Jay (Eire)
12332
I think so, but that's just my wrist! I find the 5 digit to be the best visually on my wrist.
I will add that the modern Sub I have is just as comfortable on the wrist, however visually it's just a tad on the large side.
An oldie but not yet vintage.
With all the recent posts about the 5 digit subs (I have one but it’s not for wearing really, I know, please don’t think bad of me) I did really want to go back to those slimmer lugs. My solution, well, my first love. I haven’t worn it that much in the la...
The beauty of a Rolex Submariner it never gets old,
My salty dog Rolex 16660 from the mid 1980's. Cleans up well too. ...
For me the 16600 is underrated, wrongly!
What i love of this Ref. is: the fat bezel, no cyclope, and it is the last Sea Dweller what you can wear diary. The new ones are to big and to high. I have a M-Serie von 2008, and i saw that she has a LONG "F". May be they all have this - i dont know. ...
16600 ?
Long F is normal in this. In a 14060M 4-line, it is very much not normal. You see the difference, right?
When I got mine it was the lack of a cyclops that pulled me in.
At that time I honestly knew very little about Rolex or watches generally. I was not aware of any forums, in fact it was many years later when I found the watch forums. That's all to say my choice was one just based purely on visuals and how the watch fel...
I think so, but that's just my wrist! I find the 5 digit to be the best visually on my wrist.
I will add that the modern Sub I have is just as comfortable on the wrist, however visually it's just a tad on the large side.