ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Doug507 · 14 August 2009, 10:59 PM

I had this debate, and went with the 14060M and nver looked back. I wanted the truly "classic" Submariner, and for me that meant the non-COSC 14060M. I love the Submariner Date, but the Submariner has laways been the ONE to me.

delldeaton · 15 August 2009, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vukotab

Toughest call of all...both are stunning, and, while Sub No Date is closer in looks to essential James Bond Submariner, I think that Date function can be VERY useful! So, my vote goes for Sub Date.

Personally, I prefer the 16610. Had the 14060M (pre-COSC), then acquired the Sub-Date; then with both, the Submariner Date dominated for wrist time.

As the Bond association is raised here, I'll comment on that some.

I'd never wear a film-correct Rolex Submariner every day the way I wear my 16610. So if I were inclined toward that direction, the 14060M would make more sense. And it's lineage safely makes it consistent as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I've Polled on this and most Rolex collectors reject the notion of the 14060M as a "Bond" watch. So, if that's your criteria, it is not.

The 16610, on the other hand, is virtually identical to the Rolex worn by Timothy Dalton in "Licence to Kill." That film was made sorta in the middle of a rapid succession of Submariner Date changes from Rolex, so the exact model number may not be a match. And, of course, the Dalton model had lug holes and some other apparent differences that are not consistent with the current offering. But not, in my opinion, significant.

ashu2289 · 15 August 2009, 01:22 AM

16610 all the way....

acce1999 · 22 August 2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobpuscizna

to 14060....?

That's a Sea-Dweller. Concentrate on the watch, and you'll see it ;-)

kelly56 · 22 August 2009, 09:22 PM

Both are great choices. I prefer to have the date feature so I went with the 16610. If thats not a big deal for you for with the ND.

DRAWTOOL · 22 August 2009, 09:56 PM

I have the 14060M non-COSC, you should too.

R1@160@alltimes · 22 August 2009, 10:00 PM

I say 16610, but I'm baised

sea-dweller · 23 August 2009, 01:28 AM

The Sub Date is my favorite Rolex, although I own a 14060 also, it does not get as much wrist time as my 16610, due to the date feature.

Armand · 23 August 2009, 03:09 AM

The Pins on the 14060 are stronger.

And both Watches belong on a Corvus "James Bond" style Band ( but I would prefer the NATO model, because of its increased safety ).

;-)

Just kidding, Hermann

14 August 2009, 10:59 PM	#31
Doug507 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 167	There's no school like old school... I had this debate, and went with the 14060M and nver looked back. I wanted the truly "classic" Submariner, and for me that meant the non-COSC 14060M. I love the Submariner Date, but the Submariner has laways been the ONE to me. __________________ GMT Master II 16760 Submariner 14060M

15 August 2009, 01:22 AM	#33
ashu2289 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Ashutosh Location: Rochester NY Watch: Daytonas,SD Posts: 2,342	16610 all the way.... __________________ Everything becomes nothing after ROLEX 116520 SS Daytona White Dial 116520 SS Daytona Black Dial 116523 18K&SS Daytona Slate Dial 16600 Sea-Dweller 16710 GMT Master II Pepsi Bezel 16613 18K&SS Submariner Blue Dial 116660 Deepsea Sea-Dweller

22 August 2009, 09:22 PM	#35
kelly56 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Real Name: Mike Location: Kentucky Watch: 16610 1675 Speedy Posts: 1,057	Both are great choices. I prefer to have the date feature so I went with the 16610. If thats not a big deal for you for with the ND. __________________

22 August 2009, 10:00 PM	#37
R1@160@alltimes "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: USA Watch: ♛ Posts: 4,408	I say 16610, but I'm baised __________________

23 August 2009, 01:28 AM	#38
sea-dweller "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Real Name: Dennis Location: Bay Area - 925 Posts: 40,018	The Sub Date is my favorite Rolex, although I own a 14060 also, it does not get as much wrist time as my 16610, due to the date feature. __________________ TRF Member #6699 (since September 2007)

22 August 2009, 09:56 PM	#36
DRAWTOOL "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Mikey Uí Néill Location: Olden Texas Watch: 14060M & 16570 Posts: 1,941	I have the 14060M non-COSC, you should too.

23 August 2009, 03:09 AM	#39
Armand Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Hermann Location: Middle of Europe Watch: 16710/3185 16613 B Posts: 413	The Pins on the 14060 are stronger. And both Watches belong on a Corvus "James Bond" style Band ( but I would prefer the NATO model, because of its increased safety ). ;-) Just kidding, Hermann

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