In search of a 14060 Sub

[springer]

I would not rely on charts from Bob's Watches. Many are incorrect to include the one cited here.

[SOG DIVER]

There are still Submariner owners who do know the nuances of their particular reference. The 14060M has a superior caliber movement, hence accurate enough for submission by Rolex to the COSC for chronometer certification.

My own 14060M is a 2-line non-chronometer which is adjusted to stay within COSC
parameters:-1 sec+3. All other things being equal, the caliber performance of a recently discontinued Submariner is more important than reasonable external appearance.
A vintage 1969 red 1680 Submariner, visible at the avatar is in a vastly different category. I will never allow it to be polished.

[Gerry62]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

There are still Submariner owners who do know the nuances of their particular reference. The 14060M has a superior caliber movement, hence accurate enough for submission by Rolex to the COSC for chronometer certification.

My own 14060M is a 2-line non-chronometer which is adjusted to stay within COSC
parameters:-1 sec+3. All other things being equal, the caliber performance of a recently discontinued Submariner is more important than reasonable external appearance.
A vintage 1969 red 1680 Submariner, visible at the avatar is in a vastly different category. I will never allow it to be polished.

5512 1680 14060M ...... you have the best

[Serif]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

The 14060M has a superior caliber movement, hence accurate enough for submission by Rolex to the COSC for chronometer certification.

The 14060 from 1988 had the calibre 3000 which was also used in Explorer 14270. On 14270 the dial confirms it did achieve COSC status so not sure why you say the 14060M had a superior calibre movement as both were capable of achieving COSC.

[SOG DIVER]

Montres Rolex has always made their almost inscrutable decisions on references
like the 14060/14060M. While both calibers in the 14060 series were capable of chronometer accuracy, the changes in the 3130 caliber with a Breguet overcoil and full balance bridge cost Rolex a bit extra to manufacture. The M was added for Modified, but not enough to justify a new reference number.

The design team in Switzerland decided in about 2007 that a bit more invested in submitting the 14060M to the COSC was worthwhile-resulting in a certified chronometer wherein Rolex recouped its investment by charging more for that iteration. Paul Altieri goes into excellent detail with his "Last of the Best" on the 14060 series.

A similar decision was reached in about 1962 with the 5512/5513 Submariners.
In 1959 the first 5512s were 2-line non-chronometers. About 1963, Rolex introduced the 5513 which has always remained a 2-liner, while the 5512
since roughly 1963 remained COSC certified.
Ironically, the very early 2-line 5512s with flat crown guards and gilt dials have fetched astronomical collector prices at auction houses like Sothebys.

There are always exceptions with Rolex.

[Funkle]

My 25 year old 14060 is +2 spd :)
I'm a bit ocd so every couple of days I pull the crown and count to 5.
I wonder if the OP found a watch for sale yet. I have found several, of course one boasts a Tritium dial and 3130 movement.

[Serif]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Montres Rolex has always made their almost inscrutable decisions on references
like the 14060/14060M. While both calibers in the 14060 series were capable of chronometer accuracy, the changes in the 3130 caliber with a Breguet overcoil and full balance bridge cost Rolex a bit extra to manufacture. The M was added for Modified, but not enough to justify a new reference number.

The design team in Switzerland decided in about 2007 that a bit more invested in submitting the 14060M to the COSC was worthwhile-resulting in a certified chronometer wherein Rolex recouped its investment by charging more for that iteration. Paul Altieri goes into excellent detail with his "Last of the Best" on the 14060 series.

A similar decision was reached in about 1962 with the 5512/5513 Submariners.
In 1959 the first 5512s were 2-line non-chronometers. About 1963, Rolex introduced the 5513 which has always remained a 2-liner, while the 5512
since roughly 1963 remained COSC certified.
Ironically, the very early 2-line 5512s with flat crown guards and gilt dials have fetched astronomical collector prices at auction houses like Sothebys.

There are always exceptions with Rolex.

Thanks for this comprehensive reply👍. But I still much prefer my 1996 14060 with tritium markers just beginning to mellow in colour something the M series luminova/super luminova will never do.

[wait49]

Originally Posted by watchnwine

My 14060M is one of my very favorites but wondering why you are targeting? If you give us some thoughts, we can help you with the nuance. There are many subtle variations that makes the reference so interesting but also worth knowing so you can target your search.

I like the look of the 14060, i see they have the rehaut 2007-2008 14060M, is that the same thickness as the without rehaut?

[Funkle]

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=959177