watch world 🙏

[@youtubename3838]

just traded my 124060 for a NOS 14060 (bring on the patina!). It was my first ceramic piece, but I had to go back. Only thing I miss is the clasp OH THE CLASP!!😍 but i dont like the plasticky looking bezel, and as someone who is active as all hell (extreme sports, think Rocket Power grown up), the bracelet, while solid and feels nice as all hell, is less comfortable when you are moving around so much. If I was more of a desk diver, i think I would prefer the 124060. Also, the fear of shattering the ceramic made me think about the watch a lot more, whereas on my pre-ceramics I really dont give a shit 😂 the watch will outlast me, and i think it will be dope to pass this watch on to my future accidental children with MY battle scars and stories, and think “damn, pops was a fkin animal in his day, huh?” Bonus: You hit the nail on the head with the chamfers! it wasnt until I had both side by side that I realized what it was that bothered me about the finish on the newer watches. I would always say that it felt unfinished, but I didnt understand why. Those harsh flat sides feel weird and out of place on something so expensive, and more something I would expect on a Tudor as a cost savings measure.

[@torontowatches9709]

Pre ceramic feels tin like,nasty clasps, cheap bracelet, even case like the same quality as a Tag 2000. The new 41 or 40.5 they perfected it. What’s next you’ll make a video on carpet vs hardwood floors

[@Oz_Men_Life_Style]

The number one reason I do not buy a 6 digit Rolex is the welded bracelet/clasp and crown.

[@19NJS71]

I hate the flimsy feel of a vintage watch. New Rolex over old any day. The reasons you laid out are the same reasons I would take a modern Rolex. In the end it is just opinion.

[@SineFractal]

I agree with everything except the bracelets. I own both and the older bracelets just suck. A modern bracelet on a 5 digit would be perfect Imo

[@DAVD305]

Good review ! Ty

[@Scott-jf1nh]

That photo shows him left handed. Did not know that until today.

[@PabloTBrave]

Technically ceramic ones are better , as an investment ceramic ones are better apart from rare models , only on a subjective level is the pre-ceramic better.

[@DubSportsWins]

i don't own either HOWEVER EVERYTHING you suggested as CON I like it ceramic 124060 all the freakin way

[@macoyupadoodle]

Personally if black , i go ceramic . But if colored , aluminum , because the flat sheen is just beautiful and the colors much more vibrant while the colored ceramic is so drab and looks like a cheap Chinese plastic toy. I hate scratches and scratches on aluminum will drive my OCD on its head

[@DrRolexPhD]

Interesting, that's a good point

[@Whizzer_]

Yeah the ROLEX text - I totally hear you with that

[@Potatowarrior89]

Traded my 16600 for a 116600 cause I can’t stand the pre ceramic bracelet … I am glad they didn’t screw the 116600 look with that boxy sub look

[@DrRolexPhD]

Yeah the pre-ceramic bracelet is a concession I just have to live with, in exchange for, in my opinion, better proportions.

[@GT1Vette]

I'll stick to my daydate and none other.

[@markmcgowan3692]

Pre ceramic are better outside of the clasp. Some pre ceramic also have solid links.

[@DrRolexPhD]

You know, I've heard both, but I'm not sure which is accurate. Are the links hollow or not? Not the endlinks, the actual links. Regardless, they're definitely lighter.

[@markmcgowan3692]

@@DrRolexPhD like most things Rolex, depends on the model and year.

[@Saints-Forever]

I have never come across or heard the preceramic Rolex have solid bracelet links. I believe Rolex only introduce this with their ceramic models.

[@Leftystrat]

My seadweller 2008 has solid links.

[@matlindell5022]

Couldn’t agree more!

[@likeris2]

or just go to AD and buy two tone. simple :)

[@RootBeerGMT]

Shelves are empty

[@disheuresdis]

Awesome content, you're going places! All reasons valid and true. Love my pre-ceramic 16610 and 16710. Would never trade it for a ceramic. Good luck with your membership plan.

[@DrRolexPhD]

Thanks man, I really appreciate that. I saw that you picked up that 16710 recently... Absolutely beautiful. Makes me miss mine. Congrats!

[@rmartin5285]

I'll never wear anything but my 1969 Red Mk2 1680 Sub with the rattly, loose, a bit sloppy Rolex USA hollow rivet for really special occasions, or my 1984 16800 for daily use. I'll leave the "bling" newer subs to the young bucks trying to impress their dates who don't know better. They look a bit "plastic-like" to me......just my opinion though 100%. Something about writing "Rolex" on the watch 20+ times in different locations makes it looks like it has a "I'm real damn it" inferiority complex. It almost exudes a sense of paranoya. It looks "loud", like it's "shouting Rolex"..... if that's a thing. The '69 Red Sub hasn't been duplicated as far as I know, and never will be, and you just know what it is instantly, it doesn't have to "tell you" a thing....... it just is. Classy and subtle AF.

[@j.j.911]

A very well substantiated position. Concur entirely.

[@DrRolexPhD]

Thanks J.J.

[@v0llm1lch]

Pre ceramic all day ❤

[@Jack-S4097]

Your reaching on this one.

[@DrRolexPhD]

Huh? You're*

[@gelmibson883]

Wooo!

[@DrRolexPhD]

Early as usual!

[@sdm107]

Absolutely spot on

[@danielpowers2413]

Meh, I’ll take my ceramic

[@nyc10ken]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYXZaauNeM2Di5o - I'd be careful going out, not just because of the Rolex XD

[@ericspaans4008]

Agreed in all aspects

[@imranchowdhury4972]

If you really like torn out, patina watch then why polish even by Rolex. Isn't it a double standard? In every way modern Rolex are better than pre-ceramic Dr. Rolex.

[@DrRolexPhD]

If you say so.

[@likeris2]

a lot of weird people egzist

[@TimothyKasch-fm7bn]

Ceramic all the way. The pre ceramic look so dated now and cheap. They scratch so easily.

[@weeleung6043]

I guess you love your granny more than your current girlfriend????

[@DrRolexPhD]

Yes

[@weeleung6043]

@@DrRolexPhD wrinkly fanny not my cup a tea lol.

[@jttansin]

scars of your life! Give me a break if you like scratched up watches so much why dont you ask them to scratch it all up before you buy it!

[@jdwxflyer]

All of the above! But I will say, for me, it begins and ends with the proportions. I fell in love w/ the GMT master in the 70s and in my mind’s eye ‘that’ is what a GMT Master should look like. I appreciate the ceramics for what they are, but I’m drawn to the pre-ceramic. Enjoy your work, keep bringing it!

[@DrRolexPhD]

Thank you! Yeah I totally agree: those GMTs are just about perfect.