WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

Review of Rolex Submariner 16610

12K views 64 replies 34 participants last post by  JP. 
#1 ·
How could you possibly write a "review" of the most iconic watch in the world, the Rolex Submariner? There must be hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of reviews of this watch already. Wouldn't it be like beating a dead horse?

Probably. But let's write one anyway.

LINK TO THE REVIEW



It's just a quick, simple writeup with some of my photography. Enjoy... and let me know if you find any mistakes.
 
See less See more
1
#5 ·
Great review. Makes me want to get a 16610. I like godfrey19 think the 14060m 4-liner with engraved Rehaut is my favorite. That also happens to be the one I own.

I think someday these late model 14060m are going to be the ones to own. They have elements of the new Subs with the 4 lines of text and Rehaut engraving, plus the elements of the older subs with the case shape, lug holes and hollow end link bracelets. They were also made in far fewer numbers than the 2-liners just based on production years.

But you really can't go wrong with any of them. I have absolutely no interest in any of the 6 digit references. The more I look at and come to appreciate the 5 digit references, the more I think they completely ruined the GMTs and Subs with the super cases.
 
#7 ·
Great review. Makes me want to get a 16610. I like godfrey19 think the 14060m 4-liner with engraved Rehaut is my favorite. That also happens to be the one I own.

I think someday these late model 14060m are going to be the ones to own. They have elements of the new Subs with the 4 lines of text and Rehaut engraving, plus the elements of the older subs with the case shape, lug holes and hollow end link bracelets. They were also made in far fewer numbers than the 2-liners just based on production years.

But you really can't go wrong with any of them. I have absolutely no interest in any of the 6 digit references. The more I look at and come to appreciate the 5 digit references, the more I think they completely ruined the GMTs and Subs with the super cases.
If you have moderately sized wrist, I think 16600 and 14060 are perfect. I love the pure, beautiful lines of the 14060. But 16610 looks and wears better on a bigger wrist.

I have relatively big wrist (about 7'5) and that's probably I prefer the 16610. It wears "flatter" and "wider".

The only way to really find out is just to try them all on (if you get the opportunity). But you can't go wrong with any of them. SD, no-date and Sub Date are all great options.
 
#6 ·
This makes me miss mine! Sold it for a two tone sub and I kind of miss the sportiness of the 16610.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: JP.
#28 ·
I've said all along that the 5 digit Subs were the best of the line from the earliest Subs to the maxi-case clown dial 6 digit versions sold today. Mine is a 2000 Sub date that I bought new that year for $3600.

I'm wearing it today.
True. But the six-digit Submariners have their place too. Maybe in the future we'll see an iteration with the classic lines and modern materials. Guess you get a good laugh when you look back at what you paid for your Submariner.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
#11 ·
So I mentioned a few comments above that I owned a late model 2011 14060m. I really loved the watch and thought it fit great, but there was always something missing for me with it. Mainly it was the lack of the date function. I use this watch as my daily, so not having the date is perfectly fine, until you need to know what the date is.

The review and comparisons of the 14060, 16610 and 16600 really helped me gain an understanding of what direction I should go in for replacing my 14060 with a date model. And last week I did just that, I traded the 14060 for a 2008 m serial number 16610 with the engraved rehaut. I know many don't like the rehaut engraving, but I really it and I think it it gives a modern Rolex look in a days gone by case.

Anyway just a few quick observations:

- The 16610 does wear slightly wider and taller than the 14060, but not overwhelmingly so. It does sit taller, but it's very balanced. I really like the way it looks and feels on the wrist. It has a little more "heft" and it feels more solid than the 14060. It's not just the case back that is taller either, it also seems like the case / bezel are slightly taller as well. Overall, I think it fits just as good as the 14060 did on my 6.75 inch wrist, and I never thought I'd say that. I really thought the 14060 fit perfect.

- The solid end-link bracelet on the later model 16610's is definitely better than the hollow end-link stamped bracelet. The clasp is ever so slightly thicker and more solid. There is less play and rattle and it feels more solid and heavier in the hand. I also like the locking mechanism for the divers extension. The 14060 hollow bracelets does not have this, and half the divers extension comes out whenever you take it on and off. Now that's not a deal breaker, but it's certainly something you notice. As someone who dosn't like the new 6 digit bracelets because of their bulk, this bracelet is definitely a good in-between and my new favorite.

- The solid end links seem much less pronounced than on the 6 digit bracelet. They feel a little slimmer and don't stick out quite as much as they did on my BLNR. Now maybe that's just an illusion, but it feels that way to me. The bracelet wraps well around the wrist.

All in all, I am very happy I made this change. The 16610 I got also recently had the case professionally refinished and it looks as good as new. I'm not one that is really crazy about whether a watch is polished or not. I think if a watch is properly and professionally refinished to look factory, and did not lose any of its integrity in terms of its original shape or look during polishing, then it's perfectly fine. If it's poorly polished, obviously that's a different story.

Pics coming up soon.
 
#13 ·
So I mentioned a few comments above that I owned a late model 2011 14060m. I really loved the watch and thought it fit great, but there was always something missing for me with it. Mainly it was the lack of the date function. I use this watch as my daily, so not having the date is perfectly fine, until you need to know what the date is.

The review and comparisons of the 14060, 16610 and 16600 really helped me gain an understanding of what direction I should go in for replacing my 14060 with a date model. And last week I did just that, I traded the 14060 for a 2008 m serial number 16610 with the engraved rehaut. I know many don't like the rehaut engraving, but I really it and I think it it gives a modern Rolex look in a days gone by case.

Anyway just a few quick observations:

- The 16610 does wear slightly wider and taller than the 14060, but not overwhelmingly so. It does sit taller, but it's very balanced. I really like the way it looks and feels on the wrist. It has a little more "heft" and it feels more solid than the 14060. It's not just the case back that is taller either, it also seems like the case / bezel are slightly taller as well. Overall, I think it fits just as good as the 14060 did on my 6.75 inch wrist, and I never thought I'd say that. I really thought the 14060 fit perfect.

- The solid end-link bracelet on the later model 16610's is definitely better than the hollow end-link stamped bracelet. The clasp is ever so slightly thicker and more solid. There is less play and rattle and it feels more solid and heavier in the hand. I also like the locking mechanism for the divers extension. The 14060 hollow bracelets does not have this, and half the divers extension comes out whenever you take it on and off. Now that's not a deal breaker, but it's certainly something you notice. As someone who dosn't like the new 6 digit bracelets because of their bulk, this bracelet is definitely a good in-between and my new favorite.

- The solid end links seem much less pronounced than on the 6 digit bracelet. They feel a little slimmer and don't stick out quite as much as they did on my BLNR. Now maybe that's just an illusion, but it feels that way to me. The bracelet wraps well around the wrist.

All in all, I am very happy I made this change. The 16610 I got also recently had the case professionally refinished and it looks as good as new. I'm not one that is really crazy about whether a watch is polished or not. I think if a watch is properly and professionally refinished to look factory, and did not lose any of its integrity in terms of its original shape or look during polishing, then it's perfectly fine. If it's poorly polished, obviously that's a different story.

Pics coming up soon.
Excellent observations.

I think the 16610 has the best wrist presence of the three. It wears quite a lot "larger" than the 14060. I feel this is an advantage, especially on a bigger wrist.

And as I stated in the review the cyclops version of Submariner has become quintessentially "the youngtimer classic Rolex look". It's not the original but _has become_ the most iconic, imho.

The problem with SD 16600 is that it sits so high and it feels "narrow". Very small differences but maybe something that COULD bother people.

For me the 16600 is the ultimate collector's item but 16610 is the one that I prefer to wear.

The engraving is just a taste thing. Some like it, some don't.

Enjoy your 16610!!!
 
#15 ·
Well some of this a matter of taste and some concrete numbers.

In terms of looks - it's taste. I personally don't like the look of the new 6 digit ceramic submariners. To me, they're too square and that's a product of the thick lugs and larger case. The elegance of the true oyster case is missing on the new ceramic subs. I think that's the main reason some people complain that the 6 digit subs cannot be worn with dress attire - they're too utilitarian.

Weight, the 6 digits are heavier. The cases are bigger, the bracelets are solid, there is just more steel which = more weight. The comfort of these also depends on taste.

With accuracy, the movements are the same 3135/3130 with exception to the blue silicon hairspring added to the 6 digit models (as far as I've researched). How much more accurate that makes the watches I think depends. Both of my Submariner have run +/- .5 to 1 second per day when I measure. My 2016 BLNR with the 3186 - blue hairspring was +/- 0 to .5 spd. The 3130 and 3135 are workhorse movements which were used for decades by Rolex through multiple product lines. Are the newer caliber movements they come out with more accurate in technical measurements? Sure they are. But how much that matters in day to day usage to the customer is probably minuscule.
 
#17 ·
This is a great comparison review of the 5 and 6 digit references. I agree with everything stated in here and feel the exact same way about the two references.

Having owned both 5 and 6 digit references, the square design of the 6 digit models with the expanded lugs and case are really the deal-breaker over anything else. Sure, technically the movement is a better version of the 3135 and the solid bracelet and glidelock clasp are superior to the old stamped versions. But none of that matters if it doesn't pass the eye test. And my eyes could never fall in love with the 6 digit models on the wrist.

The side by side wrist shot in the above review really illustrate this well.
 
#29 ·
In reality the bigger lugs only look over big in photos on watch sites! I really like the 5 and 6 equally but for ageing eyesight the 6 digit wins hands down.

View attachment 14642563
View attachment 14642567
Agree. Of course this thread is leaning more towards the five digit Subs, but I like the way the six-digit look and feel over the previous generation. Current Subs feel and look more like jewelry than a tool. That given, I love both of them, and all Submariners in general. I think we debate the minutia about various models because arguably the Rolex Submariner is the greatest watch of them all.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
#23 ·
16610 great for small wrists compared to the 6 digit model.[emoji2958][emoji2958][emoji2958]
That's part of it for me as my wrist is 6.5" and flat. I can wear the 16610 easily but I'd tried on the current version of it some years ago and it was too bulky for me. I must be one of few who don't care at all for the ceramic bezels or new bracelet but then I never had a problem fitting and wearing the old style bracelets (I also have a 16710).
 
#26 ·
I cannot say I don't like the 6 digit sub but with me having only 6.5" wrist, the 5 digits gets me more love.... Never owned a 6 digit but I did compare it in the shop when they were still able to stay in the shelve for a while. I do not see any design flaws to my eye..... Specially I have both 16600 and 16610LV.... The LV is always my number 1 choice since I like the green bezel and the Maxi dial.... Aside from the stamp steel clasp that compare to the 6 digits...... it is super comfortable when wearing.......
 
#33 ·
I own both subs and love both models, but nothing will ever beat the classic flowing lines of the 5 digit sub. The new sub has probably the best bracelet ever put on a sports watch, but the old Sub's slim flowing lugs are in perfect harmony with the bracelet.
 
#37 ·
Yes the new bracelet is definitely superior in function and form. But I still wouldn't trade my old, flimsy Oyster to it.

This old bracelet simply just "belongs" to these old watches. It's very comfortable and it's always easy to find perfect fit.

The only downside is the stretching over time because of hollow middle links. But personally I've never experienced that as I don't wear my watches super tight.
 
#36 ·
Great review, TBH I learned something new. 4 years ago I bought a 16710 since the GMTs were a little cheaper mint used vs Date Subs and in my eyes were more versatile.

Fast forward to 2019 and my 16710 has doubled in value so bought a 16610 to wear daily.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top