Difference between a COSC and non-COSC no Date Sub

[FlyPenFly]

I've been looking into acquiring a used Rolex and the two main candidates are a GMT and a no date Sub.

I like the appeal of the COSC sub quite a lot simply because that's also the watch that Steve McQueen mostly wore. In practical terms however, are there any material quality differences? I understand COSC certification means the watch has undergone the COSC process.

What % difference in price would the no date COSC sub fetch over one that isn't COSC? Which will be more collectible?

[NMS75]

I think Steve McQueen wore a Sub 5512.

M

[al_bongo]

They are the same watch unless you go for an the older 14060 without the modified (M) movement. The COSC version corresponds to a newer watch and this is really the only difference in pricing, so not much difference.

It was a 5512 that Steve McQueen wore. The COSC 14060M is the nearest you'll get to this without going vintage.

[CKLinLA]

I don't think non COSC are uncommon enough to make them
collectible for that reason.

As to the COSC process, for non COSC Submariners that were
made over 10 years ago, and for any watch that age or older,
any COSC certification from then would no longer be relevant.
Servicing work would likely have been done, or is overdue; that
negates COSC or non-COSC - if the COSC and non-COSC are
otherwise identical - same movement etc.

For many people, it would come down to whether you prefer the look
of the dial with or without the extra two lines of text. Many vintage
Subs, but not all, are non-COSC.

[tr4driver]

Originally Posted by al_bongo

They are the same watch unless you go for an the older 14060 without the modified (M) movement. The COSC version corresponds to a newer watch and this is really the only difference in pricing, so not much difference.

It was a 5512 that Steve McQueen wore. The COSC 14060M is the nearest you'll get to this without going vintage.

But was not the 5513 (non-COSC) sold during the same period as the 5512? Was there actually any physical difference between these two watches other than the dial?

Kurt

[NMS75]

Originally Posted by CKLinLA

Many vintage
Subs, including the McQueen one, would be non-COSC.

I might be wrong here (and no doubt I will be corrected if I am) but wasn't the 5512 COSC while the 5513 wasn't?

M

[CKLinLA]

Originally Posted by NMS75

I might be wrong here (and no doubt I will be corrected if I am) but wasn't the 5512 COSC while the 5513 wasn't?

M

Thanks, you're right - I have corrected my post .

[tr4driver]

Originally Posted by NMS75

I might be wrong here (and no doubt I will be corrected if I am) but wasn't the 5512 COSC while the 5513 wasn't?

M

This has always been my understanding as well, and McQueen's watch was definitely a 5512.

Kurt

[NMS75]

Originally Posted by tr4driver

This has always been my understanding as well, and McQueen's watch was definitely a 5512.

Kurt

One thing I noticed when looking at vintage Subs for sale recently was that the 5512 was usually more than double the price of a 5513. I think the 5512 was produced in much more limited numbers to the 5513. McQueen's was definately a 5512 - Jake's Rolex Blog has a page on it which is worth a read for those interested: http://rolexblog.blogspot.com/search...x%20Collection

M

[autofiend]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the 5512 used a different movement than the 5513: "The 5513 was equipped with a 1530 non (submitted testing caliber), and then a 1520 caliber. The 5512 was equipped with a 1530 submitted for testing caliber, then a 1560 and finally a 1570 caliber." (this was taken from another source).