Subs 16610 and 14060 (M).. Some Comparisons..

[JP.]

Thanks for "bumping" this up. Valuable information here. I added this chart to my 5-digit Rolex Guide (Tools is credited).

https://luxurywatches635.wordpress.c...-rolex-to-get/

[ricof]

Hi everyone, first post here.

Are there differences in the bezel inserts? Fat fonts/flat four etc?

Thank you.

[springer]

Originally Posted by ricof

Hi everyone, first post here.

Are there differences in the bezel inserts? Fat fonts/flat four etc?

Thank you.

Bezel inserts vary based on the era the watch is from. some inserts had the pointed 4s, some had the flat-top 4s and there are other variations also.

You need to look at some various examples to get an idea what the inserts looked like during the various eras or years of production.

As an example, during 2004, the insert's 4s changed from the ones found on previous inserts. In 2004, the 4s went from being flat on top to pointed at the top.

[SOG DIVER]

Tools finely distinguished between the two Rolex references.

As an aside, the 14060 M or Modified 14060 came into existence 1999-2000 and it featured a return to a full balance bridge with Breguet over coil.
Stronger and more accurate. This change resulted in the caliber 3130 movement. The ref. 16610 utilizes a 3135 caliber, which has the date complication.
Agree with Larry that this 14060M should be continued by Rolex as issued with lug holes.
Might as well add two other features from decades gone by that would really set the
14060 M apart in a league of its own.
A re-issuance including a gilt dial and hands with a domed crystal. As a chronometer
with SEL case ledge; this would make it unique -almost a modern 40 mm 5512 reference.
Might as well do it large. There are probably enough 14060 SS cases left near Geneva to justify the re-issuance.

Rolex would not be able to keep them on the AD shelves. They could charge a slight premium increase to justify the added features expense.

[WeiLo]

Nice share

[GONZO2LR]

wow...i did not know this....thank you...

[wangyuetian]

Thank you for sharing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ztonsi]

Interesting stuff.

[Bruno Datejust]

Hello Tools,
Great thank you for this info. I'm considering the purchase of a 5 digit Sub. Do you know if there is a difference in the thickness of the
back of the Subs also? Maybe more protruding back cover or more protruding mounting of the cover?

Originally Posted by Tools

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..

Attachment 136354

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:
Attachment 136353

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..

Attachment 136355

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..

[Berminator]

This is the kind of thing I joined TRF for 👍😎👍

[Subterranean]

Love the technical side ..

[Dave455]

Fantastic post Larry!

The watch you are showing seems to be a 14060 though, rather than a 14060 M.

As SOG Diver pointed out, the ‘M’ stood for modified and the newer movement was more accurate. It came with Chronometer certification, which the older 14060 never did, and of course the dial was marked “Superlative Chronometer, Officially Certified”!

I always preferred the No Date over the Date model. I think it’s about the best “tool” watch out there. When you add a date function, it starts to detract from legibility in low light, which is what these watches are about!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Dave455

Fantastic post Larry!

The watch you are showing seems to be a 14060 though, rather than a 14060 M.

As SOG Diver pointed out, the ‘M’ stood for modified and the newer movement was more accurate. It came with Chronometer certification, which the older 14060 never did, and of course the dial was marked “Superlative Chronometer, Officially Certified”!

I always preferred the No Date over the Date model. I think it’s about the best “tool” watch out there. When you add a date function, it starts to detract from legibility in low light, which is what these watches are about!

Not 100% true the 14060M was introduced in 2000 the change from the cal 3000 to cal 3130 and was not then COSC tested. It was not till around 2007 it was COSC tested, and whether tested or not it's how the movement is regulated give the accuracy both cal 3000 and 14060 or 14060M are as accurate as each other.The Explorer had the exact same cal 3000 movement as the 14060 sub, the Explorer was COSC tested but the 14060 was not.Today the COSC test is little more that marketing, as many many movements from most all brands could match the COSC test results, it's quite costly to test each movement this is why many brands did not choose to test.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Dave455

Fantastic post Larry!

The watch you are showing seems to be a 14060 though, rather than a 14060 M.

As SOG Diver pointed out, the ‘M’ stood for modified and the newer movement was more accurate. It came with Chronometer certification, which the older 14060 never did, and of course the dial was marked “Superlative Chronometer, Officially Certified”!

I own a 14060M, 2 liner, Z serial not cosc certified. I believe the (M) on the thread title means the numbers he posted are valid for both.

[Nonuendo]

Thanks for the info! This is one of the reasons I am such a big fan of this site!

[mountainjogger]

How did I miss this post!

Excellent work Larry!

[jkkwaz]

Great stuff! 16610 is my grail!

[srboutros]

Expert knowledge at its finest. )))))

[Vesper Lynd]

Thank you very much for this information.

[mountainjogger]

Bumpting this on my yearly read of a great post. Thanks for the info!

[Filipão]

Thank you Larry.

[SOG DIVER]

Peter is correct as to the 14060M and the inherent issue date and COSC certification.
Additionally, the 14060M "M" suffix involves the caliber internal changes within the 3130 movement,
as a Breguet over coil and full balance bridge.
An excellent article by Paul Altieri on the 14060/14060M is titled "Last of the Best".
It is recommended reading for those interested in these Rolex Submariner references.

[Gerry62]

Originally Posted by SOG DIVER

Peter is correct as to the 14060M and the inherent issue date and COSC certification.
Additionally, the 14060M "M" suffix involves the caliber internal changes within the 3130 movement,
as a Breguet over coil and full balance bridge.
An excellent article by Paul Altieri on the 14060/14060M is titled "Last of the Best".
It is recommended reading for those interested in these Rolex Submariner references.

"Last of the Best". The title is absolutely true

[SOG DIVER]

Originally Posted by padi56

Not 100% true the 14060M was introduced in 2000 the change from the cal 3000 to cal 3130 and was not then COSC tested. It was not till around 2007 it was COSC tested, and whether tested or not it's how the movement is regulated give the accuracy both cal 3000 and 14060 or 14060M are as accurate as each other.The Explorer had the exact same cal 3000 movement as the 14060 sub, the Explorer was COSC tested but the 14060 was not.Today the COSC test is little more that marketing, as many many movements from most all brands could match the COSC test results, it's quite costly to test each movement this is why many brands did not choose to test.

Rolex chose to add the M suffix to indicate the 14060M involved the caliber changes to a full balance bridge and Breguet overcoil, but not enough to justify a new reference series.
My own 16610 and 14060M have drilled lugs, which as a diver-facilitate the use of a NATO band.
Peter is also correct to indicate the direction of COSC testing as it applies today to references considered "luxury" watches.
It is interesting to note that in 1960, when my own 5512 Submariner was
made, some 5512s were two line versions while Rolex was just beginning to
have some dials marked "Officially Certified Chronometer". Most of these very early chronometers utilized the 1560 caliber, as does mine.
The 5512 was also the first Submariner with crown guards as a tool watch, while the 14060/14060M series could be considered as direct descendants.

[temporaltactix]

I see why people own both now. Sometimes it's good to know nothing then you can learn lol