Vintage Modern- 14060-14060M REVIEW

[SOG DIVER]

As a long term user and wearer of the different iterations within
the Rolex Submariner reference, this is a reviewer's review.

The 14060 is a modern continuation of the 5513 classic Submariner
that was a test bed for the gas release valve and the Sea Dweller.
The MilSubs also came about from the 5513 in the guise of the 5517 reference.
The 14060 M appeared about 2000- improved reference caliber 3130 added the Breguet overcoil and full balance bridge. Important additions in terms of accuracy and reliability.

For owners of either of these Submariners, a recommended further detailed review is found at:
bobswatches.com/rolex.blog/watchreview/last-best.rolex-submariner/-ref-1460.html

An easier way might be to hit Bob'sWatches "Last of the Best" and Google
will run you right in to the review.

Paul Altieri gives an excellent review, in my opinion-of the Rolex
continuation of the classic vintage but modern 40 mm Submariner. The improvements are outlined in detail with a smooth review explaining the advantages of a modern Submariner in a vintage-styled case and bracelet.

While I own a 16610 drilled lug variant date Submariner, and have owned a 1680 red Sub date for 50 years (as the original owner) the 14060M is probably my favorite Rolex after the 5512 and 5513.
Theses references hark back to the 1960s tool watch era when conservative Rolex designers would have hardly considered an improved crystal-
and strongly vetoed a larger case or bracelet-albeit created improved internal caliber modifications.

So there you have it-the last of the best.

[Michaeli Paulo]

Thank you for this review.

I came here interested in buying one watch, the Classic Rolex Submariner. After much research and soul searching, I decided upon the 14060M, which to me is the newest version available of this classic watch.

Fortunately, I also had the pleasure of reading Bob’s review while doing my research.

Thank you again, this post helps to solidify my decision, although I’m confident I’ve been blessed with the watch of my dreams.

Michael

[Thuilln]

Originally Posted by Michaeli Paulo

Thank you for this review.

I came here interested in buying one watch, the Classic Rolex Submariner. After much research and soul searching, I decided upon the 14060M, which to me is the newest version available of this classic watch.

Fortunately, I also had the pleasure of reading Bob’s review while doing my research.

Thank you again, this post helps to solidify my decision, although I’m confident I’ve been blessed with the watch of my dreams.

Michael

Perfect. Iconic. Timeless.

[watchdogitalia]

Agreed ,
I think the new no date sub is a really wearable watch with a great presence unlike the older non ceramic version .

[Michaeli Paulo]

Originally Posted by watchdogitalia

Agreed, I think the new no date sub is a really wearable watch with a great presence unlike the older non ceramic version.

No offense, but I’m not sure if you noticed that everything in this thread is actually “singing the praises” of the “older non-ceramic version,” including the above (and below) photos of my 14060M. :)



The article that the Original Poster, “Sog Diver” reviewed above is specifically focused upon “The Last of the Best” referring to the 14060 and 14060M versions which were discontinued upon the emergence of the bigger, ceramic Submariner, the 114060 in 2012. The new ceramic version is, without question, still a great watch, but the author details how the changes in 2012 were the first drastic changes since the Submariner’s inception.

Here’s the link to the article at Bob’s Watches that Sog Diver referenenced:
”The Last of the Best”

Some folks love the more classic look and attributes of the old; some love the more modern look and attributes of the new...and some love both!!!

Here’s my most recent “favorite photo” of my Classic Rolex Submariner 14060M:



(I can’t stop taking pictures of this beauty!!!)

Michael

[mountainjogger]

Great watch. Great review. Thanks.

[nrr5]

Great review. Thanks for sharing.

[Michaeli Paulo]

Here’s another outstanding review of the Classic Rolex Submariner 14060M from Fratello Magazine, written by Michael Stockton.

https://www.fratellowatches.com/frat...14060m-review/

This article, (as well as the article linked above from Bob’s Watches,) was instrumental in helping me decide between the 14060M and the 114060.

Michael

[illiguy]

Thanks for sharing, Michael. The Fratello write-up was excellent.

Originally Posted by Michaeli Paulo

Here’s another outstanding review of the Classic Rolex Submariner 14060M from Fratello Magazine, written by Michael Stockton.

https://www.fratellowatches.com/frat...14060m-review/

This article, (as well as the article linked above from Bob’s Watches,) was instrumental in helping me decide between the 14060M and the 114060.

Michael

[subtona]

Perfect watch.

[DannyO]

Nice article from Bob's.

[SOG DIVER]

Ironically, the 14060/14060M have the same caliber movement, 3130-as the
newer versions. The 16610 Submariner date has the same 3135 movement, but with a date complication. The very latest 2020 Submariners "might"
have a Parachrom mainspring.

Hodinkee has an excellent Reference Point on the Submariner.
It's an enjoyable read with a great deal of tool watch Submariner history right up to the present time.

You probably have guessed that tough vintage tool watch Submariners are
my interest. It probably stems from a 1969- 1680 red Submariner that survived 50 years:Vietnam combat, Special Forces SCUBA School, many military parachute drops-
and enough harsh treatment to use up 4 crystals. Hans Wilsdorf would have
understood that-that's what Rolex watches are about. Not sitting in boutique shops but being put to the test........

[alex911s]

Great article on the ND subs..

[dlack]

The 2-liner 14060M I find better balanced aesthetically than the later (post-2007) 4-liner 14060M. Why so? Hear me out...whether you agree/disagree. The reason many prefer the no-date over the date sub is the absence of the date/magnifier which throws off the symmetry of the dial and case. That is the reason I too prefer the no-date sub. Add to that the following: the no-date sub, with all its symmetry (compared with the date sub) gives you the choice of the 2-line (pre-2007) or 4-line (post-2007) dial, although I understand there are post-2007 2-liners too. The 2-liner perfectly balances, from the six o'clock side ("Submariner" and "1000ft=300m"), the 2 lines on the 12 o'clock side ("Rolex" and "Oyster Perpetual"). The 4-liner throws off that symmetry. So, if the greatest symmetry is your preference, 2-line sub is the one to have. If you could not care less about symmetry, then the 2-line, 4-line or date sub may work equally well for you.

[SOG DIVER]

Since writing this review of the 14060M, and giving Paul Altieri full credit for his
insight into the detailed caliber improvements for service and accuracy-my opinions of this reference have not changed. Like cars and personal tastes, watch choices are subjective, but may have objective comparisons.
Since the 14060 was-in a since -the continuation of the now vintage 5512-5513 references, the 14060M resembles the 5512. Starting as a late 1950s 2-line Submariner,
It became a 4-line chronometer about 1962 when Rolex introduced the 5513. Cases and crystals could be interchanged between the two references. Many later 5512s have 5513 casebacks.

A good CW21 watchmaker can adjust a 14060M 2-line non-chronometer to maintain
COSC chronometer accuracy standards. The watch reference is that well made.
I prefer the M suffix variant because one is getting a superior caliber watch reference,
at a relatively fair price.

So- if you like the idea of retaining a tough tool watch that has a modern choice of chronometer or non-chronometer caliber, has drilled lugs, and still can be found.... the
non-date 14060M might just be your huckleberry.

[papasub]

My 14060 was a daily wear for 20 years until I caught the collector disease. Now the ol' boy is semi-retired after years of love and abuse. A tuxedo night out, digging a ditch, changing engine oil... fearless timekeeper!

[daveo5]

I bought my 14060M when they were first brought out. Over the past few years I have noticed people saying how much nicer the latest model looks with new bezel, as opposed to the original aluminum. I have to say that the bezel’s appearance played little part in my decision to buy my 4 liner. My watch still turns in a +1 second per 24 even with a aluminum bezel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[illiguy]

14060M and 16610LV are the two best modern references in my opinion.

[SOG DIVER]

The 14060M {M meaning modified} has the 3130 movement as stated above. With this
caliber, Rolex replaced the hairspring with a Breguet overcoil and full balance bridge.
This increases both accuracy and reliability. The lugs are drilled and easier to replace the
bracelet with a tough NATO band. Rolex also about 2006-07 submitted the 14060M
for COSC accreditation as a certified chronometer. All adding to the charm and value of this tough reference.

[rmagoo57]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

The 14060M {M meaning modified} has the 3130 movement as stated above. With this
caliber, Rolex replaced the hairspring with a Breguet overcoil and full balance bridge.
This increases both accuracy and reliability. The lugs are drilled and easier to replace the
bracelet with a tough NATO band. Rolex also about 2006-07 submitted the 14060M
for COSC accreditation as a certified chronometer. All adding to the charm and value of this tough reference.

Amen!

[daveo5]

My 14060M is receiving its first service since I bought it new around 2008 -09. Timekeeping wise it’s + 1 second per day. Will see what its doing when I get it back from Luis at Rolex in Wynn’s, Las Vegas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro