ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
2 February 2010, 07:38 AM | #1 |
TRF Moderator & 2024 SUBMARINER Patron
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,458
|
Subs 16610 and 14060 (M).. Some Comparisons..
Most neophytes to Rolex see the Sub and the Sub Date and just assume that one has a date, the other doesn't, and that's the difference..
Of course, this is not true. They are completely different watches.. Here is a bit of trivia to amaze your friends: ......................... Sub................. Sub Date Case Size ........ 39.5mm................ 39.5mm Case inc Crown . 43.50mm..............43.60mm (difference could be possible to a higher seated tube) Bezel Diameter... 39.5mm ...............40.00mm Thickness.......... 12.20mm ..............12.55mm (Sub Date middle case is thicker as is the bezel) Crystal Diameter..29mm ...................30mm Visible Dial..........25.5mm..................26.5mm Lugs.................Holes..................No Holes (since ~2001) Weight ............ 127 grams .............. 135 grams Hand length.....................same....... Almost nothing on these watches interchanges except the hands and Triplock Crown... Even the bezel inserts are different to fit the different size bezels, and they use different (although interchangeable until SEL's) bracelets.... Since they do use the same hands, it gives an illusion that they are longer because of the smaller dial..they extend into the markers more.. IMG_0005copy.jpg Here you can clearly see that the Bezel on the 16610 is thicker than the 14060 by comparing the undercut beneath the bezel grip surface: SubBezels.jpg Another difference is the machined ledge on the backside of the 16610 (right) for the fitment of an SEL bracelet. The 14060 does not have suich a lip or ledge and an SEL bracelet cannot be fitted to this model without modification.. SubShelf.jpg Since these watches are made independently, and since they have continued on with the legacy of the original (nostalgic) Sub in the 14060M; I believe it will continue in production..
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member Last edited by Tools; 21 June 2011 at 01:27 PM.. |
2 February 2010, 07:42 AM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Real Name: Karis
Location: USA
Posts: 19,377
|
Great info, Larry! Both are so iconic and just beauties!!!
|
2 February 2010, 07:47 AM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dennis
Location: Bay Area - 925
Posts: 40,018
|
Thanks Larry, great info.
__________________
TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007) |
2 February 2010, 07:49 AM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GMT+1
Posts: 2,711
|
Thanks Larry! Great info. If it is OK for you I'll add them to the list of measurements I already have.
Best, A |
2 February 2010, 07:58 AM | #5 |
TRF Moderator & 2024 SUBMARINER Patron
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,458
|
Sure.. I've rounded them off so they are not absolutely precise..
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member |
2 February 2010, 08:00 AM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GMT+1
Posts: 2,711
|
Would you mind posting the EXACT measurements, for a true WIS like me? Or a PM perhaps?
(Crazy, I know...), but I guess you understand ;-) |
2 February 2010, 07:54 AM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Not here anymore
Posts: 4,787
|
Wow Larry, I never knew this, I was one of those who assumed the only difference was the date.
|
2 February 2010, 07:56 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Buz
Location: Atlanta
Watch: Rolex Tudor Pam
Posts: 5,108
|
As usual a very informative post. Thanks Larry.
__________________
Buz The faster you move, the slower time passes, the longer you live. Peter Diamandis |
2 February 2010, 08:05 AM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Real Name: Joe
Location: New Jersey
Watch: 16610LV
Posts: 147
|
Thanks for the info! This is one of the reasons I am such a big fan of this site!
|
2 February 2010, 08:18 AM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Russ
Location: Southern NJ
Posts: 5,760
|
Very informative, Larry. Thanks for sharing.
__________________
Russ |
2 February 2010, 08:30 AM | #11 |
Fondly Remembered
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
|
Great info as always, Larry.......thanks!!
__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!! |
2 February 2010, 09:26 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Watch: Panerai 000
Posts: 394
|
Expert knowledge at its finest.
|
2 February 2010, 10:40 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: SK
Location: Greenland
Watch: Various SUBs
Posts: 473
|
great shot! great info! great watches!!
My first(14060) and fourth(16610)Rolex. For some reason they haven't been flipped, and they won't! EVER!!!
__________________
Founder and CEO of the "BLUME" Club Rolex ref: 14060 - 92', 16600- 06', 116610LN 11' In Da House!! He who only loves one woman and one watch, doesn't truly love women or watches!! "Not all that is countable, counts; and not all that counts, is countable" |
2 February 2010, 10:45 AM | #14 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Real Name: Abel
Location: Down South
Watch: Rolex Submariner
Posts: 2,234
|
Hello Larry! Thanks for this info!
Just amazing! I“ve been owner of both subs for decades, and never had paid attention to these differences. I thought they were identical except for the date feature. Thanks again for a most informative post and nice pictures!! Kind regards, Abel
__________________
50 Years of ROLEX Passion! Grail Rolex: 5508 c. 1959 "Bond" Sub. |
2 February 2010, 10:56 AM | #15 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Scotland
Watch: 14060m
Posts: 631
|
Thanks! I have the 14060M and the only thing I feel im missing out on is the improved braclet of the 16610. Other than that I prefer the ND (just!).
Both lovely watches! Especially in SS. |
2 February 2010, 10:59 AM | #16 |
TRF Moderator & 2024 SUBMARINER Patron
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Ken
Location: SW Florida
Watch: One on my wrist.
Posts: 63,933
|
Thanks--great info!
__________________
SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT |
4 February 2010, 01:08 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Real Name: HaNgat
Location: Jakarta
Watch: Sports Rolex
Posts: 648
|
Good info. I too was thinking only date difference but now I know. Thanks!
__________________
Cartier Tank / Suunto Stinger / 16014 / 16610LV / PAM 233 / 116520 / 14060M / 16710 / Omega Constellation |
4 February 2010, 01:11 AM | #18 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Paul
Location: New Haven, CT
Watch: 116610 Sub-C
Posts: 6,552
|
Thanks for the good thread!
|
4 February 2010, 01:24 AM | #19 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Jib
Location: SJ, California
Watch: sun dial
Posts: 8,189
|
I always learn something new on TRF.
Thanks Larry! |
4 February 2010, 02:10 AM | #20 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 901
|
Thanks Larry
another great informative post. I was quite surprised to read that the Bezels/inserts are different. can you possible post a photo of the view profile of the 2 bezels?? |
22 February 2010, 12:10 AM | #21 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Watch: Rolex 14060M
Posts: 72
|
Quality post, thanks
|
23 February 2010, 11:24 PM | #22 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Christopher
Location: Singapore
Watch: out kiddo!
Posts: 1,033
|
I didnt know these are 2 distinct models. Thank for sharing!
|
2 July 2024, 05:49 AM | #23 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2024
Location: Dallas, TX
Watch: 126610LV
Posts: 79
|
I see why people own both now. Sometimes it's good to know nothing then you can learn lol
|
24 February 2010, 12:47 AM | #24 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Deep Sea
Posts: 1
|
Thanks Larry, great info. Now I know they are different.
|
23 February 2010, 02:25 AM | #25 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Mike
Location: Nashville, TN
Watch: 116520
Posts: 127
|
Good job Larry! I just bought both about 2 weeks ago. The Sub Date for my wife and the Sub for me. I knew the date was thicker, but to the casual eye everything else looks close. My wife will find this interesting as well.
BTW, my sub is the certified version. Thanks again.
__________________
STOC: Rolex SS WD Daytona, Rolex SS Submariner Date, Rolex SS Submariner, Ω De Ville Hour Vision, Ω Speedy Pro Sa, Ω De Ville Co-Axial SSec, Ω PO 45.5mm 600M Co-Axial,Ω SMP 300M Diver Chrono, Ω SMP 200M Quartz, Panerai Radiomir Black Seal, Breitling Navitimer, Sinn 356 Flieger Sa, TAG Heuer Aquaracer Calibre 5, Citizen Blue Angels Skyhawk. |
23 February 2010, 05:30 PM | #26 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Watch: Rolex 14060M
Posts: 72
|
A question pertaining to the 14060M. Has the font that "Submariner" is written in changed between the 14060 and the 14060M? I remember seeing some Subs where the font is different from the ones pictures above.
|
24 February 2010, 02:08 AM | #27 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Ed
Location: Lexington, Ky
Watch: AP and Rolex
Posts: 541
|
thanks but i really hope they update the NO date as im a huge fan and i would like to add a new one to my collection!!!!
|
24 February 2010, 02:41 AM | #28 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 58
|
The knowledge here is impressive, thanks.
|
1 March 2010, 08:01 AM | #29 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: honolulu
Watch: whatever runs
Posts: 551
|
i posted this in larry's thread concerning the newly added images. i realize for record-keeping purposes that it is better suited here:
great details! with the first photo, it is apparent that the 16610's crystal is more recessed inside the thicker thicker bezel when compared to the 14060m's crystal and thinner bezel. what is the reason behind the thicker bezel? presumably, due to the date complication? and do you have any readily available comparisons of the 1680 & 16800 (minus the acrylic crystal)? in other words, has the sub date's bezel always sat higher than the sub no date's bezel? just a thought... it seems rolex would want to make it as easy as possible on themselves and insure that these components are interchangeable. are the differences of mechanics between these two watch cases/movements too great to overcome? stocking separate, large quantities of bezels (in the process of being discontinued) for the 16610 and 14060m seems a very inefficient way of going about it. thoughts? |
2 March 2010, 01:37 AM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: World Citizen
Posts: 593
|
Fantastic info......
You can also see the crystal on the 14060 protrudes above the bezel much more than 16610(maybe because of the different bezel sizes???) Also the crown appears to be thicker on 16610. Amazing photos Larry!!!! |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.