Rolex Submariner: 16610 vs 14060M

[lawler]

So I am looking at picking one of the pre-ceramic Submariners up. I used to own a ceramic No-Date model (116610LN) but it was just too big for my feminine sized wrist.

After going through several other watches, I have now come back full-circle and realise that I need to get one of these models to satisfy the itch.

Now - my choices are between:

16610 (date version) preferably 2002 k-serial.

This model benefits from solid end links and has the full submariner look with the cyclops date window.

14060M (no date version) preferably the latest model before the new ceramic was brought in - so around 2011/2012.

This model benefits from the upgraded hairspring, engraved rehaut, classic submariner styling, 4 line COSC certified.

Both models have the lug holes which is important for strap changes (that’s why I only looked at 2002 16610 as the latest model as they lose the lug holes after that year).

Both models are similar prices but I don’t know what to go for...my head is saying the 16610 as it’s the full package with the cyclops but my heart says the 14060M for the classic looks.

Any suggestions?

[mgsooner]

The date version is not the "full submariner look." That would be the 14060m.

[ROLEX*]

Kermit

[Brian Page]

14060 if you want the classic look

[stevedssd]

Originally Posted by Brian Page

14060 if you want the classic look

+1

[mosanman]

I went through a similar journey to you and eventually chose the 16610. No regrets.
Whichever one you do choose, you will definitely find the pre-ceramic case a better fit for your wrist. I was amazed at how different the 16610 wore to my 116610 when I first tried it on, they look so similar, yet wear like two different watches.

Maybe don't limit yourself to lug holes cases? I change straps often and it takes me at most a couple of minutes.

[lawler]

Originally Posted by mosanman

I went through a similar journey to you and eventually chose the 16610. No regrets.
Whichever one you do choose, you will definitely find the pre-ceramic case a better fit for your wrist. I was amazed at how different the 16610 wore to my 116610 when I first tried it on, they look so similar, yet wear like two different watches.

Maybe don't limit yourself to lug holes cases? I change straps often and it takes me at most a couple of minutes.

Great advice and pics.

If I’m looking at a later 16610 (ie after 2002) is there a particular year I should be looking for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SDREW22]

No cyclops=more lume

14060m for me, but i'm a lume fanatic

[thesharkfactor]

Originally Posted by mosanman

I went through a similar journey to you and eventually chose the 16610. No regrets.
Whichever one you do choose, you will definitely find the pre-ceramic case a better fit for your wrist. I was amazed at how different the 16610 wore to my 116610 when I first tried it on, they look so similar, yet wear like two different watches.

Maybe don't limit yourself to lug holes cases? I change straps often and it takes me at most a couple of minutes.

This looks like one of those JF Submariners.
Do you have paperwork for it?
Z serial is it, E06 clasp too? If it is, can you post some better close up pics and we'll confirm.
How did you come by this watch?

[kieselguhr]

Classic look would be 14060.

Office diver look would be the 16610

[Mick8moses]

14060m "Mike drop"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by lawler

So I am looking at picking one of the pre-ceramic Submariners up. I used to own a ceramic No-Date model (116610LN) but it was just too big for my feminine sized wrist.

After going through several other watches, I have now come back full-circle and realise that I need to get one of these models to satisfy the itch.

Now - my choices are between:

16610 (date version) preferably 2002 k-serial.

This model benefits from solid end links and has the full submariner look with the cyclops date window.

14060M (no date version) preferably the latest model before the new ceramic was brought in - so around 2011/2012.

This model benefits from the upgraded hairspring, engraved rehaut, classic submariner styling, 4 line COSC certified.

Both models have the lug holes which is important for strap changes (that’s why I only looked at 2002 16610 as the latest model as they lose the lug holes after that year).

Both models are similar prices but I don’t know what to go for...my head is saying the 16610 as it’s the full package with the cyclops but my heart says the 14060M for the classic looks.

Any suggestions?

This is an easy one. I wear my watches as tools and so function is first. I have the 16610, and find i use the date all the time (No, I do not use my phone for this as I dont feel the need to have it on me at all times). When ever i have a watch without a date, it never fails i flip the wrist and it is not there-so i miss it. If you find you never need that function, get the 14060. As far as the "classic looks", the sub date has been around a very long time, and both in my mind look equally great, and certainly to my eye the extra function of adding the date outweighs the aesthetics of having the cyclops, as Im not wearing this for jewelry purposes (though its quite a good looking watch lol).

[Aircraftman]

The classic Submariner - 14060M!!

The watch I lusted after for most of my youth. My first Rolex

For me it’s my sentimental favorite

[lawler]

Do the solid end links of the 16610 make much of a difference over the hollow end links of the 14060/14060m?

This is the one point I am struggling with....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[illiguy]

Having owned a solid end link (SEL) 16610 and one without lug holes, having also owned a 14060, and as a current owner of a late model 14060M and 116610LN (I love all varietal of subs), there’s a great, “substantial” feeling the SEL, 5-Digit Sub Date 16610 provides compared to the 14060 or 14060M. As mosanman’s pics show, the 16610 is quite possibly the most versatile watch money can buy.

It’s beach to boardroom, it has great proportions, is heftier than the non-SEL 16610s (in a good way), the date function is quite useful and I don’t agree with those that question its aesthetic - it’s classic Rolex, and will look great on your wrist. The bracelet is inferior compared to the Glidelock of the 166610LN you once owned, but the bracelet and clasp are still reliable.

Simply put, if I didn’t already own a 116610LN and had no other watch, I’d go for a late model, complete 16610LN. In fact, this tread has made me want to get one, anyways.

[cop414]

This but I’m slightly biased.

[Mac-427]

Part of the enjoyment of wearing a Rolex is the recognition of it by others. The date bubble is an important aspect of this recognition. Also, I use mine all the time rather than digging my phone out of my pocket.

[Psmith]

Make sure that you're happy with the 14's clasp before making a decision.

'Classic' is a very over-used word when it comes to watches. There's nothing 'un-classic' about the 16, so go for this if you are most drawn to it.

[lawler]

You all make very compelling points.

My search now starts for a clean, full set, late-model 16610 with the engraved rehaut.

Thanks for all your help - any steer what would be a good price for such a model?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[m j b]

I can't answer the last question, since you are in GB and the market there is different than the USA. However, I will share that I have had the same thoughts recently - to go back to the "classic" sub. Of course, with my portfolio in the toilet right now, it's unlikely to happen, but a boy can dream...

[t06y]

+ another 14060M

[GONZO2LR]

16610 is the classic Rolex...2009 SS sub date with rehaut. i love the rehaut..i searched for years..i didn't want the 6 digit...too big too bulky too heavy. no regrets.

[gk718]

Originally Posted by Mac-427

Part of the enjoyment of wearing a Rolex is the recognition of it by others. The date bubble is an important aspect of this recognition. Also, I use mine all the time rather than digging my phone out of my pocket.

Although the "average" person may recognize the date bubble, in my opinion impressing the average Joe on the street isn't a great reason to wear a Rolex. Of course this is a matter of opinion. I would argue that people who actually know (or care) about your watch would be more impressed with the classic Submariner look with no date.