![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
![]() |
#31 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Kevin
Location: Texas on my mind
Watch: Sub Date; SS/WG DJ
Posts: 2,445
|
I'd be interested in any ideas as to why. Why the different case, thicker caseback, thicker bezel, etc. on the 16610? The only functional difference is the date function; makes no sense from an economy of production standpoint.
I can't believe they had to make a bigger case to fit the 3135. My DJ has a pretty small case.
__________________
16610 Submariner Date; D Serial 16234 DateJust SS with WG Fluted Bezel & Jubillee, White Roman Dial; F Serial 16570 Explorer II White Dial; M Serial And Hers: 78240 Mid-Size DateJust SS with Domed Bezel & Oyster, White Roman; D Serial |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: eddie
Location: Montebello
Posts: 102
|
Larry rocks!
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,354
|
great info!!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: Peter
Location: Sydney
Watch: The Game
Posts: 17,409
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Thanks Larry ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Real Name: Laura
Location: Italy
Watch: 16610 + 16220
Posts: 385
|
Thank you for precious informations.
I think if Rolex celebrates submariner's 50 years with the LV edition (with date) they consider the REAL submariner the one with date. I can't understand people who still buy 14060 models.
__________________
Laura from Italy. 16610 + 16220. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Michael
Location: Skunk Hollow, TX
Watch: Rolex 116613LN Sub
Posts: 2,198
|
Again, I add another link to my Rolex only file. Thank you Larry.
![]()
__________________
JJ ........... Still missing you bro. May you enjoy the eternal peace the almighty has blessed you with. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: U.S
Watch: Rolex, PP, AP, GS
Posts: 5,706
|
nice info...thanks
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 62
|
Great info! thanks for sharing!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
I'm not sure I agree entirely with the above quote. I certainly consider the Sub ND a 'real' Sub and I have a feeling that Rolex feels exactly the same way. The 16610 might be the more iconic piece, but that doesn't make the 14060 any less 'real', in my view. For some people, the clean lines of the 14060 simply look better to their eye. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Watch: 116400GV
Posts: 834
|
Quote:
The aesthetic and historical appeal of the no-date Sub is well-known and doesn't need repeating here. It also shares the singleness-of-purpose and beautiful utilitarian quality that made its predecessor, the 5513, the quintessential Rolex "tool" watch. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2008
Real Name: Alan
Location: Maryland
Watch: 14060M
Posts: 164
|
Larry: I echo the other Forum members in commending your post. Very valuable information. I was at an AD and we compared the ND and Date Submariner and he tried to tell me that there was no difference between the two styles in terms of size. I have a small wrist and the difference in size between the two made the ND Sub a better choice for me. But I did not want the COSC model because the dial appears a bit busy. The non-COSC model is a more classic and clean look (IMO). Which is why I also disagree with Anipit. There is no need to get pejorative with which Submariner is real. I like Springbar's assessment:
"The aesthetic and historical appeal of the no-date Sub shares the singleness-of-purpose and beautiful utilitarian quality that made its predecessor, the 5513, the quintessential Rolex "tool" watch." Pefectly stated. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 741
|
Quote:
![]() Rolex's First sub, the no-date. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The City
Watch: Expies, Sub, IWCs
Posts: 159
|
First of all, thanks for the informative post, Larry. Thanks for the effort.
It seems to me that the debate "date vs no date" Subs is as old as time itself. I can remember being at my AD when i bought mine, I must have run back to the store 3 or 4 times before finally going for a non date Sub. It's not that I hate the cyclops too much, since the magnified date is and will always be an iconic Rolex feature, but I guess I'm just one of those people who prefer to look at the Sub in a purely functional way: in this sense, the 14060 M does have a no nonsense, cleaner and slightly more utilitarian look to it. No other watch in the Rolex line (safe for maybe the Explorer I) conveys that message in my opinion. I also think the 14060 M looks gorgeous with he COSC inscription. I just hope that Rolex will come out with a ceramic 14060 M COSC hopefully in the near future just to see what it looks like. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: GMT+7
Watch: ALS, Rolex & Patek
Posts: 62
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Somewhere
Watch: SS M-Submariner
Posts: 151
|
Thanks for posting this... My wife was asking me the difference between a Sub date and a ND last night and I really did not have anything to say other than the obvious one has a date and the other doesn't!!!
![]() Thanks for this awesome post! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Scotland
Watch: 14060m
Posts: 631
|
I would love to see a ceramic 14060m! I personally prefer the way the 14060m looks to the 16610 but I would like the SEL bracelet and added weight!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,230
|
Great info Larry but that was one thing you missed.
![]()
__________________
E |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: Tristan
Location: GIRONA , SPAIN
Watch: 116520/660/710/334
Posts: 7,147
|
Funny I should come across this thread after just putting down the phone with my AD . I had to make sure he was going to in next time I go there . I need to pick up a watch and get my discount .. the Tudor salesman there wants to skin me alive ..
![]() Anyway , I started talking about the my 116520 that should be there tomorrow along with the first 11661LN he gets (sold and paid upfront , I'm on 4th place with no deposit ) .. via 16610 he has still 3 in stock and I could be tempted to buy one if he discounts it enough and FINALLY to the NO date SUB .. he has one and will not discount it as he says they will stop making it and they are harder to get hold of then the 16610 . Does that sound right or is he pulling my leg ? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: janice
Location: St.Petersburg Fl
Watch: all of them!
Posts: 673
|
sheesh i had no idea!
fantastic post as i really had no idea of the size differences with these 2 models. i also just figured one is date and the other is without
![]() i guess i'm just too into the vintage and never explored these newer models very well. i really should know more about this new stuff, as within the last few months i had to fork over big bananas and get janice the new ceramic maxi sub in tutone and blue, along with a new black 16613...as she decided she needed these. ![]() getting back to the 2 watches being compared in this thread, this is very interesting info and very enlightening! i actually have a soft spot for both the date and non-date as they both have their individual allure. i curently don't have a 14060 but i really find them quite interesting. i love the clean "tool" look, and am especially fond of the older style oyster bracelet without the SEL headlink. we have alot of SEL style watches in our stable now, so i think one of these 14060 babies is next on my list. i'm a simple kinda guy ![]() fred |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Roma caput mundi
Watch: Rolex 16610
Posts: 51
|
very informative!
thanks! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: cavite
Posts: 11
|
very nice info...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Carl
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Watch: Rolex Explorer 1
Posts: 1,780
|
![]() Since the new Sub-c has come out, I have gained a new interest in the Sub models, in particular the new Sub-c and the Sub no date. The info you provide has answered a lot of questions for me. Cheers, Carl
__________________
Those who possess a sense of entitlement are seldom satisfied. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Real Name: Alvin
Location: So Cal
Watch: ROLEXES
Posts: 5,390
|
Very informative. Thanks for sharing, Larry.
![]() ![]()
__________________
"A thing of beauty is a joy forever"............John Keats |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Real Name: Ritchie
Location: NYC
Watch: Holy Trinity
Posts: 407
|
Thanks for enlightening me! I had always thought the difference was only the dates but now I know better
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Real Name: Mario
Location: CANADA
Posts: 2,483
|
Wow they really are different huh?
__________________
♛ DJII 116234 · Submariner 126610LV · Yacht Master 42 226659 ✿ Pelagos 25600TN Ω X-33 Speedmaster Skywalker · 1861 Speedmaster Modsukoshi · SMP 2254.50 · SMP 2230.50 NAC · Seamaster 300 166.0324 · Genève 162.037 Seiko SLA033 Willard · SKX007 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston
Posts: 3
|
Concerned New Sub. owner
As a neophyte Rolex owner (but a veteran admirer) I have a question I'd like to put out to the community. I just purchased a the New Submariner Date in SS from an authorized Rolex dealer. On closer inspection I notice the "t" in ft under the Submariner designation is crossed all the way through, from left to right, instead of the way I have seen it on every other Sub, from the center of the 't' to the right. Is this a variant from Rolex or something I should be worried about (i.e. oversight by a high-end forger)? Also, the etched crown at the 12-o'clock position on the flange is slightly off-center relative to the minute mark. Again, maybe I'm being paranoid, but Rolex isn't known for putting random changes out there but they are known for superlative QC. I'd appreciate the wisdom of those who have gone before me.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,596
|
Nice information, thanks Larry!!
![]()
__________________
______________________________ You can't turn back the clock. But you can wind it up again. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 14
|
Very informative! Thanks for the info!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: usa, ct
Posts: 103
|
Larry - I wanted to echo everybody's comments, and thank you for a great iconic post :).
M |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 |
Vacated
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Marc
Location: Connecticut
Watch: PAM 111 'N'
Posts: 2,558
|
I never saw this until today!
![]() Great info/specs...thanks! ![]()
__________________
![]() Card Carrying Member of the Global Assoc. of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons Executive Dorklehead ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.