ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Tools · 2 February 2010, 07:38 AM

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..

kcmo · 2 February 2010, 07:42 AM

Great info, Larry!

Both are so iconic and just beauties!!!

sea-dweller · 2 February 2010, 07:47 AM

Thanks Larry, great info.

acce1999 · 2 February 2010, 07:49 AM

Thanks Larry! Great info. If it is OK for you I'll add them to the list of measurements I already have.

Best,

A

Nicko · 2 February 2010, 07:54 AM

Wow Larry, I never knew this, I was one of those who assumed the only difference was the date.

buz-lh · 2 February 2010, 07:56 AM

As usual a very informative post. Thanks Larry.

Tools · 2 February 2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acce1999

Thanks Larry! Great info. If it is OK for you I'll add them to the list of measurements I already have.

Best,

A

Sure.. I've rounded them off so they are not absolutely precise..

acce1999 · 2 February 2010, 08:00 AM

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 ;-)

jlopicco · 2 February 2010, 08:05 AM

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

tifosi · 2 February 2010, 08:18 AM

Very informative, Larry. Thanks for sharing.

JJ Irani · 2 February 2010, 08:30 AM

Great info as always, Larry.......thanks!!

wgs · 2 February 2010, 09:26 AM

Expert knowledge at its finest.

Sub'erman · 2 February 2010, 10:40 AM

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!!!

Subexplorer · 2 February 2010, 10:45 AM

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

slevin kelevra · 2 February 2010, 10:56 AM

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.

HL65 · 2 February 2010, 10:59 AM

Thanks--great info!

hng · 4 February 2010, 01:08 AM

Good info. I too was thinking only date difference but now I know. Thanks!

ParisDakarBmw · 4 February 2010, 01:11 AM

Thanks for the good thread!

sakuraba · 4 February 2010, 01:24 AM

I always learn something new on TRF.

Thanks Larry!

Juggernaut · 4 February 2010, 02:10 AM

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??

erolorhun · 22 February 2010, 12:10 AM

Quality post, thanks

007Willster · 23 February 2010, 02:25 AM

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.

erolorhun · 23 February 2010, 05:30 PM

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.

chrislkb · 23 February 2010, 11:24 PM

I didnt know these are 2 distinct models. Thank for sharing!

MarineRider · 24 February 2010, 12:47 AM

Thanks Larry, great info. Now I know they are different.

eagle_lex · 24 February 2010, 02:08 AM

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!!!!

DSLAM · 24 February 2010, 02:41 AM

The knowledge here is impressive, thanks.

ayres · 1 March 2010, 08:01 AM

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?

everose · 2 March 2010, 01:37 AM

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!!!!

slevin kelevra · 2 March 2010, 05:17 AM

Anyone know the weights of the two watches?? Does the Sub Date feel like a far more substantial watch ??

2 February 2010, 07:38 AM	#1
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,478	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, 07:47 AM	#3
sea-dweller "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, 07:56 AM	#6
buz-lh "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, 08:18 AM	#10
tifosi "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
JJ Irani 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, 07:42 AM	#2
kcmo "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, 07:49 AM	#4
acce1999 "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, 07:54 AM	#5
Nicko 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, 08:00 AM	#8
acce1999 "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, 08:05 AM	#9
jlopicco "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, 09:26 AM	#12
wgs "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
Sub'erman "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
Subexplorer 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
slevin kelevra "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
HL65 TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: Dec 2007 Real Name: Ken Location: SW Florida Watch: One on my wrist. Posts: 63,979	Thanks--great info! __________________ *SPEM SUCCESSUS ALIT*

4 February 2010, 01:08 AM	#17
hng "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
ParisDakarBmw 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
sakuraba "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
Juggernaut "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
erolorhun "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Watch: Rolex 14060M Posts: 72	Quality post, thanks

23 February 2010, 02:25 AM	#22
007Willster "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	#23
erolorhun "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.

23 February 2010, 11:24 PM	#24
chrislkb "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!

24 February 2010, 12:47 AM	#25
MarineRider "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Deep Sea Posts: 1	Thanks Larry, great info. Now I know they are different.

24 February 2010, 02:08 AM	#26
eagle_lex "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	#27
DSLAM "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 58	The knowledge here is impressive, thanks.

1 March 2010, 08:01 AM	#28
ayres "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	#29
everose 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!!!!

2 March 2010, 05:17 AM	#30
slevin kelevra "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Scotland Watch: 14060m Posts: 631	Anyone know the weights of the two watches?? Does the Sub Date feel like a far more substantial watch ??

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)