The Rolex Submariner, a legend in the world of horology, boasts a rich history marked by subtle yet significant variations. One such detail, often debated and meticulously scrutinized by collectors, is the presence or absence of drilled lug holes on the case. This article will delve into the fascinating world of the Rolex Submariner 16610, specifically focusing on those coveted examples without the characteristic drilled lug holes – often referred to as "no holes" – and the intricacies surrounding their identification, desirability, and potential problems.
The Rolex Submariner 16610, produced from 1988 to 2010, represents a significant chapter in the Submariner's lineage. This model, characterized by its iconic 3-6-9 dial layout and sapphire crystal, saw several subtle changes throughout its production run. One of the most debated – and often debated passionately – is the presence or absence of the drilled lug holes. These small holes, located on the underside of the lugs, were originally designed to facilitate the attachment of spring bars during the watch's assembly. However, Rolex eventually transitioned away from this design, resulting in a significant number of Submariner 16610s being produced without these holes.
The Rolex 16610 Submariner: Holes and the Evolution of Design
The presence of drilled lug holes on the Rolex 16610 Submariner is not simply an aesthetic detail; it's a marker of a specific period in the watch's production. Early examples of the 16610 almost invariably featured these holes. This design, while functional, also presented some potential drawbacks. The holes could potentially weaken the lugs, albeit minimally, and also created a slightly more complex process for strap changes. This led Rolex to gradually phase out the drilled lug holes, leading to a significant variation within the 16610 production run.
The transition wasn't abrupt. The exact timeline of the change is difficult to pinpoint precisely, and there's considerable debate among collectors and experts. Some believe the change occurred gradually over several years, with a mix of both "holed" and "no holes" cases produced concurrently. Others suggest a more definitive shift at a specific point in the production process. This lack of precise documentation adds to the allure and mystique surrounding the "no holes" 16610.
Rolex 16610 Submariner Problems: Are No Holes Better?
The question of whether a "no holes" 16610 is inherently "better" than its holed counterpart is subjective and heavily debated within the collecting community. While some believe the absence of holes strengthens the lugs and contributes to a cleaner, more modern aesthetic, others argue that the difference is negligible. There's no definitive evidence to suggest that the presence or absence of holes significantly impacts the watch's durability or longevity.
However, the absence of holes does introduce a potential complication: strap changes. While modern spring bar tools can easily manage strap changes on both "holed" and "no-holed" cases, the lack of holes requires a bit more precision and care. Improperly installed spring bars on a "no holes" case could potentially damage the lugs, although this is rare with proper technique.
current url：https://dgpjbh.d319y.com/global/rolex-submariner-no-holes-engraved-32045