Rolex Submariner 116610 "Super Case" vs. Submariner 16800 Transitional

[@michaelfleming8490]

I wear a 14060 and love it. Symmetry. Beauty. Lower profile. Slimmer. Classier. I ALMOST bought a new 114060 from my local AD (I’ve bought new from them before so they said they could get me a 114060 within 8 weeks) but at last minute I asked some opinions and all those who voiced their thoughts (friends and family who are NOT watch ppl) ALL said the older 14060 looked MUCH BETTER. I’m so glad I went with the older model. Plus it’ll patina and increase the value.

[@MarioGhillani]

I have the 16800 and it is superbly comfortable

[@jaycamacho8179]

Agreed!

[@Tuneitupful]

Tim, I love how you describe these watches, and as a matter of fact, all watches you review. I can listen to you all day. I bought the latest Omega Aqua Terra because of one of your review of the watch. Next on the list, the Submariner.

[@MoreThai]

The old one is looks proportionally better !

[@the1916company]

+Bright Jade It's definitely the choice if you prefer discretion. As others have observed on this thread, the new watch makes a statement. All elements of the six-digit are beautifully executed, but there's a substantial school of thought that prefers traditional (especially true vintage) Rolex proportions. Best, Tim

[@yearofthemetalboar5645]

Indeed, the new watch makes a statement of poor aesthetics.

[@ams914]

Lol, the man is trying to sell watches, leave him alone!

[@Fredrikwatchesandartwork]

Bright Jade 👍🇸🇪

[@danielheyward8818]

Great video- I have a 116610ln. When I see the older models I have second thoughts

[@RoelfvanderMerwe]

Can you do reviews where you compare watches? What about Submariner vs Omega Seamaster, Daytona vs Speedmaster etc. Thanks! Loving your videos as always!

[@the1916company]

+Roelf van der Merwe This is an awesome idea, and I'm embarrassed for not thinking of it first! Make no mistake, this comparo will happen ASAP. Best, Tim

[@MDCSYD]

I own both and love both. One thing though, when the 5 digit is on my wrist nobody ever take a notice but it's different story with the 116610 which commands massive wrist presence.

[@the1916company]

+MDCSYD Hi MDCSYD, great observation. The 116610 really packs a punch and plays as a much larger watch than its 40mm rating. There's also a matter of fit and finish, and while many grouse about Rolex's embrace of its 21st century luxury profile, there's no disputing that current Subs are the finest in a material sense- ever. Period. The quality of the parts, assembly, and materials science behind it all is stunning. Best, Tim

[@jiffjiffernson7292]

commands massive wrist presence - that is some great stuff and worthy grin. You should change your name from TAOASW to CMWP

[@dicklongmire6836]

This is the last thing I want. You've just given me another reason to prefer the 5 digit over new.

[@sutats]

The 16800 looks terrific on your wrist Tim. Happy ticking.

[@the1916company]

+sutats Many thanks! I agree, that's probably the one for me. Both fit, but the transitional just exudes character and the size is perfect for a smaller wrist... plus it has that tritium patina :-0 Best, Tim

[@lpasatie]

I love my sub c. Such an amazing piece

[@the1916company]

+Lou P Good choice! Wear it in great health :-) Best, Tim

[@e3volution660]

Take the older style sub and incorporate the new features of the new watch and it wouldn’t be close. The market would be overrun with people wanting the older style sub with new improvements. Bet

[@Bulkman1337]

What an amazing objective comparison between the two models. Love your channel and your Instagram! Keep it coming!

[@the1916company]

+Erik Dahlgren Hi Erik, thank you! I try to keep the collector's perspective in mind when I film, so my goal is to be as factual as possible while keeping the videos fun. My buddy Josh in the Sales department helps to coordinate the Instagram, so I'll let him known he has fans ;-) Best, Tim

[@Josrifly]

Hi Tim. Why do a comparision between 116610 vs. 16800, instead of 16610 ?

[@gtrman9706]

Just bought a perfect 1999 sub with box and paperwork for $7000 AUS Bargain.

[@TehDarkPrince]

I like the case of the 16610 but I like the lume, ceramic bezel and benefits of the 11610's newer bracelet. I'm struggling between the 14060 or the 114060 for these reasons as my next watch.

[@treehugger3615]

Does anyone know if the super case's 97200 bracelet will fit a 16800 case? I got a vintage rolex watch head with no bracelet and I purchased a bracelet meant for the 116610.

[@ProCelestialEmpire]

I went to 2 Rolex authorized dealers yesterday, and the chunky, un-harmoneous big lug basically turned the deal down. The watch wears like a bulky out-stretching brick. I tried the new Breitling Superocean Chronograph 42, which even wears smaller. I like the old one much better. Anyone can suggest where I can get from an authorized store? (the 2 stores I went to don't have any old version in stock) Thanks!

[@sethfeingold]

The 16800 loos so much better when on the wrist. Wow! Beautiful watches

[@akshayarg]

very good comparison, loved it. 16800 looks perfect on your wrist, also noticed the cyclops date magnification difference between the two

[@the1916company]

+akshay argade Hi akshay, thank you! Indeed, many changes have taken effect in the Sub range over the years. Over five or so years, very little appears to change, but when you go back a few decades, the more dramatic differences become the basis for vintage collecting. Transitional references like the 16800 are starting to gain real respect from collectors, and I suspect that they will be the next "big thing" after all of the 1960s and 1970s Rolex trophy pieces are priced out of the mainstream market. Best, Tim

[@sed6]

Can I get a link to the first two parts?

[@gneyman]

So if diameter from outer bezel edge to outer bezel edge is same 40mm but bezel itself is wider on the new one, does that mean that new dial diameter is smaller?

[@DerpEye]

the only good thing about new rolexes is the bracelet

[@JungleEddie]

I wonder if the new bracelet would fit on the old case.

[@hillbillygrizzly7045]

I owned a Breitling evolution it was 43 mm and I loved it. almost bought a 16610 but was a littlesmall, now I plan on getting a 116610 it just feel larger and better on my wrist than the 16610 did. I like a little larger watch 42 to 43 mm but everyone is different GODBLESS

[@scottt.4596]

Best Sub. comparison review I've watched. Very helpful. Great job! Thanks!

[@andrewwolkowich]

I like the look of the older model.

[@KarimKhatoun111]

great video as always! was thinking of getting a submariner have no idea what would be the best choice if i would want to add a NATO strap. really like the red submariner but not sure if you would recommend putting that one on NATO?

[@the1916company]

+prince of beirut I would totally recommend that. As long as you get a good Red Sub (we've got a Mk. IV right now on the site), the NATO is an easy choice. Most of these watches are old enough that the original folded-link bracelets have degraded to the point of fragility (or beyond). Many collectors put them on NATOS for more secure use, or they upgrade to the solid link 93150 bracelets. Either way, most Reds end up on a different kind of strap or bracelet, and NATOs look great. Also, the logic behind the original Submariner perforated lugs wasn't cost-cutting, it was to facilitate easter owner swaps between bracelets and straps for rough use. Best, Tim

[@KarimKhatoun111]

watchuwantinc ah great! thanks for the info if some day i decide to purchase from you guys do you ship to lebanon or nigeria?

[@the1916company]

Lebanon, absolutely. For Nigeria, I'll have to double-check with my inventory manager. Either way, we have tons of experience dealing with international customs, and we almost always know how to minimize or eliminate fees on that front. Best, Tim

[@android61242]

I like the old one much better but the lugs are still overhanging your wrist. I don't know where you get "doesn't even come close to testing the limits of my wrist".

[@dragland7268]

I would love to see a comparison between the Sea Dweller 4000 and the Submariner date. I haven't seen these two compared on KZbin yet and I'm sure I'm not the only person trying to decide between both models. What do you think?

[@the1916company]

+dragland7268 That's a great suggestion. Many feel that the 4000 is a more elegant piece, but although I've had both models in stock, I failed to throw up a comparison when I had the chance. I do believe that I filmed a Sea-Dweller 4000 comparison with the Deepsea, and that's floating around in our video pool on the channel. Rest assured, as soon as a 4000 lands, I'll try to film this video alongside the 116610. Best, Tim

[@dragland7268]

+watchuwantinc Thanks Tim. I'm looking forward to it when you're able. It would be interesting to hear your opinion of the two. I'll check out the video you mentioned as well. TC

[@robw6802]

Are the other 5 digits reference subs the same case size as this transition model?

[@rhinowatches9738]

Rolex should build the next generation of Submariner using the aesthetics of the old dial into the new super case! That would be an awesome Sub! Love the yellowish cream color hour markers. Hey maybe thats next years 2019 Bazel world release!

[@alinmatti786]

I'm looking at a 2 tone submariner blue it's from 1995 for 10k is it a good deal?

[@javierbernal5069]

Nope, you can find them for 7-8k, check chrono24

[@ChrisMarshall1978007]

Nice video , thank you for displaying the size difference

[@the1916company]

+Chris Marshall Hi Chris, thank you! I understand that it's tough to get a sense of size and fit over the internet, so any time I can offer clarity to other collectors feels like a win from my perspective. Best, Tim

[@vadimdon]

They have done the bezel slimmer to keep the same thickness of the new model so that is fine. Despite that the new one looks much much better I think

[@the1916company]

+Vadim Don Certainly, Rolex designers spent serious time to ensure that the new Rolex Sub reads as a larger watch without becoming proportionally awkward or losing its claim to a "40mm" size. For some, it's a step too far, but I've found that at least as ergonomics are concerned, 95% of the folks who wore the old watch comfortably can do the same with the new one. Appearance becomes the main bone of contention, and opinion is split. Best, Tim

[@dons1932]

16 series all day, every day. 116 series changed everything I love about Rollies. Great review, too :)

[@the1916company]

+Don S Hi Don, thank you for the shout-out! I agree that the 116 is more of a different watch than an evolution of the five-digits. Rolex definitely alienated some old friends when it sought to attract new customers with the Super Case. I don't dislike it, but I can see how some of the old models' charm evaporated in the transition. From my perspective, the loss of the hand-chamfered lugs was a serious blow to the appeal of the new models. Best, Tim

[@tomasinacovell4293]

+Don S People would think you're talking Rolls Royce when you say "Rollies" and it's declasse.

[@kilochris83]

Perfect video! I needed this

[@phoeNYkx]

What's your wrist size?

[@johntiscione7507]

I own both model subs,the older watch is very comfortable to wear and is good as tool watches go,the new sub c is all that and then some,the perfect evalution of the older sub,this is what Rolex does,they take a proven product with a proud and robust history and make evolutionary improvements to it,the new sub c is universally identifiable and is even more indestructible than ever,

[@lKingRichardl]

The new one looks better. No holes in the lugs, ceramic bezel, and glide lock system just makes the 11610LN a better watch.

[@ams914]

Doesn't look better. Looks bulky and bloated. It is technically better, the bracelet at least, you're right about that.

[@rbtamms]

After waiting for weeks, I finally got my first Rolex Submariner last week. The Authorized Dealer ordered 5 & all of it got sold in one day. When I got home, the first thing I noticed is that it looks bigger, wider & boxy. Sometimes the bezel being ceramic doesn't look black because it's too shinny & too reflective. I prefer the traditional over the super case, but I don't think I can find a brand new one. Although the bracelet is very nice on the new one, I hope they kept the shape of the case. Anyway, the Submariner is still a classic timeless piece & I didn't regret buying it.

[@180mph9]

I’ll be glad to take that nasty new one off your hands.

[@Lonnie91a]

The 16610 (smaller one) is the best all round watch ever made and prob the most recognizable watch on earth. That may or may not be a good thing. The 16610 is and has been my favourite watch for 20 years. It’s just perfect looking and tough built. I also had a super case 116610 and I liked it a lot but it didnt have the same Rolex soul like the smaller case sub. I just like the older vintage more I guess. I’m not so much into the new ones. Except I do like the AR cyclops on the new one and might have to get one for my 16610.

[@vibratehigh89]

i agree with the majority, the old one has a nicer shape, would be nice to see that older one with an upgraded ceramic bezel, or maybe they already make that and i just dont know.

[@the1916company]

+OnTheOne ForFun That will remain a "what-if" watch. I think a slimmer Sub would be a nice addition to the line, but I don't think we'll ever see it happen. Perhaps the resurgent Tudor will have the nerve to attempt something vintage-inspired along those lines. Best, Tim

[@alinntimpu2943]

WatchBox Studios good prediction from 2 years ago foreshadowing the blackbay 58

[@SPQR-Z]

This vid showed up in my feed. Very relevant to those that never quite warmed up to the whole Big watch, Super-case thing. What a horrendous chapter in the Rolex story IMHO. I own mostly 5 digit models. I own and love 50’s-70’s vintage but they are expensive and not very practical for everyday wear. The 5 digit Neo-Vintage are the sweet spot for sure. Cheaper, readily available with many modern features but still has a vintage vibe. Plus I think they will appreciate nicely into the future once people start figuring it all out. These 5 digits are today’s new watch enthusiast “vintage era”. The 1990’s 14060 and 16610 Subs are the 1960’s 5513, 1680 equivalents etc. Buy them while they’re still cheap and available

[@Getskulle]

Great description in the video. You can tell who actually know what you're talking about. Apparently 1 person doesn't own a Submariner lol. There's always at least one hater no matter how good the video is... I love my 116610! I like the bigger lugs giving it a bigger feel and look. Closer to my Omega Seamaster. I also love the new Glide Lock clasp!!! Soooo handy and makes for easy perfect fit.

[@the1916company]

+SKULLE Hi SKULLE, thank you for the kind words! I don't worry too much about the haters, and I prefer to think they're just jealous ;-) You said it all; these modern Subs feel SO rugged in the hand and on the wrist. These 1166XX generation Submariners make the models from less than a decade ago feel like vintage pieces by comparison. 16610-116610 transition seems like X-Men style evolution in retrospect. Best, Tim

[@danniecarmona2509]

I like the older one its more low profile and not as chucky.

[@davewoo7114]

Remember the old one is already entered classic. It’s mean they no longer produce. So is worth for keeping it. Just like a antique car. Myself had the 15 years old sub. New one nothing special because everyone still able to buy it.

[@seanlawlor262]

Why is the cylops on the ceramic sub not magnifying as much?

[@the1916company]

+Sean Lawlor Hi Sean, I think it might just be a trick of the light or the greater internal distance between disc and magnifier in the Sub-C. Best Tim

[@jackfyddle1]

Love my 16610 2003 Great video

[@tristenbrown2572]

I have discovered that i have an involuntary love and passion towards watches. Call me over dramatic, but when i look at a watch. I see the intricacies of a living body on the inside. each gear and cog with its own job to do, small or big, each as important. All of these working harmoniously to breath life into the delicate precise needles to tell time. each tick is like a heart beat of its soul... yeah ima stop here. but im looking for some recommendations of watches for 1000$ and below. I've saved up for a while and im only 16 so i need a watch that is beautiful but not too sophisticated. thanks!

[@acrboi]

+tristen brown Don't buy the watch and get a new PC to play LOL on, concerts, social events, food and clothing. Come back when you have a higher budget, trust me on this. I'm 19 personally and have worn watches daily since junior high (watch fanatic just like yourself) . I currently have a Seiko and a Longines. I bought the Longines just over a year ago and I'm lusting for more and the same will happen to you, avoid purchasing a watch simply because you want one to fill your urge. *Money should really be spent on other things at 16*. If you are truly eager in getting a nice piece I suggest saving for an Omega Speedmaster MOTM; Solid watch at a very reasonable price. If saving and waiting isn't your motto resorting in a Oris, Longines, Tissot etc. aren't bad choices.

[@tristenbrown2572]

+Kevin Chan Thanks for this information! However, I've never spent any money on clothing before and never let my urge for food and social events get the better of me. I've used 50$ worth on LoL before but I don't think ill invest more money. I can differentiate short term enjoyment from long term and I know this feeling for a watch isn't a mere urge, But a burning passion! But I do agree I think I should save up for an even better time piece. Thanks for your time.

[@the1916company]

+tristen brown Hi Tristan, welcome to our channel! When I was younger, I bought a 1973 caliber 214 Bulova Accutron Spaceview for $400. It's still with me, worth far more, and won't be going anywhere but my wrist any time soon. Consider an option along these lines if your budget will accommodate it. My company generally doesn't sell watches in this price range, so you're probably not going to find it at watchuwant, but please feel free to ask any questions and I'll do my best to offer advice for your search. Best, Tim

[@charlestan7575]

Was contemplating between 16800, 16610, & 116610. Went with the 16800. The 116610's lug looks out of place and the thickness looks out of proportion. The 16800 simply looks more elegant and versatile. And some might think the older watch with the "coke can" feel makes it feel cheap, however, it feels more comfortable on the wrist against the heavier new models.

[@thebudkellyfiles]

Wow, thanks for this fine vid! I was thinking about buying a new Sub, after selling off my 1978 model. But I always thought of that watch as marginally too massive and clunky. The new one is substantially more massive and clunky. Not for me. Thanks.

[@beefdot4907]

On the old sub, don't you just pull the wetsuit extension out? What's the point in needing a tool to use the dive extension, may as well just adjust to bracelet?!

[@dang8961]

Good point. Down 150 meters, let me quickly pull out my jewelers tool to extend the clasp.

[@pswienton]

No tool is needed. I dive with my 16610 and the extension will extend with a gentle snap out of the pin holes.

[@Bogart1980]

Great video, thanks for posting! I had a 14060m and initially hated the super case. Then I saw one in person and handled it. No comparison. Sold it and picked up a 114060. Something gets lost staring at macro shots of watches all day.

[@the1916company]

+Bogart1980 True, there's no replacement for wrist time. Wear your new No-Date classic in great health! Best, Tim

[@paulhanson6008]

Rolex would have a sales "phenomenon" if they returned to the traditional case size (with holes!) paired with the new bracelet. Better still, add a link tool, 1 nato strap and 1 premium plain tan leather strap with heavy stitching and a Rolex buckle......sorry, I'm getting carried away and starting to dribble!!!

[@markdegaute2125]

Great comment! Even better, offer the sub with the gmt easy link bracelet alternative. That massive glidelock clasp looks stupid on my 6.5 inch wrist. They fixed the stupid Datejust 2 with those fat markers and bloated bezel yet they don't to refine the sub. Furthermore, taper those crown guards. They would make a killing.

[@joes9545]

Mark Degaute You can barely find these in stock now with long wait lists. They are already making a killing.

[@achiltsompanos447]

10 year wait list. 10% markup in value. 10 -20 years watches selling slightly below msrp. Great!

[@SomeroOfficial]

is there a submariner thats 44 mm? or 42 mm? Sorry im a noob

[@MrEZANO]

Nope. Every Submariner from the first ones through today are 40mm

[@the1916company]

+KingXIV2 Welcome, King! The 44mm Rolex Deepsea Sea-Dweller is the option that you should investigate. It's a bigger, more aggressive take on the Rolex dive watch class that reads as a steroidal Submariner... think 1992 Barry Bonds vs. 2002 Bonds. Like both versions of Barry, these watches offer different capabilities with some tradeoffs in terms of size, thickness, weight, and price. Best, Tim

[@wallyandellen5099]

+Adam Lazarus The 6538 is 37.28mm without crown. Roughly between the 3 and 9 position, varies slightly when you move along the case.

[@vdbdg]

I just found the current Sub at an AD and just couldn’t pull the trigger because those lugs look so bizarre. I feel like I drank the Rolex Kool-Aid and went in ADs asking for sports models and when I was finally presented with one, even though I know it’s as hot as pancakes, I came to my senses. It’s too much money if I don’t love it. It’s JLC money all day after all. What do you think? Should I try grab it and see if it grows on me?

[@bravotangocharlie6460]

I believe the 16800 was featured in the Bond film License to Kill.

[@mathew3293]

correct, filmed summer of 88 so right before 16610 came out

[@Petrospect]

The last Submariner featured in a Bond film, with arguably the finest actor since Connery.

[@Madmanmarque]

There has been speculation that it could have been an early 16610 as EON productions might have access to it before the pubic. We'll never know as the 16800 is identical in looks to the 16610.

[@paltieri11]

Excellent review!

[@jthistle9]

The old Submariner here is head and shoulders above the modern version

[@the1916company]

+jthistle9 The new one feels more substantial, and it's better-built in every way, but I agree that the older model is more handsome. Older watches always win the battle for "hearts," and newer ones tend to dominate the fight for "minds." Best, Tim

[@whiskeyriver4322]

I tried on a brand new Subbie without date, today at my local jewelry store. I didn't like it. Wish I could find a genuine, mint condition Subbie like this 16800 one here, that's affordable. I'm considering an Omega 300 master-coaxial, but that bastard is even bigger. I miss the old days..........

[@robynsjp]

Vintage one looks nicer to me by far. The supercase looks too square, lacks curves, like a gorgeous girl who would have bodybuilt too much.

[@lastofmykind8]

Is there any model that has the slimmer case/lugs but with a glidelock clasp?

[@michaeljelliot]

I'm 6'3" and i had a problem with the comfort of the new ceramic submariner. I could never get use to the ceramic and I traded in for a 16610 which is much more comfortable.

[@the1916company]

+michael elliot That's a great choice, and it'll reach "vintage Rolex" status even sooner. Older Subs (1680, 16800, etc.) can impose certain compromises in how they are used and worn, but all of the 16610s are still new enough that they can be used as Rolex intended (provided proper maintenance is performed). Best, Tim

[@michaeljelliot]

+watchuwantinc Hey Tim, whats the definition of a vintage Rolex Sub - my 16610 is a 2007.

[@Adb07d]

whats your height have to do with anything??

[@simpson-qk6yd]

@@michaeljelliot i have also the new sub and my wrist really hurts from it, thinking of doing exactly the same( 16610) do you regret your bragain???

[@986C]

Umm ok dude

[@msbrownbeast]

The older design is better looking. The "Super Case" is ugly and clumsy looking. It has a profile more like a tonneau case. The older case is sleek looking and plenty durable enough for the job. No need to add extra bulk and weight to an already heavy watch. Same goes for the bracelet. How often does one need to adjust the bracelet when worn as an everyday watch? And that is what the vast majority of Sub owners buy them for. I much prefer the classic look of the older model with thinner, pierced through lugs. I think Rolex is trying to re-invent the wheel there.

[@ting280]

great review! loving the super case

[@the1916company]

+ting280 Hi ting280, welcome to our channel! The super case was a bit of a revolution when it first appeared, but its introduction coincided with massive improvements in the total quality of the watch. I can't say enough good things about how premium the supers feels on the wrist. They're definitely bigger, but not too big. Try one, and you'll like it even more! Best, Tim

[@mickeylickey123]

I like the older one better, it's on my list

[@Albdentist]

It’s relative. When the 5 digits were made the entire Rolex line up was smaller…36mm for a men’s watch was the norm. Today a 36 is a large woman’s size: think the color OP’s. On my 7” wrist the maxi dial looks modern. IMOP it doesn’t wear like a 43 large watch..it’s not a Breitling Avenger or a Panerai… Just my opinion …times change…

[@danielt.muller7009]

Excellent comparison!

[@the1916company]

+Daniel T. Müller Hi Daniel, thank you, and welcome to our channel! Are there other watch comparisons that you'd like to see? Best, Tim

[@danielt.muller7009]

+watchuwantinc Hi Tim, you're welcome - and thanks for the kind reply! Right now I got my eyes fixed on the Omega Speedmaster 57 - the one with the blue dial. Would love to see it on your wrist, as it is about the size of mine - maybe with a quick comparison to the Moon watch model (for the masses). ;-) But being a fan of JLC, I love to see their watches reviewed too. Keep up the good work! Cheers from Germany, Dan

[@the1916company]

Thanks, Daniel! I'll be sure to make a note that I need to film a Speedy 57 blue dial as soon as one lands at watchuwant. Since I love blue dials, this video will be lots of fun to film! Best, Tim

[@danielt.muller7009]

+watchuwantinc Hi Tim, that would be great, thanks! Especially, since is quite thick with over 16mm!, and not everybody has the chance to check it out at an AD first. Food for thought: Explorer I 36mm vs 39mm AND Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin Réserve de Marche ref. 1378420 vs direct predecessor with the 9 and 12 on the dial ref. 140.8.38.S In case you should have them Handy one day. Cheers and all the best! Dan

[@the1916company]

I'll be on the lookout for all of these models. If I get one, I'll ensure it gets filmed. And if I can obtain more than one, I'll be certain to throw a good comparison on the channel! I own the black dial JLC Master Moon in the 37mm "140" case (full case code 140.8.98.S), and it's a wonderful watch for all occasions. Best, Tim

[@actionarslan]

So can you get a new submariner without the super case?

[@GerryRem700]

The older one looks better!

[@the1916company]

+GerryRem700 I feel like older watches always seem to enter these comparisons with built-in advantages. Nostalgia's tough to beat; just consider any guitar god ranking you've ever seen where Jimmy Hendrix, Duane Allman, and Stevie Ray Vaughn automatically lock out the first three positions and leave the non-dead dudes to fight to be best of the rest. But I do wonder whether today's current Rolex references will benefit from the same kind of romantic attachment in 20-30 years. Will they eventually convert collector "respect" into "love" once millennial watch fans who grew up with the "Super Case" move into later phases of life? That's a question only time can answer. Best, Tim

[@alexandrumititelu647]

*Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray *Vaughan

[@hafssol82]

GerryRem700 no.

[@Fredrikwatchesandartwork]

👍

[@TheTrueSolesurvivor]

I think the olddr one looks like an invicta

[@noelle1314]

Older one definitely looks more classy. I wonder if the new bracelet would fit on the older model?

[@ams914]

Don't think it would look right, but it might fit. The older bracelets are flimsier, but they also feel nicer to due less weight and more flex. Trade offs.

[@jmeler1254]

how come rolex does not polish the band on both of these models to make it shine.

[@Trevm12]

+Jude Meler Because being a tool watch, a Submariner will inherently get scratches. Rolex would prefer to not have to keep re-polishing the bracelet every time, slowly removing metal from the links.

[@ZaDude1970]

+Jude Meler Actually the latest GMT Master II, Model Ref. No. 116710LN, has the band polished in the middle. Making it visually more attractive than the Submariner if you're to just consider the band.

[@ams914]

Go for Breitling, sounds like the watch brand for you.

[@jmeler1254]

ams914 nah PP is better

[@ravishingrick13]

The old case has the curves of a woman, the new case cannot compare.

[@the1916company]

+ravishingrick13 I can see that. The new case definitely feels less graceful, but it does add masculine force. Perhaps the balance between those two qualities is the tipping point for opinions on the merits of the 5/6 digit models. Best, Tim

[@adnjoo]

The new case is like Rosie O Donell. The old case is like Ursula Andress in Dr No

[@BuzzOff.]

Old one if you love scratches…..I have the 116610 and love it. Midgets with small wrists will struggle.😂

[@henrypacheco9048]

very simple, the new one is ridiculous and vulgar, the old one is perfect and classy. I would pay more money for the older one all day everyday

[@the1916company]

+Henry Pacheco Likewise, my preference is the discontinued five-digit. That watch is the embodiment of versatility... and elegance that transcends its utilitarian origins. Best, Tim

[@anthonyb2990]

It's much lesser quality in almost every way.

[@DreamFactoryCycles]

116600 magnification is very poor, usually seen on replica ones. Thats weird?

[@Wahnsinniger]

+DreamFactoryCycles true. also the crown is not in the "right" position, normally it's perfect vertical so the rolex crown logo is in position when screwed in. its a (good) replica.

[@MDCSYD]

+Wahnsinniger There's no such thing as the "right" crown position. I own 2 X 16610 and a 116610. The crowns when screwed in are all different position.

[@Wahnsinniger]

+MDCSYD Thanks for the info, i got the thing with the crown position from Various forums. And what do you say about the magnification?

[@DreamFactoryCycles]

+MDCSYD exactly. Crown position always varies.

[@MDCSYD]

+Wahnsinniger The cyclops on the Sub C is excellent and is no inferior to its predecessor. The legibility is actually better in my opinion due to larger dial/markers. The reviewer is spot on about the 5 digit being more comfortable. 16610 is actually "A LOT MORE" comfortable than the super case and is truly an everyday watch. The 116610 has the word "luxury" written all over it and commands more wrist presence. On the day that I feel like being a snob and wants to impress others you will surely see the 116610 on my wrist.

[@tomasinacovell4293]

You sure that's really an H3 lume compound, that seems like 1989 and they stopped all that by the late 60's didn't they?

[@awos6559]

it would be helpful if these videos had a standard item, say, an iPhone to allow viewers a clear sense of the size. this watch is quite smaller than the video seems to suggest. i think the gentleman has a smaller than average hand, which makes it seem larger. in fact, this watch is quite smaller. this is something, for some reason, most videos just can't seem to do. i watched this video, went down to the authorized rolex store here, and couldn't believe how tiny the thing is!!! its still a great piece, but the size is somewhat of a let down. i'd say they need it in a 42. i don't know whether just getting the case larger is enough. its still a great watch though, definitely great design. they just need a sub between this size and the sea dweller.

[@the1916company]

+aworldofsalsa twos That's a good idea. I'll try to include some other reference object, because my wrist is small as you note. The Explorer II 216570 is a 42mm case that might be exactly what you are seeking in a modern Rolex. Best, Tim

[@awos6559]

sure, thanks!!

[@stauffer65]

Great vid. Love them both!

[@v1c1ous0ne]

The new case is like the square tow shoe trend.....here now and gone in another minute......

[@kenlucie]

fantastic review of the modern & transition from vintage submariner really enjoyed it

[@dippin1523]

I like the Cyclops on the older watch much better than the newer one. no magnification on the newer watch. i think its a fake. It does not look like the newer submariners that I have seen

[@180mph9]

Super wide case 👍🏼

[@bertbaekelmans8959]

And the winner is the elegant one on the right.... rolex should be ashamed to have designed such a monster...

[@samadrid6321]

I just can't stand the new "super" cases. I am going to get a Rolex. I am going to get a Sub, but I am looking at a '90's no date. Your comparison is outstanding, and just solidifies my opinion, in my own so called mind anyway. I want subtle. I want sublime. I want no one to notice my Sub (when I get it). Jewelers On Time out of California has them fully serviced for about five grand and that is acceptable and doable for me in the next few months sometime. Again, thanks.

[@the1916company]

+ryvr madduck Hi rvyr, welcome to our channel! If you're looking at a 14060, consider buying one from the early Z series (roughly 2006) to 2011 (early scrambled serial). These are the best of the line, and they incorporate the 14060 "Mod" upgrades from the P series with the full COSC movement certification that started in 2006 on the No-Date. You can always check watchuwant.com to see what we're offering in four or five-digit Subs if you decide that the Super Case just isn't for you. Best, Tim

[@samadrid6321]

watchuwantinc Thank you, you have given a little more to consider. Good advice.

[@DanaBrown1984]

+ryvr madduck I suggest a two-liner with lug holes 14060m. imgur.com/aOU1iwn

[@samadrid6321]

Dana Brown Godd advice too late, I just got a 2003 Sea-Dweller and it is fantastic. To understand Rolex is to own and wear a Rolex. Subtle beauty and elegance.

[@DanaBrown1984]

+ryvr madduck oooh nice choice

[@conqwiztadore2213]

new one is too big for my wrist ;(

[@Madmanmarque]

Don't care how much better the bezel, bracelet or clasp is, the super case isn't so super. I have an early tritium, through hole 16610 and wouldn't even think trading for this monstrosity. I might have liked it better if the bracelet was increased to 22mm instead of the 20mm.

[@zeljkodusenjko5425]

Older sub is old an frail. Looks soft compared to the new sub . New sub is a beast l would take the new over the old anytime.

[@SENGVIN]

I wish they made 44mm

[@the1916company]

+SENGVIN Hi SENGVIN, have you tried the Deepsea? It's a very large 44mm case. I'd go so far as to say the 40mm 116610 Sub wears like a conventional 42mm, and the Deepsea wears larger than its rated 44mm. Best, Tim

[@Fredrikwatchesandartwork]

rolex maxi case👎 the old one is much more beautiful👍🇸🇪

[@toddaod295]

Beefier case, ceramic bezel, incredible lume and a far superior bracelet I'll take the new Sub all day long. You guys with girl size wrists stay with the old one

[@the1916company]

Thanks for "weighing" in Toddao d! Subscribe for more great video content!

[@NovaldiNur-ig8np]

I have a vintage model rolex submariner 18k from 1993, it's original, but when it compares to the newer model, it looks like a fake. lol

[@geoc1]

I'm thinking of selling my 16800 for a 116610, now I'm not that sure. I don't know what to do.

[@MarioGhillani]

Don't sell the old one

[@jasons_supra]

They ruined the submariner with the super case

[@tendrams]

Nice thick bevels on the super case would have made a world of difference in a positive direction!

[@noeljames7759]

I'm afraid the new one looks clunky and disproportioned.

[@stewester]

You're not doing the new reference any favours here! Shows how bulky and ill proportioned it is. I predict a retreat from the supercase in the next few years. The days of the 'bigger is better' attitude towards watches is over.

[@krystianstepien5835]

I see that the new version is a peace of crap. It is very common that the besel and the 12`oclock index misaligned together with the middle bar from the Rolex logo. In 8500$ watch - LOL.

[@ccw1961]

The new ceramics are just horrible. Blingy, over-blown, and have managed to completely emasculate the ultimate tool watch. Will look good in a cocktail bar. Understatement is the key with the sub. small, elegant purposeful....a tool watch of note! Rolex need to separate the ceramics from the original design.

[@TheVideoinvideo]

Are you sure the 116610 is real?For me is a fake rolex. Look at the numebre under the lens cyclope. Is too little tham the original. 2:45

[@camarocarl7130]

New one looks clunky. Take the classic anyday.

[@the1916company]

Not a problem, thanks for your feedback! - WatchBox Team

[@davidl.2284]

Not a fan whatsoever of the new Ceramic Schwartzeneggers rolex is making.... I can't imagine the watch aging at all with any attractive patina etc.... Way too indestructible... Gimme vintage all day long.

[@davidl.2284]

BTW this reviewer is a beast... great job buddy!

[@doca203]

That’s the reason to get the new sub c!