ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

JPMTO · 2 October 2016, 03:18 AM

Hi all --

This is my very post and I'm excited to get your feedback on my very first Rolex purchase!

Background:

I currently have a Tudor Black Bay Black (BBB) and am ready to move on the real thing and get a Rolex! Why? Outside of all the obvious reasons -- new ETA Tudor vs Rolex -- I find the BBB to be VERY thick and heavy and I have smaller 6.5' wrists.

Things I'm looking for:

1/ Easy wearing -- something that will sit well on my small wrist. This will be my everyday watch, probably for many years

2/ Light weight and thin -- looking for the lightest weight and thinnest possible from this Rolex era. Both of these seem light and thin enough. I understand that the GMT might be a bit thinner and lighter vs no date sub -- is that right?

3/ Simple, understated -- I'm not a flashy guy and don't need co-workers/clients gawking at my watch. I find both of these watches to be very simple, classic and unstated -- though, the GMT might be a touch flashier with the red hand and cyclops.

The options right now @ my dealer:

1/ 2009 ROLEX SUBMARINER 14060M 4 LINE DIAL
2/ 2006 ROLEX SUBMARINER 14060M
3/ 2000 ROLEX GMT II 16710 (Black)

All are in the 5-6K USD range, which seems about right. All are recently polished and have no box or papers. I'm ok with that to save some cash.

Wondering which would you choose and why? It would be very helpful if you could consider my needs per the list above too

Many thanks in advance for your help!

rouxeny · 2 October 2016, 05:28 AM

I personally think the 16710 is the most versatile Rolex. Pretty much good for all situations.

nch209 · 2 October 2016, 05:49 AM

Easy. 16710. Even though you want just black, I assure you you will change and go for different colors.

mtgjr · 2 October 2016, 06:19 AM

I had the 14060M first. Great watch but a) I found myself missing the date function, and b) I just couldn't quit thinking about how much I wanted a 16710. Now, having owned both, and currently owning the 16710 (sold the Sub), I can tell you that I couldn't be happier with the versatility (I own all three bezel insert options) and the overall awesomeness of this watch. I'd still like to own a 14060 again some day, as it's such a classic and iconic watch......but for now, I'm loving my 16710 to death. I can say with 100% confidence that its next owner will be my son, many years in the future. Oh, and I too have a 6.5" wrist and both references fit me very comfortably, with a slight edge going to the GMT. No wrong choice between those two, but I'd go GMT if it were me.

Before I read your entire post, I was planning to tell you to expect to pay about $2k more for the GMT vs the Sub, but it looks like you've come across one that's pretty reasonably priced. If you can get a 2000 GMTii in nice condition (not overpolished, no excessive wear or bracelet stretch, good crystal, etc) for at or below $6k, you're doing pretty well.

As an aside, the 2000 example should offer you a unique combination of lug holes and solid end links, which a lot of folks find appealing.

adawil2002 · 2 October 2016, 06:21 AM

16710 pound for pound one of the best Rolexes ever in my opinion.

dbhak22 · 2 October 2016, 06:41 AM

Definitely 16710...especially if its priced similarly as the 14060s and condition is comparable. But as others have said, it's a more versatile watch. You have narrowed it down to two great options either way!

tvad · 2 October 2016, 06:43 AM

In what ways is a GMT II more versatile than a 14060m?

JPMTO · 2 October 2016, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtgjr

I had the 14060M first. Great watch but a) I found myself missing the date function, and b) I just couldn't quit thinking about how much I wanted a 16710. Now, having owned both, and currently owning the 16710 (sold the Sub), I can tell you that I couldn't be happier with the versatility (I own all three bezel insert options) and the overall awesomeness of this watch. I'd still like to own a 14060 again some day, as it's such a classic and iconic watch......but for now, I'm loving my 16710 to death. I can say with 100% confidence that its next owner will be my son, many years in the future. Oh, and I too have a 6.5" wrist and both references fit me very comfortably, with a slight edge going to the GMT. No wrong choice between those two, but I'd go GMT if it were me.

Before I read your entire post, I was planning to tell you to expect to pay about $2k more for the GMT vs the Sub, but it looks like you've come across one that's pretty reasonably priced. If you can get a 2000 GMTii in nice condition (not overpolished, no excessive wear or bracelet stretch, good crystal, etc) for at or below $6k, you're doing pretty well.

As an aside, the 2000 example should offer you a unique combination of lug holes and solid end links, which a lot of folks find appealing.

Thank you!! When you say unique combination of lug holes, you mean because they're the drilled holes and has a SEL?

mtgjr · 2 October 2016, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPMTO

Thank you!! When you say unique combination of lug holes, you mean because they're the drilled holes and has a SEL?

Yes, there were only a few years when the 16710 was made with drilled through lugs and also SEL.

dbhak22 · 2 October 2016, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvad

In what ways is a GMT II more versatile than a 14060m?

Primarily, it's the bezel insert options you have: all black, red/blue (aka Pepsi), red/black (aka Coke). The all black gives you a similar look to the Sub...and then you can add some color going with the other insert options. I think it looks good with a suit or jeans or shorts. Versatile. It's certainly not dressy though. But neither is the Sub and those are the two options you're looking at. So just comparing between the two, the GMT is more versatile. If you add in different strap options, you have many more choices assuming you have different bezel inserts. For example, I don't think a navy blue nato would look as good on a standard Sub compared to a GMT with Pepsi bezel.

Some pics to help:

tvad · 2 October 2016, 06:59 AM

^Generally speaking those espousing versatility are focusing on aesthetic options?

sensui · 2 October 2016, 07:01 AM

Not just aesthetics... The gmt complication is extremely useful for different time zones and the 100m water resistance is more than anyone needs unless you're a serious diver. Watch also looks wonderful in a jubilee bracelet.... 16710 is the right pick if only one.

rolehex · 2 October 2016, 07:03 AM

16710 would be great with your wrist size and its relatively thin.

dbhak22 · 2 October 2016, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvad

^Generally speaking those espousing versatility are focusing on aesthetic options?

Yeah, I'd say so. The other side would be functional/technical versatility? The Sub has a deeper depth rating and tells you the time. The GMT tells you the time in 3 different timezones and also the date. Outside of the time, I'd be willing to guess the options on the GMT are more applicable to you than the Sub...of course thats assuming you're not a deep sea diver.

Kevin of Larchmont · 2 October 2016, 07:08 AM

I'm liking the sound of the drilled lugs and the solid end links.

mtgjr · 2 October 2016, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvad

^Generally speaking those espousing versatility are focusing on aesthetic options?

Yes, it's just the ability to easily get multiple looks by swapping out the bezel inserts. Like having three watches in one (or 6 in 1 if you also source a Jubilee bracelet). Maybe versatility isn't the right word. Variety maybe.....

Watchgeek5000 · 2 October 2016, 07:12 AM

Go with the GMT for the above mentioned reason of versatility. You can swap out bezel inserts and you have the date! I'm assuming the $5000 watch is the 2006 14060M, that's a bit high without box and papers.

mtgjr · 2 October 2016, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbhak22

Yeah, I'd say so. The other side would be functional/technical versatility? The Sub has a deeper depth rating and tells you the time. The GMT tells you the time in 3 different timezones and also the date. Outside of the time, I'd be willing to guess the options on the GMT are more applicable to you than the Sub...of course thats assuming you're not a deep sea diver.

Fyi, the guy you're responding to is not the OP.

Loevhagen · 2 October 2016, 07:15 AM

16710

tvad · 2 October 2016, 07:15 AM

The pearl on a Sub's bezel can be set to a different time zone, thus providing the ability to tell the time in two time zones. I can't recall the last time I needed to know the time in three time zones...but I cannot dispute three is more versatile than two. On the other hand, I can envision using the timing bezel a Sub several times a week, so that's a useful feature to me.

Variety was mentioned earlier as a substitute adjective for versatile. I would agree with that.

JPMTO · 2 October 2016, 07:21 AM

Wow super helpful everyone! Thank you. Leaning toward the GMT with all of this confirmation on what I believed to be the best option.

I'm seeing GMT's for around $6,000 USD without box or papers. In good but polished condition. If you you know where I can do better, please lmk!! Thanks!!

VinnieVegas · 2 October 2016, 07:25 AM

All fine choices. I have a 14060 and a 16710, and I like both. But my go to watch is the GMT Master II. A little investment in bezel inserts gives you 3 watches in 1. Fine a nice jubilee bracelet and end pieces and now you double that to 6 watches in 1.

If I had to roll back my collection to just one watch, it would be the 16710.

I vote for the 16710. Pick up the Sub as a second watch. Can't go wrong.

Good luck and enjoy!

mtgjr · 2 October 2016, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPMTO

I'm seeing GMT's for around $6,000 USD without box or papers. In good but polished condition. If you you know where I can do better, please lmk!! Thanks!!

That sounds about right. The prices for that reference have been pretty steadily rising for the last couple of years, probably due in part to their increased popularity on this forum. In general, the cleaner examples, and certainly the last few production year serials that featured the "no (lug) holes" cases, are going for closer to 7k. For some reason, the Pepsi, Coke, and Black bezel examples seem to be priced highest to lowest, respectively, all else equal....even though you can swap out the insert easily and inexpensively to the color of your choice.

Some folks will tell you the 16710 is starting to enter overpriced/hyped territory, while others will tell you to buy it now because prices are only going higher. That's a call only you can make.

tvad · 2 October 2016, 07:39 AM

Wouldn't a Submariner 16610 be more comparable to a GMT II 16710? Both have date. They are more comparably priced. Each allows strap variety.

doramas · 2 October 2016, 07:39 AM

The two

BradSomrak · 2 October 2016, 07:45 AM

I had this exact same situation last month. I went with this.....

mtgjr · 2 October 2016, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doramas

The two

I could not agree more.

shoppy · 2 October 2016, 07:59 AM

GMT, hands down is stunning, comfortable and brings a smile to my face every time I wear it.

Volatile Agent · 2 October 2016, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinnieVegas

All fine choices. I have a 14060 and a 16710, and I like both. But my go to watch is the GMT Master II. A little investment in bezel inserts gives you 3 watches in 1. Fine a nice jubilee bracelet and end pieces and now you double that to 6 watches in 1.

If I had to roll back my collection to just one watch, it would be the 16710.

I vote for the 16710. Pick up the Sub as a second watch. Can't go wrong.

Good luck and enjoy!

I agree with this. My 16710 would by the last watch to go if I were to have to sell off the collection. It is by far my favorite. Save up and get the Sub later.

JimSnyder · 2 October 2016, 08:59 AM

The GMT was my first and I hope it will be my last.

2 October 2016, 03:18 AM	#1
JPMTO "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Toronto Posts: 30	Big Decision --> GMT II 16710 vs SUBMARINER 14060M Hi all -- This is my very post and I'm excited to get your feedback on my very first Rolex purchase! Background: I currently have a Tudor Black Bay Black (BBB) and am ready to move on the real thing and get a Rolex! Why? Outside of all the obvious reasons -- new ETA Tudor vs Rolex -- I find the BBB to be VERY thick and heavy and I have smaller 6.5' wrists. Things I'm looking for: 1/ Easy wearing -- something that will sit well on my small wrist. This will be my everyday watch, probably for many years 2/ Light weight and thin -- looking for the lightest weight and thinnest possible from this Rolex era. Both of these seem light and thin enough. I understand that the GMT might be a bit thinner and lighter vs no date sub -- is that right? 3/ Simple, understated -- I'm not a flashy guy and don't need co-workers/clients gawking at my watch. I find both of these watches to be very simple, classic and unstated -- though, the GMT might be a touch flashier with the red hand and cyclops. The options right now @ my dealer: 1/ 2009 ROLEX SUBMARINER 14060M 4 LINE DIAL 2/ 2006 ROLEX SUBMARINER 14060M 3/ 2000 ROLEX GMT II 16710 (Black) All are in the 5-6K USD range, which seems about right. All are recently polished and have no box or papers. I'm ok with that to save some cash. Wondering which would you choose and why? It would be very helpful if you could consider my needs per the list above too Many thanks in advance for your help!

2 October 2016, 05:49 AM	#3
nch209 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Nathan Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 2,775	Easy. 16710. Even though you want just black, I assure you you will change and go for different colors. __________________ nch209

2 October 2016, 06:21 AM	#5
adawil2002 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Real Name: Andrew Wilson Location: Brunswick, Maine Watch: 16550 Explorer II Posts: 1,773	16710 pound for pound one of the best Rolexes ever in my opinion. __________________ 6284 SS, 16014 SS Jubilee silver stick, 16253 TT Blue Thunderbird, 16550 SS Exp II Cream, bought in 1986, 116400GV Z-blue Milgauss, 79260 Tudor, 116660 DSSD-Blue, 116500LV Daytona White, 116710 BLNR, 326934 Blue Skydweller

2 October 2016, 06:41 AM	#6
dbhak22 2024 ROLEX SUBMARINER 41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Real Name: Daniel Location: PNW Watch: ♛ Posts: 3,063	Definitely 16710...especially if its priced similarly as the 14060s and condition is comparable. But as others have said, it's a more versatile watch. You have narrowed it down to two great options either way! __________________ GMT II (16710) \| Explorer I (1016) \| Datejust I (116234) \| Submariner (1680) \| Day-Date (1803) \| Royal Oak (25594) \| FOIS (2998 spec) \| Submariner (16808)

2 October 2016, 07:25 AM	#22
VinnieVegas "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Real Name: Vincent B Location: New York, NY Watch: '06 GMT Master II Posts: 1,261	All fine choices. I have a 14060 and a 16710, and I like both. But my go to watch is the GMT Master II. A little investment in bezel inserts gives you 3 watches in 1. Fine a nice jubilee bracelet and end pieces and now you double that to 6 watches in 1. If I had to roll back my collection to just one watch, it would be the 16710. I vote for the 16710. Pick up the Sub as a second watch. Can't go wrong. Good luck and enjoy! __________________ Wearing Today: * Seiko SRP777 (2017)

2 October 2016, 05:28 AM	#2
rouxeny "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Real Name: Andrew Location: Maui Posts: 686	I personally think the 16710 is the most versatile Rolex. Pretty much good for all situations.

2 October 2016, 06:19 AM	#4
mtgjr Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Mike Location: Tampa, Florida Watch: Pepsi GMT Posts: 2,926	I had the 14060M first. Great watch but a) I found myself missing the date function, and b) I just couldn't quit thinking about how much I wanted a 16710. Now, having owned both, and currently owning the 16710 (sold the Sub), I can tell you that I couldn't be happier with the versatility (I own all three bezel insert options) and the overall awesomeness of this watch. I'd still like to own a 14060 again some day, as it's such a classic and iconic watch......but for now, I'm loving my 16710 to death. I can say with 100% confidence that its next owner will be my son, many years in the future. Oh, and I too have a 6.5" wrist and both references fit me very comfortably, with a slight edge going to the GMT. No wrong choice between those two, but I'd go GMT if it were me. Before I read your entire post, I was planning to tell you to expect to pay about $2k more for the GMT vs the Sub, but it looks like you've come across one that's pretty reasonably priced. If you can get a 2000 GMTii in nice condition (not overpolished, no excessive wear or bracelet stretch, good crystal, etc) for at or below $6k, you're doing pretty well. As an aside, the 2000 example should offer you a unique combination of lug holes and solid end links, which a lot of folks find appealing.

2 October 2016, 06:43 AM	#7
tvad "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 575	In what ways is a GMT II more versatile than a 14060m?

2 October 2016, 06:59 AM	#11
tvad "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 575	^Generally speaking those espousing versatility are focusing on aesthetic options?

2 October 2016, 07:01 AM	#12
sensui 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 12,437	Not just aesthetics... The gmt complication is extremely useful for different time zones and the 100m water resistance is more than anyone needs unless you're a serious diver. Watch also looks wonderful in a jubilee bracelet.... 16710 is the right pick if only one.

2 October 2016, 07:03 AM	#13
rolehex 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Thousand Oaks, CA Posts: 1,444	16710 would be great with your wrist size and its relatively thin.

2 October 2016, 07:08 AM	#15
Kevin of Larchmont 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: The Ice House Watch: Ingersoll Mickey Posts: 3,356	I'm liking the sound of the drilled lugs and the solid end links.

2 October 2016, 07:12 AM	#17
Watchgeek5000 "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Brooklyn USA Watch: Daytona Posts: 1,622	Go with the GMT for the above mentioned reason of versatility. You can swap out bezel inserts and you have the date! I'm assuming the $5000 watch is the 2006 14060M, that's a bit high without box and papers.

2 October 2016, 07:15 AM	#19
Loevhagen "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: The aperture Posts: 4,941	16710

2 October 2016, 07:21 AM	#21
JPMTO "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Toronto Posts: 30	Wow super helpful everyone! Thank you. Leaning toward the GMT with all of this confirmation on what I believed to be the best option. I'm seeing GMT's for around $6,000 USD without box or papers. In good but polished condition. If you you know where I can do better, please lmk!! Thanks!!

2 October 2016, 07:39 AM	#24
tvad "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 575	Wouldn't a Submariner 16610 be more comparable to a GMT II 16710? Both have date. They are more comparably priced. Each allows strap variety.

2 October 2016, 07:39 AM	#25
doramas Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Gran Canaria Posts: 3,469	The two

2 October 2016, 07:59 AM	#28
shoppy "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Real Name: Simon Location: UK Watch: OP and daytona Posts: 1,783	GMT, hands down is stunning, comfortable and brings a smile to my face every time I wear it. __________________ My family are my life and spirit and strength... Rolex daytona, YMs, OPs Z blue, subs, GMTs, Daydates, Omega Snoopy, chornomaster, apollo 8, ATs, POs, PP, JLC, VC, Swatch ,Casio, Timex.

2 October 2016, 08:59 AM	#30
JimSnyder "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Real Name: Jim Snyder Location: Ohio Watch: Ask me later..... Posts: 7,722	The GMT was my first and I hope it will be my last. __________________ "You ain't lived, 'til you've had your tires rotated by a red-headed women."

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