Which Submariner?

[dienstuhr]

Hey everyone,

I've been a mechanical watch enthusiast for a few years but am a relative newcomer to the world of Rolex. I've owned a 1953 Eaton's 1/4 Century Club for almost a year but it gets little wrist time because I prefer pilots' and divers' watches. I just got a long-awaited promotion at work and the attendant raise and am thinking it may soon be time to splash out on a Submariner, my grail watch. If I do get one it will be pre-owned.

I am interested in opinions regarding the various flavours of Sub. I love vintage watches so am inclined towards a nice 5513 or similar no-date Sub with acrylic crystal. However I also like the idea of having a COSC chronometer and therefore the date model with COSC wording on the dial has an appeal. I am definitely NOT about the bling so no two-tone or LV for me. Basic black and stainless all the way.

So I'm interested in opinions about the various models, their merits and drawbacks, and of course photos of members' own watches. I've really enjoyed the few weeks I've been on the Forums, you guys are all great and I'm looking forward to some interesting Sub discussions.

Thanks!

d.

[wantonebad]

I have a 16613 and my next purchase will be a 14060, I like the non-date non-COSC model. It's the same movement as the COSC version so whether its certified or not you have one of the very best watches around. I prefer the clean look of the no date, no COSC it's a simple, clean, minimalist look that really says classic to me. a 5513 is going to set you back some coin but I understand your desire. The 14060 maybe away to get the same sort of esthetic without as much of dent in your wallet

[Spark]

Hi,
I have a 5513 and love it, but I also understand you desire for the COSC rating as I like the 5512, not that it means much in real terms as the non-COSC keeps just as good time if set up correctly.
It all depends on whether you are planning to wear your watch daily or not and your budget, but if you go for a vintage date model to wear regularly I'd go 16800 or 168000 (if you can find one) as they are both transitional models, so are short lived (the 168000 for only 9 months), they have sapphire crystals to stop the scratches from everyday wear and they are on the up IMO.
Whatever Sub you go for it is not only a Rolex classic, but a design classic

[MAC4130]

Originally Posted by wantonebad

I have a 16613 and my next purchase will be a 14060, I like the non-date non-COSC model. It's the same movement as the COSC version so whether its certified or not you have one of the very best watches around. I prefer the clean look of the no date, no COSC it's a simple, clean, minimalist look that really says classic to me. a 5513 is going to set you back some coin but I understand your desire. The 14060 maybe away to get the same sort of esthetic without as much of dent in your wallet

I would personally go for the 14060 Datless Sub. You will get basically the same model with a Saphire Crystal which will cope good with use and abause!
And a new Datless Sub will cost you $4,500 which is lees than the vintage Sub...
IMHO

[mike]

Boy, I certainly share your feeling about vintage Rolex. As to which direction (and reference) to go...I can only give you my opinions based on my experience and preferences.
I think each has it's advantages and disadvantages;

Perhaps no other vintage diver speaks to the history of the Rolex tool watch as does the 5513. Certainly their are others that have made their mark and have found favor with the collector, but the plain 5513 speaks to the minimalist tradition that is the "tool watch". Adorned with a simple plain matt dial with no white gold surrounds and no date, the 5513 gives everything one needs and nothing you don't.
Certainly not the rarest watch Rolex ever made, it is however one that is very desirable to the enthusiast and collector alike. Some feel any collection of diver's watches is incomplete without a 5513 in the mix.

My experience has been that properly serviced and cared for the 5513 (indeed most vintage pieces) are fully capable of performing as they were originally intended.
Of course as these pieces were adorned with tritium markers any luminosity is a shadow of it's former self if available at all.

As with a lot of vintage Rolex pieces factory support is a question mark. Rolex, it seems, is more and more turning it's back on the various watches that made the company what it is today. (Certainly the subject of another thread). That said, I would not let that stop me if a vintage diver was what I wanted. There are many good people that can service the watch and parts are out there.

The real concerns with vintage are condition and pricing. Nice examples exist, but pricing reflects the fact these are finite. Expect to pay for a nice example, but temper the cost with pride of owning something the likes of which we will never see again.

If contemporary becomes the watch of your choosing there are a couple examples to consider.

The Submariner, either COSC or non-COSC is certainly a worthy successor to the vintage ND and has a movement that is rugged, accurate, and will never cause a servicing problem. That the watch will provide luminosity is certainly a consideration should the watch be used in less that ideal conditions.
Many prefer the "clean" look of non-cyclops crystal.

Of course the most popular diver in the Rolex inventory at present is the venerable 16610. A classic piece. It's an old reference, even by Rolex standards, but with it's great 3135 movement has proven itself in truly awefull conditions and still looks good when dressed to the nines.

I think a couple other references need to be mentioned to have the full picture--the 1680 and it's successor the 16800.

Both, in there day were the best Rolex had to offer and many (me included) feel they represent true milestones in the Rolex diving heritage.

The 1680, with it's tough as nails 1675 movement was the first diver to introduce a date feature and the 16800 the first to introduce a quick-set date feature among other things. As with most collectables, nice examples exist, but pricing reflects their desirability.

Good luck with the quest, and I'm sure which ever wins the day will exactly the one you want.

Pics of my examples for comparison,

5513--MK III maxi,



The wonderful acrylic crystal,



14060M-COSC,



Lume



16610,



My favorite--the 1680 WHITE,



And in RED,



No crystal look like this!



The matt 16800--Transitional,

[Welshwatchman]

It sounds as though a 5513 is the order of the day.

Best to go for a very nice example with all the bits and bobs.

May cost $8k plus though.

[Tools]

If your hearts desire is a 5513, then nothing else will ever fill that need...

Plan for it.....go for it..

[gha]

Man....those beauties look brand new & amazing.......great heritage..gha

[SPACE-DWELLER]

Originally Posted by dienstuhr

(...)I am interested in opinions regarding the various flavours of Sub. I love vintage watches so am inclined towards a nice 5513 or similar no-date Sub with acrylic crystal. However I also like the idea of having a COSC chronometer and therefore the date model with COSC wording on the dial has an appeal.(...)

First of all, I'd not put too much value into COSC certification. It is more marketing hype than a true indicator of the precision of a watch. But if you insist on a Sub with plexi crystal, and NO date, and with COSC certification, your option is the Sub 5512.

As suggested, however, you'd get an equally precise Rolex with a 5513.

If you want to go "semi-vintage", I'd suggest you go for the Sub 14060M with TRITIUM dial. As "Padi56" has stated, this model will become very collectable in near future, and you get the advantage of the sapphire crystal.

[SPACE-DWELLER]

I meant the Sub 14060.